That's right. In Topeka, Kansas, city law no longer forbids domestic violence. If a man or a woman beats his or her child or spouse, it is not a crime. This legal move of course begs the question: why?
I'll tell you why: the city government is using the legalization of domestic violence as a budgetary bargaining chip. Essentially, the county in which Topeka is located, Shawnee County, could no longer afford to prosecute all of the domestic abuse cases. This inability forced the city of Topeka's government to take on the extra case load. In protest, the city legalized domestic violence, therefore shirking their responsibility for the cases, and placing the domestic violence case load back on Shawnee County.
Well, you may be thinking, at least the cases are still being handled by the county. Unfortunately, though, the Shawnee County legal system's cup has runneth over, which means that while domestic violence suspects are being arrested, they are not being charged, and are therefore being released. Since September 8, 2011, 21 suspects have been sent back home because Shawnee County couldn't squeeze in a court date. And Topeka city police won't even bother arresting anyone for domestic abuse, because in their city, punching your wife in the face isn't a crime anymore.
Which means that children who saw a parent dragged away in a police car--children who are finally starting to forget what it feels like to have a fat lip or a black eye or an arm with a bruise in the shape of a handprint-- are watching that same abusive parent walk right back in the front door, having been freed from their jail cell because the local government just didn't have the time or the money to prosecute a violent offender.
And it's all because of money. Domestic abuse victims are suffering at the hands of a greedy government, a government who sees its citizens not as human beings with feelings of fear and anxiety and despondence, but as pawns in an ongoing game to see which local government will be the first to throw in the towel.
And so we find ourselves faced with a question that, as a nation, we are asking more often than we should: Is this really the world that we live in?
If a local government in the Midwest is willing to legalize something as serious as domestic violence merely to make a point, what's next? Legalizing murder in New York City? Rape in Los Angeles? Kidnapping in DC?
If those speculations seem like an exaggeration, think again. Think about what it would be like to see your father throw your mother into the wall. Think about how it would feel to realize that as you crawl into the closet with the portable phone, preparing to dial 911, that even if you call the police, there would be nothing they could do but politely decline your call.
Sorry, sweetie. What you're describing isn't actually a crime. Good night.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/domestic-violence-topeka-kansas-.html
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
"When I was a kid...": The Generation of Technological Revolution
At dinner tonight I was talking with my friend Kati about what it will be like to raise kids from a generation that is so technologically advanced. Granted, every generation goes through a lot of technological breakthroughs, but our generation took quite the large leap. As I plan to tell my children one day, "When I was a kid, we didn't even have the Internet!"
I mean, think about it. If you're anywhere from 20-30, you went from listening to cassette tapes to listening to MP3s. That's going from sitting in your room (or your parents' car) listening to 16 songs, tops (8 songs if you are too lazy to flip the tape over) to having access to about 20,000 songs on one device that is about the same size as a cassette tape. And those damn tapes were hard work. Want to listen to a song again? There's no quick touch of a button--you had to rewind! Don't have a fancy rewinding tape player? You better be able to jam your pinky finger into those little holes in the tape player and wind back that extremely sensitive magnetic tape. I mean of course we didn't go straight from cassette tapes to iPods. There was that fancy compact disc that some of us still use. We were still limited to about 16 songs, but at least you were able to pinpoint where they started and ended.
Now let's move on to the digital revolution of video. We all remember the VHS tape. Stored safely in a nice cardboard sleeve, or if it was a Disney video, your VHS came nestled in a big plastic case with brightly colored pictures and extra padding to protect the virtue of characters like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Pop in that video, and you had to fast-forward past the previews, and maybe even make some adjustments to the tracking so that you didn't have weird fuzzy stripes floating across your screen for an hour and a half. And if you rented from Blockbuster (remember Blockbuster?), you had to actually rewind the video in order to return it. "Be kind, rewind!" There was no skipping to certain scenes! Bonus features?! Puh-lease. The bonus was pulling that VHS tape out of the sleeve and realizing you didn't have to rewind it for 15 minutes before enjoying your feature film. And forget about subtitles or skipping to certain scenes. Hard of hearing? Turn up the volume. Want to skip to your favorite part? You better be willing to search around for 20 minutes. And let's not forget about the Laser Disc. You know, the huge DVD. Maybe you watched educational movies on this digital media in middle school or high school. If you personally owned one, you probably don't want to admit it. Then of course, we made the leap to the lil' laser disc aka the DVD. Digital Video Disc. Brilliant. No rewinding, unless you wanted to. You can watch your movie in English, in captioned English, in French, in Spanish. Find your scene easily by switching through tiny pictures of the actual movie! And now, you don't even have to go to the store to rent a DVD. You can order DVDs online and have them mailed to your house, or rent them from a vending machine!
And then of course there are video games. Always having to sit a little too close to the TV so that your controller could stay plugged into the Super Nintendo, the N64, the Atari if you're on the more vintage end of things. Having to take the game cartridge out and physically blow the dust out of it to keep it from shorting out in the console. And remember those massive memory packs? Like a USB drive for your controller, but 6 times as large and about 1/10 of the capacity, if that. And then the Rumble Paks! So you can really feel like you're in the game, which you're probably playing on a 15-inch cathode ray tube television in your basement. Nowadays you barely need a controller. You just dance around in front of the game console and it actually detects your movements and then accurately interprets them into virtual motion! No more jumping up and down in a pixelated 2-D environment. You're a real virtual person now. Your game has depth.
So as I sit here, typing on my lap top computer and reminiscing about Windows 95 and games like Treasure Mountain, thinking about how when I wanted to know something in elementary school, I had to look it up in a book, a paper book, I fantasize about forcing my kids to relive the ancient days of cassette tapes, Sony Walkmen, VCRs, and Sega Dreamcasts--about making them truly grateful for what they have. But then I think about how I still listen to vinyl records, read paper books, and capture photos on film, and I think to myself, in 10 years, kids will probably refer to cassette tapes and CDs as vintage and actually think they're "cool". So, when you're cleaning out your basement, or your apartment, and you come upon a cassette tape or a VCR, think about keeping it. Because one day your kids will be curious, and let's be honest--unless you have physical evidence, they'll never believe what you had to go through to listen to your favorite song or watch a movie. And having to google "Playstation" as proof--well that's just embarrassing.
I mean, think about it. If you're anywhere from 20-30, you went from listening to cassette tapes to listening to MP3s. That's going from sitting in your room (or your parents' car) listening to 16 songs, tops (8 songs if you are too lazy to flip the tape over) to having access to about 20,000 songs on one device that is about the same size as a cassette tape. And those damn tapes were hard work. Want to listen to a song again? There's no quick touch of a button--you had to rewind! Don't have a fancy rewinding tape player? You better be able to jam your pinky finger into those little holes in the tape player and wind back that extremely sensitive magnetic tape. I mean of course we didn't go straight from cassette tapes to iPods. There was that fancy compact disc that some of us still use. We were still limited to about 16 songs, but at least you were able to pinpoint where they started and ended.
Now let's move on to the digital revolution of video. We all remember the VHS tape. Stored safely in a nice cardboard sleeve, or if it was a Disney video, your VHS came nestled in a big plastic case with brightly colored pictures and extra padding to protect the virtue of characters like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Pop in that video, and you had to fast-forward past the previews, and maybe even make some adjustments to the tracking so that you didn't have weird fuzzy stripes floating across your screen for an hour and a half. And if you rented from Blockbuster (remember Blockbuster?), you had to actually rewind the video in order to return it. "Be kind, rewind!" There was no skipping to certain scenes! Bonus features?! Puh-lease. The bonus was pulling that VHS tape out of the sleeve and realizing you didn't have to rewind it for 15 minutes before enjoying your feature film. And forget about subtitles or skipping to certain scenes. Hard of hearing? Turn up the volume. Want to skip to your favorite part? You better be willing to search around for 20 minutes. And let's not forget about the Laser Disc. You know, the huge DVD. Maybe you watched educational movies on this digital media in middle school or high school. If you personally owned one, you probably don't want to admit it. Then of course, we made the leap to the lil' laser disc aka the DVD. Digital Video Disc. Brilliant. No rewinding, unless you wanted to. You can watch your movie in English, in captioned English, in French, in Spanish. Find your scene easily by switching through tiny pictures of the actual movie! And now, you don't even have to go to the store to rent a DVD. You can order DVDs online and have them mailed to your house, or rent them from a vending machine!
And then of course there are video games. Always having to sit a little too close to the TV so that your controller could stay plugged into the Super Nintendo, the N64, the Atari if you're on the more vintage end of things. Having to take the game cartridge out and physically blow the dust out of it to keep it from shorting out in the console. And remember those massive memory packs? Like a USB drive for your controller, but 6 times as large and about 1/10 of the capacity, if that. And then the Rumble Paks! So you can really feel like you're in the game, which you're probably playing on a 15-inch cathode ray tube television in your basement. Nowadays you barely need a controller. You just dance around in front of the game console and it actually detects your movements and then accurately interprets them into virtual motion! No more jumping up and down in a pixelated 2-D environment. You're a real virtual person now. Your game has depth.
So as I sit here, typing on my lap top computer and reminiscing about Windows 95 and games like Treasure Mountain, thinking about how when I wanted to know something in elementary school, I had to look it up in a book, a paper book, I fantasize about forcing my kids to relive the ancient days of cassette tapes, Sony Walkmen, VCRs, and Sega Dreamcasts--about making them truly grateful for what they have. But then I think about how I still listen to vinyl records, read paper books, and capture photos on film, and I think to myself, in 10 years, kids will probably refer to cassette tapes and CDs as vintage and actually think they're "cool". So, when you're cleaning out your basement, or your apartment, and you come upon a cassette tape or a VCR, think about keeping it. Because one day your kids will be curious, and let's be honest--unless you have physical evidence, they'll never believe what you had to go through to listen to your favorite song or watch a movie. And having to google "Playstation" as proof--well that's just embarrassing.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Drink Wine, Prevent Pregnancy, and Raise the National Debt Ceiling!
All in one easy blog post!
Let's get this first topic out of the way. According to a Spanish study, red wine is the new sunblock! Okay so it's not as foolproof as slathering yourself in SPF 30, but apparently chemicals found in red wine (and the grapes from which it is made) prevent some of the chemical changes in the body that cause sun damage. This has the potential to turn a family vacation at the beach into one of two things: a really great time or a complete disaster.
Moving right along, let's get to the surprisingly controversial topic of birth control. This week, the Obama administration declared that private insurers will be required to cover the cost of women's health screenings and birth control starting January 2013. Personally, I think this is a great idea. We all know that there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies occurring every year, many of which could be prevented if women (and families) were able to afford a monthly dose of birth control.
Now, of course there are people and organizations who are against the idea of no-cost birth control. But as with most situations similar to this one, the arguments that these antagonists are putting forth make almost no sense. Let me lay them out for you (let's use Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah as an example):
1) "Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated."
2) "These mandates are an affront to the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free exercise of religion and personal conscience."
First of all, birth control does not treat pregnancy. It prevents it. Not even the morning-after pill (which will
also be covered by private insurers) treats pregnancy. It is merely a dose of hormones which, frankly, does not work at all if you are already pregnant. The abortion pill will not be covered.
Second of all, giving women the opportunity to obtain no-cost birth control is not an affront to the freedom of religion and conscience! Women who were uncomfortable with using birth control or who were against birth control for religious reasons are not going to go out and obtain a prescription for it just because it is now completely covered by their insurance policy. I know it sounds crazy, but people will still be able to practice whatever religion they want, despite this new mandate. It's birth control, not the anti-Christ!
Why is it so awful for women who do not want a child to prevent pregnancy? Would these protesters prefer that these unwanted children be aborted, put into a foster home, or raised by parents who did not want children?
As a result, there is a provision of this mandate that says that religious organizations that provide insurance to their employees will be able to opt out of the mandate that covers birth control. So, wait, are those religious organizations going to pay to support those unwanted children, or will that burden fall on the government, the organization that wanted to cover preventative drugs in the first place? Hmm. Something to think about.
Speaking of the government paying for things, the government finally reached a decision about the national debt! Obama said that he promises to cut government spending by $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years if Congress agrees to raise the national debt ceiling by about that same amount for the next 2 years. First, let me help you wrap your head around $2.1 trillion. Let's say you make $40,000 per year. Now let's say you save every single penny and never have to pay taxes. Every year, you put exactly $40,000 in your savings account. Not accounting for interest you would earn on that money, how long will it take you to save $2.1 trillion?
52,500,000 years. Yes, you're reading correctly. That's fifty-two million years. So that's how much $2.1 trillion is.
So Obama has promised to cut spending by that much over the next 10 years. Which I find fascinating because at the very most he will be president for only 4 more years. Is he planning to cut spending from his basement after his potential second term is up? Does he plan to somehow still have control over our government and its spending for the next decade? Because he sure hasn't had any visible control over it for the past 4 years.
Not to mention, what's our national debt at right now? About 14 trillion? So Congress raises the debt ceiling by 2.1 trillion. So we're up to a whopping $16.1 trillion. But Obama cuts spending by $2.1 trillion. Which leaves us...oh. Back at $14 trillion. Is this progress?!
I give up. Get the red wine. I'll meet you at the beach.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20086913-10391704.html http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190484/20110801/insurers-to-pay-for-women-s-health-screenings-and-birth-control.htm
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Opinion+debt+situation+defines+dysfunctional+government/5195497/story.html
Let's get this first topic out of the way. According to a Spanish study, red wine is the new sunblock! Okay so it's not as foolproof as slathering yourself in SPF 30, but apparently chemicals found in red wine (and the grapes from which it is made) prevent some of the chemical changes in the body that cause sun damage. This has the potential to turn a family vacation at the beach into one of two things: a really great time or a complete disaster.
Moving right along, let's get to the surprisingly controversial topic of birth control. This week, the Obama administration declared that private insurers will be required to cover the cost of women's health screenings and birth control starting January 2013. Personally, I think this is a great idea. We all know that there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies occurring every year, many of which could be prevented if women (and families) were able to afford a monthly dose of birth control.
Now, of course there are people and organizations who are against the idea of no-cost birth control. But as with most situations similar to this one, the arguments that these antagonists are putting forth make almost no sense. Let me lay them out for you (let's use Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah as an example):
1) "Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated."
2) "These mandates are an affront to the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free exercise of religion and personal conscience."
First of all, birth control does not treat pregnancy. It prevents it. Not even the morning-after pill (which will
also be covered by private insurers) treats pregnancy. It is merely a dose of hormones which, frankly, does not work at all if you are already pregnant. The abortion pill will not be covered.
Second of all, giving women the opportunity to obtain no-cost birth control is not an affront to the freedom of religion and conscience! Women who were uncomfortable with using birth control or who were against birth control for religious reasons are not going to go out and obtain a prescription for it just because it is now completely covered by their insurance policy. I know it sounds crazy, but people will still be able to practice whatever religion they want, despite this new mandate. It's birth control, not the anti-Christ!
Why is it so awful for women who do not want a child to prevent pregnancy? Would these protesters prefer that these unwanted children be aborted, put into a foster home, or raised by parents who did not want children?
As a result, there is a provision of this mandate that says that religious organizations that provide insurance to their employees will be able to opt out of the mandate that covers birth control. So, wait, are those religious organizations going to pay to support those unwanted children, or will that burden fall on the government, the organization that wanted to cover preventative drugs in the first place? Hmm. Something to think about.
Speaking of the government paying for things, the government finally reached a decision about the national debt! Obama said that he promises to cut government spending by $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years if Congress agrees to raise the national debt ceiling by about that same amount for the next 2 years. First, let me help you wrap your head around $2.1 trillion. Let's say you make $40,000 per year. Now let's say you save every single penny and never have to pay taxes. Every year, you put exactly $40,000 in your savings account. Not accounting for interest you would earn on that money, how long will it take you to save $2.1 trillion?
52,500,000 years. Yes, you're reading correctly. That's fifty-two million years. So that's how much $2.1 trillion is.
So Obama has promised to cut spending by that much over the next 10 years. Which I find fascinating because at the very most he will be president for only 4 more years. Is he planning to cut spending from his basement after his potential second term is up? Does he plan to somehow still have control over our government and its spending for the next decade? Because he sure hasn't had any visible control over it for the past 4 years.
Not to mention, what's our national debt at right now? About 14 trillion? So Congress raises the debt ceiling by 2.1 trillion. So we're up to a whopping $16.1 trillion. But Obama cuts spending by $2.1 trillion. Which leaves us...oh. Back at $14 trillion. Is this progress?!
I give up. Get the red wine. I'll meet you at the beach.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20086913-10391704.html http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190484/20110801/insurers-to-pay-for-women-s-health-screenings-and-birth-control.htm
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Opinion+debt+situation+defines+dysfunctional+government/5195497/story.html
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Marriage Vow--A Disaster for Human Rights
I am pissed.
If you haven't seen the news lately, you'll be interested to know that both Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum recently signed a document referred to as the Marriage Vow. It's basically a Christian-based promise for political candidates to keep marriage between a man and a woman--but it's so much worse than that. The entire 4-page document is an atrocity, but I'm going to touch on three main pain points: black people, gay people, and divorce, all of which are grossly misrepresented by the narrow-minded authors and signatories of this document.
It starts by claiming that "the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis" and supports this first and foremost by saying that African-American children born into slavery were more likely to be raised by a married mother and father than African-American children born today. I quote:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
That may be true. But sadly a child born into slavery was also born into slavery. His or her parents were slaves, and that child was a slave, forced to work in terrible conditions for no pay and was deprived of nearly all human rights. To compare that in any way to an African-American child born today is ludicrous. So what if you're born to a single parent? Even if you're born into poverty and have to struggle your whole life, at least it's your life and not something that can be bought by another human being and used in whatever way your "master" sees fit. Obviously this statement from the Marriage Vow was not well-received.
But the authors of the Marriage Vow do not stop at disgracing black people. They then move on to severely misrepresenting gay people as well. The Vow's main goal is to keep marriage between a man and a woman, which of course excludes same-sex marriage in all forms. It claims that there is no scientific proof that "non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empiricalevidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."
I barely even want to talk about that first point. Really? Still using that argument? That people choose to be gay? Yes, one day, a person just wakes up and decides that they are going to choose who they love, who they are attracted to. And then, my favorite part, where they group sexual promiscuity and homosexuality together, as if they are one and the same. Breaking news people, just because you're gay doesn't mean you're giving it away to everyone you meet. And yes there is certainly no scientific proof that homosexuality improves public health, but there certainly isn't any proof that it has a negative impact on public health either. Gay people did not spread HIV, if that's the thought that pops into your head. Ignorant people of all orientations who had no concept of venereal disease spread HIV.
This lovely document also groups bisexuality, homosexuality and anal sex in with adultery, group sex, promiscuity, serial marriage, polygamy, polyandry and extramarital sex. Ok so wait a minute, why does sexual preference have to be listed in the same series as sexual deviance? They act like being gay or having anal sex is some kind of gateway to having multiple wives and husbands and cheating on your spouse. Um, no, that's not how it works, actually. Gay people and straight people are equally likely to commit adultery and extramarital sex acts. These choices aren't based on your sexual orientation (which as you remember from above, is also not a choice), it's based on the kind of person you are and your view of what is right and what is wrong.
And now let's get to the last part: divorce. I was shocked when I read the claim that "children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy." What about children raised by a mother and father who are living together but completely unloving toward their child, or even abusive? What about children raised by parents who scream at each other all day and all night and never exhibit love toward each other? Is that better than being raised by a single parent who loves their child unconditionally? Or by two parents, who living separately, love their child unconditionally?
My parents divorced when I was 7 years old, and sure, it may have been rough at times, but it was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. My parents just didn't get along. The life that I have lived, being raised by two separate parents living in two separate households, has been phenomenally better than the life I would have lived had my parents decided to stick it out. Everyone knows what it's like to hear their parents fight--it gives you that horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach, and you just want to lock yourself in your room and wait for it to be over. Imagine spending your entire childhood and adolescence like that.
So now the Marriage Vow is trying to tell me that if my parents had stayed together, fought constantly, and raised me in a household filled with tension and anger, that I would have had a better life? Well last time I checked, I exceled in school, I stayed away from drugs, never got into trouble with the law, and managed to avoid getting pregnant. And my parents, by getting a divorce, were able to better show me what love could be than if they had stayed together.
At this point, the Marriage Vow has managed to insult just about every person under the sun and still (!) our potential leaders are insisting on signing it, writing their names on a neat little line over which is printed "So help us God." If there is a god that is going to help a political leader achieve legal segregation and alienation of a group of people because of who they love or because of their non-nuclear family structure, then that is not a god that deserves followers, and this is not a country we want to live in.
So let's fight to keep our country headed toward equal rights for all, and refuse to vote for any political candidate who has signed a document that promises to rob American citizens of their rights as people. If you need more fuel for your fire, read the full text of the Marriage Vow now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/read-the-marriage-vow-pledge-signed-by-michele-bachmann-and-rick-santorum/2011/07/08/gIQAwT7K4H_blog.html
If you haven't seen the news lately, you'll be interested to know that both Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum recently signed a document referred to as the Marriage Vow. It's basically a Christian-based promise for political candidates to keep marriage between a man and a woman--but it's so much worse than that. The entire 4-page document is an atrocity, but I'm going to touch on three main pain points: black people, gay people, and divorce, all of which are grossly misrepresented by the narrow-minded authors and signatories of this document.
It starts by claiming that "the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis" and supports this first and foremost by saying that African-American children born into slavery were more likely to be raised by a married mother and father than African-American children born today. I quote:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
That may be true. But sadly a child born into slavery was also born into slavery. His or her parents were slaves, and that child was a slave, forced to work in terrible conditions for no pay and was deprived of nearly all human rights. To compare that in any way to an African-American child born today is ludicrous. So what if you're born to a single parent? Even if you're born into poverty and have to struggle your whole life, at least it's your life and not something that can be bought by another human being and used in whatever way your "master" sees fit. Obviously this statement from the Marriage Vow was not well-received.
But the authors of the Marriage Vow do not stop at disgracing black people. They then move on to severely misrepresenting gay people as well. The Vow's main goal is to keep marriage between a man and a woman, which of course excludes same-sex marriage in all forms. It claims that there is no scientific proof that "non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empiricalevidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."
I barely even want to talk about that first point. Really? Still using that argument? That people choose to be gay? Yes, one day, a person just wakes up and decides that they are going to choose who they love, who they are attracted to. And then, my favorite part, where they group sexual promiscuity and homosexuality together, as if they are one and the same. Breaking news people, just because you're gay doesn't mean you're giving it away to everyone you meet. And yes there is certainly no scientific proof that homosexuality improves public health, but there certainly isn't any proof that it has a negative impact on public health either. Gay people did not spread HIV, if that's the thought that pops into your head. Ignorant people of all orientations who had no concept of venereal disease spread HIV.
This lovely document also groups bisexuality, homosexuality and anal sex in with adultery, group sex, promiscuity, serial marriage, polygamy, polyandry and extramarital sex. Ok so wait a minute, why does sexual preference have to be listed in the same series as sexual deviance? They act like being gay or having anal sex is some kind of gateway to having multiple wives and husbands and cheating on your spouse. Um, no, that's not how it works, actually. Gay people and straight people are equally likely to commit adultery and extramarital sex acts. These choices aren't based on your sexual orientation (which as you remember from above, is also not a choice), it's based on the kind of person you are and your view of what is right and what is wrong.
And now let's get to the last part: divorce. I was shocked when I read the claim that "children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy." What about children raised by a mother and father who are living together but completely unloving toward their child, or even abusive? What about children raised by parents who scream at each other all day and all night and never exhibit love toward each other? Is that better than being raised by a single parent who loves their child unconditionally? Or by two parents, who living separately, love their child unconditionally?
My parents divorced when I was 7 years old, and sure, it may have been rough at times, but it was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. My parents just didn't get along. The life that I have lived, being raised by two separate parents living in two separate households, has been phenomenally better than the life I would have lived had my parents decided to stick it out. Everyone knows what it's like to hear their parents fight--it gives you that horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach, and you just want to lock yourself in your room and wait for it to be over. Imagine spending your entire childhood and adolescence like that.
So now the Marriage Vow is trying to tell me that if my parents had stayed together, fought constantly, and raised me in a household filled with tension and anger, that I would have had a better life? Well last time I checked, I exceled in school, I stayed away from drugs, never got into trouble with the law, and managed to avoid getting pregnant. And my parents, by getting a divorce, were able to better show me what love could be than if they had stayed together.
At this point, the Marriage Vow has managed to insult just about every person under the sun and still (!) our potential leaders are insisting on signing it, writing their names on a neat little line over which is printed "So help us God." If there is a god that is going to help a political leader achieve legal segregation and alienation of a group of people because of who they love or because of their non-nuclear family structure, then that is not a god that deserves followers, and this is not a country we want to live in.
So let's fight to keep our country headed toward equal rights for all, and refuse to vote for any political candidate who has signed a document that promises to rob American citizens of their rights as people. If you need more fuel for your fire, read the full text of the Marriage Vow now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/read-the-marriage-vow-pledge-signed-by-michele-bachmann-and-rick-santorum/2011/07/08/gIQAwT7K4H_blog.html
Monday, July 11, 2011
Nothing is free--not even a Slurpee
That's right. Did you really think I was going to let something like "Free Slurpee Day at 7-Eleven" just slide by unnoticed? Please.
Like I've been saying all along, nothing is free! Even booming convenience store chain 7-Eleven is willing to admit it, on the day that it claims to give out "free" Slurpees no less. That's right, to celebrate the "birthday" of the chain, they gave out "free" 7.11 ounce Slurpees. Cute.
But here's the thing. Those little Slurpees that people flocked from all over to try actually promoted increased Slurpee sales by almost 40%. I mean come on. It's like giving someone one free and delicious chip and then being surprised that they bought a whole bag. People marched into their local 7-Elevens, took one brain-freezing gulp of that liquid popsicle and just had to have more.
Plus, they bought other stuff too. Think about it. You drink a tiny Slurpee, you see a candy bar out of the corner of your eye, then maybe a Gatorade looks at you in just the right way...before you know it, you've bought an entire "Thank you for shopping" plastic bag of goodies. And you probably wouldn't have even stepped in to 7-Eleven that day if they hadn't been giving out "free" Slurpees.
It happens every day! How many times do you go to the store and buy something just because it's on sale? Oooh, strawberries are buy one get one free! Well breaking news, you have to BUY one to get the other one for "free". Therefore, you have spent money. You still technically paid for both strawberry buckets. Maybe you wouldn't have even bought strawberries if they weren't featured in some "BOGO" deal.
-What about library books? They're free.
-Nope. Taxes. Not to mention late fees.
-I got a free keychain when I bought this DVD.
-The price of the keychain was included in the DVD, for which you are most likely already overpaying.
-I found $20 on the ground. Free money!
-Well, not exactly. Just because you aren't paying for it doesn't mean it's free. Someone lost that $20 and therefore paid a price. Plus if you have a conscience, you'll feel guilty. That's a price too.
The point is, when a company advertises something as "free", they're not doing it to be nice. They're doing it because they know it will draw you in with thoughts of legally stealing and one-upping a corporation--of getting your "money's worth". And it works. It feels good to get two things for the price of one (even if the price of one thing is overinflated to account for the price of both)! Or to have someone give you something without asking for anything in return (at least not right that second). But just remember: everyone pays for everything. Even if it isn't in dollars and cents, everything comes at a cost.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-07-10-free-711-slurpees_n.htm
Like I've been saying all along, nothing is free! Even booming convenience store chain 7-Eleven is willing to admit it, on the day that it claims to give out "free" Slurpees no less. That's right, to celebrate the "birthday" of the chain, they gave out "free" 7.11 ounce Slurpees. Cute.
But here's the thing. Those little Slurpees that people flocked from all over to try actually promoted increased Slurpee sales by almost 40%. I mean come on. It's like giving someone one free and delicious chip and then being surprised that they bought a whole bag. People marched into their local 7-Elevens, took one brain-freezing gulp of that liquid popsicle and just had to have more.
Plus, they bought other stuff too. Think about it. You drink a tiny Slurpee, you see a candy bar out of the corner of your eye, then maybe a Gatorade looks at you in just the right way...before you know it, you've bought an entire "Thank you for shopping" plastic bag of goodies. And you probably wouldn't have even stepped in to 7-Eleven that day if they hadn't been giving out "free" Slurpees.
It happens every day! How many times do you go to the store and buy something just because it's on sale? Oooh, strawberries are buy one get one free! Well breaking news, you have to BUY one to get the other one for "free". Therefore, you have spent money. You still technically paid for both strawberry buckets. Maybe you wouldn't have even bought strawberries if they weren't featured in some "BOGO" deal.
-What about library books? They're free.
-Nope. Taxes. Not to mention late fees.
-I got a free keychain when I bought this DVD.
-The price of the keychain was included in the DVD, for which you are most likely already overpaying.
-I found $20 on the ground. Free money!
-Well, not exactly. Just because you aren't paying for it doesn't mean it's free. Someone lost that $20 and therefore paid a price. Plus if you have a conscience, you'll feel guilty. That's a price too.
The point is, when a company advertises something as "free", they're not doing it to be nice. They're doing it because they know it will draw you in with thoughts of legally stealing and one-upping a corporation--of getting your "money's worth". And it works. It feels good to get two things for the price of one (even if the price of one thing is overinflated to account for the price of both)! Or to have someone give you something without asking for anything in return (at least not right that second). But just remember: everyone pays for everything. Even if it isn't in dollars and cents, everything comes at a cost.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-07-10-free-711-slurpees_n.htm
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Same story, different day
I'm talking about our government here, people.
Obama stands at his podium yelling at Republicans to stop cutting taxes for the uber-wealthy while reminding Congresspeople that they need to "stay put" in order to get things done. Oh, coming to work. What a revolutionary idea. But see, when you work for Congress, showing up to work is a lot like going to church. Just because you show up doesn't mean you're actually making any kind of effort to better yourself or those around you. Our country's political parties have become so divided that Congresspeople are more worried about the personal agendas of their own parties than the good of the American people and our country. So unless they come to work and make some compromises which result in beneficial decisions, there's really no point in getting out of bed.
In other news, Obama claims to be finally beginning the Afghanistan troop withdrawal he's promised us since...his campaign. Meanwhile Al Qaeda has appointed a new leader (who is probably pissed at us) and Afghan security guards are grabbing their guns and running for cover while Afghan militants bomb a hotel in Kabul. So...no, I wouldn't say we've put Afghanistan in a position to successfully continue without us. Not to mention, the Wall Street Journal reported today (rather obviously) that Al Qaeda still remains a top threat to the US "despite the death of Osama bin Laden." Wait, you mean killing one person doesn't result in the complete destruction of an entire terrorist group and its mentalities? In fact, in might even make that group more angry at the United States? Oh. Shit.
But that's okay, if you're disheartened by our current president's leadership tactics, fear not. Soon you will be able to vote for a new president. Someone like Michele Bachmann who not only has trouble differentiating between John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy (wait, which one was the Western star and which one was the serial child rapist and murderer?) but who also plans to add an amendment to the Constitution that federally bans gay marriage. Poor Michele. We're trying to evolve as a people, not turn back into ignorant cave monkeys (did monkeys live in caves?)! Although I suppose she's really more of a Creationist judging by how much she mentions her god and her bible and how that winning combination is going to help her run our country. Perhaps when she was brushing up on her high school history, she passed over the chapter that talked about how the United States is a secular country. Must have been the same chapter that discussed slavery, considering she announced that the founding fathers were the men who helped to end slavery in the United States. Hmm...couple decades behind there, Michele.
I still hold hope that someday a capable person will run our country. I use the word "someday" loosely.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/29/obamas-scolding-republicans-inflames-debt-talks/
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/29c7b936-a286-11e0-9760-00144feabdc0.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303763404576416191709848746.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michele-bachmann-kicks-off-campaign-but-john-wayne-gacy-gaffe-mars-speech/2011/06/27/AGDYNjpH_story.html
Obama stands at his podium yelling at Republicans to stop cutting taxes for the uber-wealthy while reminding Congresspeople that they need to "stay put" in order to get things done. Oh, coming to work. What a revolutionary idea. But see, when you work for Congress, showing up to work is a lot like going to church. Just because you show up doesn't mean you're actually making any kind of effort to better yourself or those around you. Our country's political parties have become so divided that Congresspeople are more worried about the personal agendas of their own parties than the good of the American people and our country. So unless they come to work and make some compromises which result in beneficial decisions, there's really no point in getting out of bed.
In other news, Obama claims to be finally beginning the Afghanistan troop withdrawal he's promised us since...his campaign. Meanwhile Al Qaeda has appointed a new leader (who is probably pissed at us) and Afghan security guards are grabbing their guns and running for cover while Afghan militants bomb a hotel in Kabul. So...no, I wouldn't say we've put Afghanistan in a position to successfully continue without us. Not to mention, the Wall Street Journal reported today (rather obviously) that Al Qaeda still remains a top threat to the US "despite the death of Osama bin Laden." Wait, you mean killing one person doesn't result in the complete destruction of an entire terrorist group and its mentalities? In fact, in might even make that group more angry at the United States? Oh. Shit.
But that's okay, if you're disheartened by our current president's leadership tactics, fear not. Soon you will be able to vote for a new president. Someone like Michele Bachmann who not only has trouble differentiating between John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy (wait, which one was the Western star and which one was the serial child rapist and murderer?) but who also plans to add an amendment to the Constitution that federally bans gay marriage. Poor Michele. We're trying to evolve as a people, not turn back into ignorant cave monkeys (did monkeys live in caves?)! Although I suppose she's really more of a Creationist judging by how much she mentions her god and her bible and how that winning combination is going to help her run our country. Perhaps when she was brushing up on her high school history, she passed over the chapter that talked about how the United States is a secular country. Must have been the same chapter that discussed slavery, considering she announced that the founding fathers were the men who helped to end slavery in the United States. Hmm...couple decades behind there, Michele.
I still hold hope that someday a capable person will run our country. I use the word "someday" loosely.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/29/obamas-scolding-republicans-inflames-debt-talks/
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/29c7b936-a286-11e0-9760-00144feabdc0.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303763404576416191709848746.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michele-bachmann-kicks-off-campaign-but-john-wayne-gacy-gaffe-mars-speech/2011/06/27/AGDYNjpH_story.html
Thursday, June 9, 2011
A Congressman's Epic Journey to Disaster
Look for Weiner's latest book: How to Tweet Away Your Political Career in 3 Simple Steps.
The summary on the back cover sums up the content of the one-and-a-half page novel:
1) Point smartphone at crotch
2) Take picture
3) "Accidentally" post to Twitter instead of sending to one woman (who by the way, is not your wife)
In case you hadn't guessed, the photo on the inside of the book jacket is not of Weiner's face.
About the author:
Anthony Weiner is a New York Congressman and a member of the Democratic party. He recently married Huma Abedin, a fellow government employee. In his free time, Weiner enjoys infidelity and photography, and he specializes in grainy photos of his nether regions. He is a supporter of gay rights, but lately his fight for marriage equality been losing ground, seeing as how a man who cannot manage his own relationship successfully will naturally have a difficult time justifying the legal acknowledgement of the relationships of others. He recently tweeted the downfall of his own political career. Visit his website at http://www.weiner.house.gov/
Below are some poorly-worded phrases from Weiner's homepage (shockingly, these are not jokes):
"Get the Weiner Report" --Is it a Twit pic?
"Stay connected to your Congressman and let him stay connected to you." --Woah, Anthony. Let's keep it at a safe distance.
"...my staff and I will be there to show you the way" --Oh. By "staff" he means the people who work for him.
The summary on the back cover sums up the content of the one-and-a-half page novel:
1) Point smartphone at crotch
2) Take picture
3) "Accidentally" post to Twitter instead of sending to one woman (who by the way, is not your wife)
In case you hadn't guessed, the photo on the inside of the book jacket is not of Weiner's face.
About the author:
Anthony Weiner is a New York Congressman and a member of the Democratic party. He recently married Huma Abedin, a fellow government employee. In his free time, Weiner enjoys infidelity and photography, and he specializes in grainy photos of his nether regions. He is a supporter of gay rights, but lately his fight for marriage equality been losing ground, seeing as how a man who cannot manage his own relationship successfully will naturally have a difficult time justifying the legal acknowledgement of the relationships of others. He recently tweeted the downfall of his own political career. Visit his website at http://www.weiner.house.gov/
Below are some poorly-worded phrases from Weiner's homepage (shockingly, these are not jokes):
"Get the Weiner Report" --Is it a Twit pic?
"Stay connected to your Congressman and let him stay connected to you." --Woah, Anthony. Let's keep it at a safe distance.
"...my staff and I will be there to show you the way" --Oh. By "staff" he means the people who work for him.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Dog: It's what's for dinner.
In China, at least. Although in recent years, owning a pet dog has become more and more popular in Chinese culture, and animal activists are rising up and attempting to put a stop to the consumption of their four-legged friends. This fight between animal owners and animal eaters has cropped up in the news lately, mainly because of a truck full of over 500 dogs that was driven off of the road by an angry dog owner. To sum up the story, a man driving with his girlfriend saw the truck full of dogs driving, shipment in tow, and ran it off the road. As news of the near-hijacking spread around the nearby areas, animal activists from all over, followed closely by the police, managed to gather together $17,000 which they used to pay off the driver and convince him to turn over his shipment of man's best friends.
This not only caused a major roadblock, but also resulted in the homelessness of 520 dogs. It was a small victory for animal activists, who were able to save these canines from becoming dinner, but also quite the loss as now the rescuers are trying to find homes, food, water, and veterinarian care for a bunch of wild dogs.
Now, living in the Western hemisphere, I find myself instinctively making a disgusted face when I think of people sitting down to hot steaming plate of dog. But, that's because I've owned a dog, thrown a frisbee for a dog, commanded a dog to sit and stay, and also looked into the sad eyes of a dog when I leave the house and he or she doesn't get to come along. Essentially, I have had a domesticated dog as a pet, and yes, it is revolting to think of that pet being eaten. But we must acknowledge the hypocrisy here. People are up in arms over an animal being eaten. Well, breaking news, folks, animals get eaten every day. In our own country. And cute ones too. So, wait, it's okay to eat pigs, cows, and lamb, but not dogs, merely because we've trained them to obey us?
The only reason people are even disgusted by it is because we've domesticated dogs and made them our own. We've named them, and brought them into our homes, and given them their own plush beds, and now they're considered some kind of superior species. Now, before you get all angry and think I'm some kind of dog-hater, think again. Because here's where the hypocrisy really rears its ugly dog-eating head. People probably read that article (link below) about dog delicacies in China and were outraged. And to be fair, it is horrible how the dogs are treated when they are shipped to and fro. They're crammed together in cages, malnourished, and sometimes diseased. But we have that same problem here in the United States. Animals are constantly being mistreated all over the country! In pounds and pet stores, and even in homes.
Now obviously to begin eating dogs in the United States and many other western countries would be strange and would definitely cause an outrage. But that's because a) we've had dogs as pets for centuries, and b) we don't have wild dogs. In China, there are wild dogs. Granted, some pet dogs are actually stolen and sent off to become restaurant fare, but most of them are wild. And what's really bothering people over in China is that this fight over whether or not dogs should be considered a consumable good is that it is so closely linked to the growing class distinction. Rich people are the dog owners and poor people are the dog eaters. Why? Because owning a dog is expensive, and eating a dog is cheaper than eating pork or beef. So, as pointed out in the article, when a man in a Mercedes runs a working-class truck driver off of the road and convinces him to take $17000 ($3000 less than he is owed) to give up his shipment in the name of "animal rights", it strikes more than one chord. So now that truck driver is having trouble finding work due to his last failed attempt at delivery, and the increasingly impoverished lower-class is wondering why people care more about dogs than they do about humans.
I'm not trying to promote a vegetarian lifestyle for everyone in which we stop eating animals altogether. And I'm definintely not trying to put dog on the menu. But I do think it's important to realize that there is a double standard when it comes to rescuing animals from certain danger. We're choosing to focus our attention on only one species, when in reality, animals (humans included) all over the world are being mistreated, abused, and mercilessly killed. It's not that we shouldn't try and save some animals if it means we can't save them all. But if saving one species leads to the hunger and job loss of our own species and leaves other species like cow and sheep to go on being mistreated, are we really doing the right thing?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-dog-eaters-and-dog-lovers-spar-over-animal-rights/2011/05/20/AGvgmVDH_story_1.html
P.S. There's a slide show of photographs in this article, but some of the photographs are rather...graphic. Nothing you wouldn't see in a normal meat locker, but...just a warning.
This not only caused a major roadblock, but also resulted in the homelessness of 520 dogs. It was a small victory for animal activists, who were able to save these canines from becoming dinner, but also quite the loss as now the rescuers are trying to find homes, food, water, and veterinarian care for a bunch of wild dogs.
Now, living in the Western hemisphere, I find myself instinctively making a disgusted face when I think of people sitting down to hot steaming plate of dog. But, that's because I've owned a dog, thrown a frisbee for a dog, commanded a dog to sit and stay, and also looked into the sad eyes of a dog when I leave the house and he or she doesn't get to come along. Essentially, I have had a domesticated dog as a pet, and yes, it is revolting to think of that pet being eaten. But we must acknowledge the hypocrisy here. People are up in arms over an animal being eaten. Well, breaking news, folks, animals get eaten every day. In our own country. And cute ones too. So, wait, it's okay to eat pigs, cows, and lamb, but not dogs, merely because we've trained them to obey us?
The only reason people are even disgusted by it is because we've domesticated dogs and made them our own. We've named them, and brought them into our homes, and given them their own plush beds, and now they're considered some kind of superior species. Now, before you get all angry and think I'm some kind of dog-hater, think again. Because here's where the hypocrisy really rears its ugly dog-eating head. People probably read that article (link below) about dog delicacies in China and were outraged. And to be fair, it is horrible how the dogs are treated when they are shipped to and fro. They're crammed together in cages, malnourished, and sometimes diseased. But we have that same problem here in the United States. Animals are constantly being mistreated all over the country! In pounds and pet stores, and even in homes.
Now obviously to begin eating dogs in the United States and many other western countries would be strange and would definitely cause an outrage. But that's because a) we've had dogs as pets for centuries, and b) we don't have wild dogs. In China, there are wild dogs. Granted, some pet dogs are actually stolen and sent off to become restaurant fare, but most of them are wild. And what's really bothering people over in China is that this fight over whether or not dogs should be considered a consumable good is that it is so closely linked to the growing class distinction. Rich people are the dog owners and poor people are the dog eaters. Why? Because owning a dog is expensive, and eating a dog is cheaper than eating pork or beef. So, as pointed out in the article, when a man in a Mercedes runs a working-class truck driver off of the road and convinces him to take $17000 ($3000 less than he is owed) to give up his shipment in the name of "animal rights", it strikes more than one chord. So now that truck driver is having trouble finding work due to his last failed attempt at delivery, and the increasingly impoverished lower-class is wondering why people care more about dogs than they do about humans.
I'm not trying to promote a vegetarian lifestyle for everyone in which we stop eating animals altogether. And I'm definintely not trying to put dog on the menu. But I do think it's important to realize that there is a double standard when it comes to rescuing animals from certain danger. We're choosing to focus our attention on only one species, when in reality, animals (humans included) all over the world are being mistreated, abused, and mercilessly killed. It's not that we shouldn't try and save some animals if it means we can't save them all. But if saving one species leads to the hunger and job loss of our own species and leaves other species like cow and sheep to go on being mistreated, are we really doing the right thing?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-dog-eaters-and-dog-lovers-spar-over-animal-rights/2011/05/20/AGvgmVDH_story_1.html
P.S. There's a slide show of photographs in this article, but some of the photographs are rather...graphic. Nothing you wouldn't see in a normal meat locker, but...just a warning.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
bin Laden, Black Plague, and Bunkbeds
Now there's a winning combination. Let's start at the top.
As videos of bin Laden spending the last days of his life huddled under a blanket watching himself on TV (come on, doesn't he have youtube in that mansion?) begin to surface in the news, something else is rising to the top of the water as well--realization. People are finally beginning to realize that the death of one terrorist--even if he was a prominent leader--does not mean the end of terrorism. In fact, it probably doesn't even mean the end of the war in Afghanistan. There are plenty of terrorist groups still active, and frankly, killing bin Laden probably just made a lot of terrorists even angrier at the US than they were before. The diversion of two US commerical flights to nearby airports in the past week--both of which resulted in the evacuation and interrogation of all passengers and a thorough search of the plane--is certainly not a great sign. Let's face it, the death of Osama was a symbolic victory for Americans who lost 3,000 citizens in a seemingly meaningless act of violence. Whether or not his death will make an actual impact is something for which we can only hope.
In other news, New Mexican fleas may be the next big thing for us to worry about as Americans. A man who lives in New Mexico was diagnosed with and treated for bubonic plague this week. That's right, it's still around! Apparently 10 to 15 Americans catch it every year. It's treatable, but it's also another great reason to bathe and to keep rats and fleas at a safe distance. On the other hand, now that we're no longer living in the Dark Ages, if bubonic plague actually does become a serious issue, we could always get little flea collars for everyone at a cheap price. We could wear them on our wrists--it could be the new Livestrong bracelet!
Also on the list of dangers in America are...bunkbeds! That's right, thousands of kids around America may find themselves involuntarily re-enacting that scene from the movie Stepbrothers where their homemade bunkbeds collapse. Except these are bunkbeds sold by family-friendly stores like Wal-mart and Target that have bed rails prone to breaking and causing some minor injuries. Can you imagine waking up to a bed falling on top of you? Ouch.
And finally, having trouble finding a parking space? There's an app for that. That's right, apparently in San Francisco they're experimenting with this new app for smartphones that notifies people of open parking spaces. The spaces have some kind of electronic sensors that enable them to send signals to the app when spaces open up. Of course, while you're looking at your smartphone trying to find a space, you may accidentally run over a pedestrian. And won't this merely increase parking lot rage? A bunch of people all racing madly to the same space? Maybe the app can be integrated with Foursquare. "Pete just checked in at Space A-2! Better keep looking, lazybones."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576306941215709576.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/08/2011-05-08_man_in_new_mexico_diagnosed_with_bubonic_plague_first_case_of_black_death_in_201.html
http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/05/08/bunk-bed-sold-by-major-retailers-has-collapse-risk/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/technology/08parking.html
As videos of bin Laden spending the last days of his life huddled under a blanket watching himself on TV (come on, doesn't he have youtube in that mansion?) begin to surface in the news, something else is rising to the top of the water as well--realization. People are finally beginning to realize that the death of one terrorist--even if he was a prominent leader--does not mean the end of terrorism. In fact, it probably doesn't even mean the end of the war in Afghanistan. There are plenty of terrorist groups still active, and frankly, killing bin Laden probably just made a lot of terrorists even angrier at the US than they were before. The diversion of two US commerical flights to nearby airports in the past week--both of which resulted in the evacuation and interrogation of all passengers and a thorough search of the plane--is certainly not a great sign. Let's face it, the death of Osama was a symbolic victory for Americans who lost 3,000 citizens in a seemingly meaningless act of violence. Whether or not his death will make an actual impact is something for which we can only hope.
In other news, New Mexican fleas may be the next big thing for us to worry about as Americans. A man who lives in New Mexico was diagnosed with and treated for bubonic plague this week. That's right, it's still around! Apparently 10 to 15 Americans catch it every year. It's treatable, but it's also another great reason to bathe and to keep rats and fleas at a safe distance. On the other hand, now that we're no longer living in the Dark Ages, if bubonic plague actually does become a serious issue, we could always get little flea collars for everyone at a cheap price. We could wear them on our wrists--it could be the new Livestrong bracelet!
Also on the list of dangers in America are...bunkbeds! That's right, thousands of kids around America may find themselves involuntarily re-enacting that scene from the movie Stepbrothers where their homemade bunkbeds collapse. Except these are bunkbeds sold by family-friendly stores like Wal-mart and Target that have bed rails prone to breaking and causing some minor injuries. Can you imagine waking up to a bed falling on top of you? Ouch.
And finally, having trouble finding a parking space? There's an app for that. That's right, apparently in San Francisco they're experimenting with this new app for smartphones that notifies people of open parking spaces. The spaces have some kind of electronic sensors that enable them to send signals to the app when spaces open up. Of course, while you're looking at your smartphone trying to find a space, you may accidentally run over a pedestrian. And won't this merely increase parking lot rage? A bunch of people all racing madly to the same space? Maybe the app can be integrated with Foursquare. "Pete just checked in at Space A-2! Better keep looking, lazybones."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576306941215709576.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/08/2011-05-08_man_in_new_mexico_diagnosed_with_bubonic_plague_first_case_of_black_death_in_201.html
http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/05/08/bunk-bed-sold-by-major-retailers-has-collapse-risk/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/technology/08parking.html
Monday, April 18, 2011
DOMA: Is it a crime to defend it?
Of course it is. But if you haven't realized that our government is made up of a bunch of criminals by now, you haven't been watching the news. You may be thinking to yourself, didn't Obama sign a bill in February declaring that the Department of Justice can no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (which states that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman)?
Why yes, he did.
And yet he did not sign a bill saying that John Boehner, Speaker of the House, couldn't hire a private attorney to defend this ridiculous law.
That's right, people! Not only is the GOP spending money to infringe on other people's human rights, but they're trying to divert money from the Department of Justice to do so! To justify this idiotic measure, they are claiming that since the DOJ will no longer have to incur the expense of defending DOMA, the GOP can use that money for other purposes. Mainly, defending DOMA. Which is the very action Obama was trying to prevent when he signed the bill in February.
So let's recap: Our government is in shambles. We barely have enough money to keep the government from shutting down, we're paying outrageous gas prices so that NATO can help grossly overestimated Libyan rebel forces fight against a grossly underestimated Gaddafi regime, and we're taking money from the Department of Justice to defend a stupid law that says that a man who loves another man or a woman who loves another woman cannot be legally married?
Something's not right. If the Department of Justice has a little extra money, we should be using that money to track down federal criminals. You know, murderers, rapists, terrorists. Instead, Boehner wants to use it to defend a law brought in by Bill Clinton, which is ironic, when you realize that the same man who signed a bill in 1996 "defending" marriage between a man and a woman is also the same husband who cheated on his wife with a White House intern.
As I've said before, these are the people who we choose to run our government. One can only hope narrow-mindedness and idiocy will be eradicated as the generations advance. But things are changing, slowly but surely, and for those of us who are fighting for justice, let's keep fighting! And for those of you who aren't, maybe it's time to break out of your comfort zone and start.
That said, I hope no one who reads this blog is a homophobe who thinks that gay marriage should be illegal and that the institution of marriage is some sacred rite between a man and a woman, but if you are, let me give you a few pearls of wisdom (Warning: This is a rant.):
And someday it will be. And if enough of us fight for it, that day will come sooner than later.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/18/house.defense.of.marriage/
Why yes, he did.
And yet he did not sign a bill saying that John Boehner, Speaker of the House, couldn't hire a private attorney to defend this ridiculous law.
That's right, people! Not only is the GOP spending money to infringe on other people's human rights, but they're trying to divert money from the Department of Justice to do so! To justify this idiotic measure, they are claiming that since the DOJ will no longer have to incur the expense of defending DOMA, the GOP can use that money for other purposes. Mainly, defending DOMA. Which is the very action Obama was trying to prevent when he signed the bill in February.
So let's recap: Our government is in shambles. We barely have enough money to keep the government from shutting down, we're paying outrageous gas prices so that NATO can help grossly overestimated Libyan rebel forces fight against a grossly underestimated Gaddafi regime, and we're taking money from the Department of Justice to defend a stupid law that says that a man who loves another man or a woman who loves another woman cannot be legally married?
Something's not right. If the Department of Justice has a little extra money, we should be using that money to track down federal criminals. You know, murderers, rapists, terrorists. Instead, Boehner wants to use it to defend a law brought in by Bill Clinton, which is ironic, when you realize that the same man who signed a bill in 1996 "defending" marriage between a man and a woman is also the same husband who cheated on his wife with a White House intern.
As I've said before, these are the people who we choose to run our government. One can only hope narrow-mindedness and idiocy will be eradicated as the generations advance. But things are changing, slowly but surely, and for those of us who are fighting for justice, let's keep fighting! And for those of you who aren't, maybe it's time to break out of your comfort zone and start.
That said, I hope no one who reads this blog is a homophobe who thinks that gay marriage should be illegal and that the institution of marriage is some sacred rite between a man and a woman, but if you are, let me give you a few pearls of wisdom (Warning: This is a rant.):
- Legalizing gay marriage is not going to result in gay people taking over the world and turning you into some kind of gay zombie. In fact, you probably won't even notice a change. Your narrow-minded life will remain the same.
- Marriage between a man and a woman will not be compromised. And if you think that this is the case, you probably only feel this way because your heterosexual marriage is already a mess.
- Maybe you think same-sex relationships are appalling, or gross, or Satanic. Well breaking news: allowing same-sex couples to get legally married and enjoy a nice tax break, some insurance discounts, and the pleasure of being recognized as a loving couple by the federal government isn't going to correlate with a rise in public displays of affection. And let's be honest, I doubt anyone really wants to see you making out with your spouse either.
- And here's another tidbit of knowledge for you: If there is a god, s/he made gay people too! That's right, we're all in this together.
And someday it will be. And if enough of us fight for it, that day will come sooner than later.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/18/house.defense.of.marriage/
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
There goes the government...
It was fun while it lasted. Anarchists all over the world are laughing at a country whose government was brought down--not by rebellion--but by lack of cash. That's right! As I write this, Republicans and Democrats are racing to reach an agreement on how to scrape together enough money to keep the federal government going. Oh wait, actually they're probably at home on their couches. But they will resume their talks in the morning.
And by talks I do mean their desperate attempts to bargain with each other and coerce each other into supporting their own private political agendas. Like Republicans saying they should put a halt to abortion funding in the District, which will undoubtedly be shot down by Democrats, thereby making them the perfect scapegoats for the long-awaited government shut down.
Don't get me wrong--Republicans aren't the ones at fault here--it's the entire system. We have a room full of people who gather together on opposite sides of an arena to pray together and then battle each other for control of a budget cut that should have been taken care of months--maybe years--ago!
It's disgraceful. This isn't how a government should be run--by a bipartisan group of people who aren't willing to compromise without getting something in return. We have a Speaker of the House who is openly saying that while he thinks Obama is a nice guy, he just isn't the best leader. Somehow I don't think people voted for Obama because he was "nice".
And so now we sit back, wondering if the government will be able to stay afloat for the rest of the year, wondering if the people who came over from Japan for the Cherry Blossom Festival will actually be able to participate, wondering if the streets of DC will be filled with rotting trash bags, wondering if government workers will be forced to sit at home without pay, wondering if small businesses will be able to pay their bills when their federal loans are put on hold.
The worst part is, we're running around trying to help other countries bring down their oppressive governments, and we can't even afford to pick up the trash in our capital. We can't even afford to keep our monuments--the symbols that represent the values on which our country was built--open to the public. Meanwhile, as mid-April looms before us, we're preparing our taxes, seeing how much we've contributed to our nation's piggy bank, and wondering--where has all of our money gone?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hill-negotiators-struggle-to-reach-budget-deal-to-avert-shutdown/2011/04/06/AFh8KjpC_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/government-shutdown-potential-furloughs-for-800000-federal-workers-disruption-of-dc-services/2011/04/06/AFRItOqC_story.html
And by talks I do mean their desperate attempts to bargain with each other and coerce each other into supporting their own private political agendas. Like Republicans saying they should put a halt to abortion funding in the District, which will undoubtedly be shot down by Democrats, thereby making them the perfect scapegoats for the long-awaited government shut down.
Don't get me wrong--Republicans aren't the ones at fault here--it's the entire system. We have a room full of people who gather together on opposite sides of an arena to pray together and then battle each other for control of a budget cut that should have been taken care of months--maybe years--ago!
It's disgraceful. This isn't how a government should be run--by a bipartisan group of people who aren't willing to compromise without getting something in return. We have a Speaker of the House who is openly saying that while he thinks Obama is a nice guy, he just isn't the best leader. Somehow I don't think people voted for Obama because he was "nice".
And so now we sit back, wondering if the government will be able to stay afloat for the rest of the year, wondering if the people who came over from Japan for the Cherry Blossom Festival will actually be able to participate, wondering if the streets of DC will be filled with rotting trash bags, wondering if government workers will be forced to sit at home without pay, wondering if small businesses will be able to pay their bills when their federal loans are put on hold.
The worst part is, we're running around trying to help other countries bring down their oppressive governments, and we can't even afford to pick up the trash in our capital. We can't even afford to keep our monuments--the symbols that represent the values on which our country was built--open to the public. Meanwhile, as mid-April looms before us, we're preparing our taxes, seeing how much we've contributed to our nation's piggy bank, and wondering--where has all of our money gone?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hill-negotiators-struggle-to-reach-budget-deal-to-avert-shutdown/2011/04/06/AFh8KjpC_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/government-shutdown-potential-furloughs-for-800000-federal-workers-disruption-of-dc-services/2011/04/06/AFRItOqC_story.html
Saturday, March 26, 2011
This week: Government, God, and...Soy Sauce
As I was perusing the top news headlines this morning, I realized that the most interesting and by far the most depressing news topics ranged from a US Government shutdown to Jesuit pedophiles to a young man overdosing on soy sauce. And as I prepare to sum up these news stories for you, I think to myself yet again, What is the world coming to?
First up: The United States Federal Government is at serious risk of having to shut down for a few days. Why? Because we as a country are broke and our brave leaders can't sit in a room together long enough to figure out where to cut $60 billion worth of spending in order to continue to pay the outrageous salaries that we are providing for many of our government workers. Unless they come up with something by April 5 (so that they can have the bill publicized 72 hours before their deadline, April 8th), our government will literally be shut down because we cannot afford to run it.
Maybe they should just raise gas prices to try and scrape a little extra money together.
Oh, wait...
Or maybe they could sue the Jesuits of the U.S. Northwest for sexual abuse. Which is what about 500 former students of boarding schools run by the Society of Jesus are doing in exchange for a $166 million settlement. It will come as no surprise to you that the Jesuit Order is also in the throes of bankruptcy, due mostly to the fact that they had to dole out another $55 million in sexual abuse "reparations" not too long ago. Why the Roman Catholic Church does not have a more thorough screening process for priestly candidates continues to elude me. Not only do these pedophiles stain the reputation of Catholicism, but it's obviously costing the Church a great deal of cash. At least they have a good insurance policy. Although frankly, if they keep getting sued for sexually victimizing children, somehow I think it's going to become increasingly difficult for them to find a company that is willing to insure them. And honestly, I don't think sexual abuse charges should be something for which you can appeal to your insurance policy anyway. Sexual abuse isn't an accident, like a fire or a flood (even one brought on by the Almighty)--it's a purposeful act that the Church is enabling by placing psychologically ill men in situations where they have the opportunity to take advantage of children who trust them.
Speaking of trust issues and--while we're at it--a desperate longing for acceptance and a sense of belonging, our final news story tells the fate of a young man who was dared to chug a bottle of soy sauce. A pledge at the University of Virginia Zeta Psi fraternity, he took the dare no doubt in order to gain the respect and admiration of his potential brothers. That, or people just like watching other people nearly kill themselves. Apparently there are a surprising amount of people on this earth who do not realize that too much of anything will kill you. Even water. According to this story, too much soy sauce will cause you to fall into a fit of seizures and begin foaming at the mouth.
While most of the spectators probably thought that the young pledge was in the process of turning into a zombie, at least one of the frat brothers had the presence of mind to drive him to the emergency room. He was placed in critical condition after they realized he had ingested a dangerous amount of sodium, but he survived. Now authorities are speculating as to whether this U-Va fraternity is committing the misdemeanor of hazing its pledges. Their main reason for speculation? Meals fed to pledges that consist of dog food, matzo balls, gefilte fish, and soy sauce. Let's see, Virginia Police, if a fraternity is making its pledges eat something that makes one gag merely at the thought of the ingredients, I'd say that's hazing.
As I sit here trying to get the thought of soy sauce out of my mental mouth, the only thing I can think of to sum up this post is to wish America the best of luck.
Looks like we're going to need it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/odds-of-government-shutdown-increase-as-breakdown-in-budget-talks-leads-to-public-sniping/2011/03/26/AFvb6ScB_story.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/26/Jesuits-make-166M-sex-abuse-settlement/UPI-63381301158225/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031206201.html?tid=obinsite
First up: The United States Federal Government is at serious risk of having to shut down for a few days. Why? Because we as a country are broke and our brave leaders can't sit in a room together long enough to figure out where to cut $60 billion worth of spending in order to continue to pay the outrageous salaries that we are providing for many of our government workers. Unless they come up with something by April 5 (so that they can have the bill publicized 72 hours before their deadline, April 8th), our government will literally be shut down because we cannot afford to run it.
Maybe they should just raise gas prices to try and scrape a little extra money together.
Oh, wait...
Or maybe they could sue the Jesuits of the U.S. Northwest for sexual abuse. Which is what about 500 former students of boarding schools run by the Society of Jesus are doing in exchange for a $166 million settlement. It will come as no surprise to you that the Jesuit Order is also in the throes of bankruptcy, due mostly to the fact that they had to dole out another $55 million in sexual abuse "reparations" not too long ago. Why the Roman Catholic Church does not have a more thorough screening process for priestly candidates continues to elude me. Not only do these pedophiles stain the reputation of Catholicism, but it's obviously costing the Church a great deal of cash. At least they have a good insurance policy. Although frankly, if they keep getting sued for sexually victimizing children, somehow I think it's going to become increasingly difficult for them to find a company that is willing to insure them. And honestly, I don't think sexual abuse charges should be something for which you can appeal to your insurance policy anyway. Sexual abuse isn't an accident, like a fire or a flood (even one brought on by the Almighty)--it's a purposeful act that the Church is enabling by placing psychologically ill men in situations where they have the opportunity to take advantage of children who trust them.
Speaking of trust issues and--while we're at it--a desperate longing for acceptance and a sense of belonging, our final news story tells the fate of a young man who was dared to chug a bottle of soy sauce. A pledge at the University of Virginia Zeta Psi fraternity, he took the dare no doubt in order to gain the respect and admiration of his potential brothers. That, or people just like watching other people nearly kill themselves. Apparently there are a surprising amount of people on this earth who do not realize that too much of anything will kill you. Even water. According to this story, too much soy sauce will cause you to fall into a fit of seizures and begin foaming at the mouth.
While most of the spectators probably thought that the young pledge was in the process of turning into a zombie, at least one of the frat brothers had the presence of mind to drive him to the emergency room. He was placed in critical condition after they realized he had ingested a dangerous amount of sodium, but he survived. Now authorities are speculating as to whether this U-Va fraternity is committing the misdemeanor of hazing its pledges. Their main reason for speculation? Meals fed to pledges that consist of dog food, matzo balls, gefilte fish, and soy sauce. Let's see, Virginia Police, if a fraternity is making its pledges eat something that makes one gag merely at the thought of the ingredients, I'd say that's hazing.
As I sit here trying to get the thought of soy sauce out of my mental mouth, the only thing I can think of to sum up this post is to wish America the best of luck.
Looks like we're going to need it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/odds-of-government-shutdown-increase-as-breakdown-in-budget-talks-leads-to-public-sniping/2011/03/26/AFvb6ScB_story.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/26/Jesuits-make-166M-sex-abuse-settlement/UPI-63381301158225/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031206201.html?tid=obinsite
Saturday, March 12, 2011
People of Wal-mart: A Tale of Harrowingly Realistic Proportions
So usually I try to write about something relevant to current events, but I think it's about time I shared the following story with the world.
As some of you may know, I spent a brief time during my last semester of college working at Wal-mart. Yes, Wal-mart. I was going to school part-time, and I needed a job. Though I applied to a myriad of places around Ithaca, Wal-mart was the only establishment that was willing to employ me for just 3 months and then let me fly free. So, I donned my khaki pants, my navy blue shirt, and my little nametag, and I began my adventure at the Wal-mart in Ithaca, NY.
It was an experience. I was a cashier, so I got to deal with all of the customers first-hand. It was about a 50-50 split between college students and residents of Ithaca and the surrounding areas. Now, let's get this straight right now--Wal-mart definitely has a reputation for drawing customers from the more...interesting...scope of the population. If you've ever visited peopleofwalmart.com--or Wal-mart, for that matter--you know what I mean. Now, this being Ithaca, which is populated by mostly priveleged college students, I didn't have too many run-ins with really bizarre people. But I did meet some.
The story you are about to read is completely true. Any relation to persons living or dead is in fact purposeful.
It's 10 o'clock at night. I've just left my post at register 12, and I'm ready to end my shift. I'm shuffling to the back of the store toward the mysterious double doors labeled "Employees Only", my navy blue Keds scuffing along the dusty floor, hands in the pockets of my khaki pants. I bust through the swinging doors and am met by the smell of incomplete construction projects layered with a hint of dog food, or something like it. I go to my locker, twist the knob of my combination lock, and yank open the door to my life. I reach in, grab my crumpled-up sweatshirt and 80s leather purse, say good-bye to whoever is within sight, and head back through the swinging doors.
I always washed my hands before leaving work. It was both a symbolic washing my hands of Wal-mart and also a literal washing of all the dust and grime that had accumulated on my fingertips as I swiped barcodes across the scanner and jammed grimey dollar bills into my cash drawer. (Plus, this Wal-mart, which was already enormous, was in the process of becoming a Super Wal-mart, so there was a layer of sawdust covering just about every inch of the store.) Anyway, there's a public restroom right outside the employee doors, so I head toward the door, being careful to avoid the scooter precariously parked outside of the doorway by a customer who was presumably unable to walk independently around the vast enormity that is the Ithaca Wal-mart.
I enter the ladies' room, assuming (stupidly) that I will be able to wash and dry my hands in peace and then be on my merry way. Instead, I am almost immediately met with the sight of a rather large woman standing in front of the electric hand dryer, pantsless. And I do mean pantsless. Completely naked from the waist down.
Now at this point, I have no idea what to do. Knowing full well that I can't just scream and run out of there--at the risk of embarrassing this woman even further--I simply make my way to the sink and begin the handwashing process, hoping to complete it as quickly as possible and making a mental note to use paper towels to dry my hands.
But of course my hopes of avoiding all interaction with this woman are dashed. Having found herself standing half-naked in a public restroom, she feels the need to provide to me an explanation for her actions.
"I don't usually take my pants off in public restrooms," she says to me.
I glance at myself in the mirror. Reverse Courtney, what do I do? My reflection gives me no counsel and instead simply stares back at me, horrified. I respond with something senseless like, "Oh. Ok."
She then proceeds to relay to me the following story: while driving down the road, she spilled her hot coffee on her lap and was so uncomfortable that she decided to come into Wal-mart and dry her pants and undergarments.
Now, this sort of makes sense. However, I failed to see the logic in what I later gathered must have been the process of her actions. She, 1), spills coffee on her lap. Ow, she thinks, that hurt. And my pants are wet, but I would prefer them to be dry.
2) She sees a Wal-mart in the distance, shining like a beacon of redemption and dryness.
3) She pulls up to the Wal-mart, parks her car, and gets out with some difficulty.
Here's where things get confusing. At this point, the coffee has undoubtedly cooled, though her pants may still be uncomfortably damp.
Now, personally, if it were me, I would tough it out in my wet pants and just drive home, where I could take my clothes off in my privacy of my own room.
But no. She instead decides to walk into Wal-mart, commandeer a scooter, drive all the way to the back of the store, park her scooter, enter the bathroom, take off her pants and her underwear in the public area of the restroom, and begin to dry them under the electric hand dryer, knowing full well that anyone could walk in an any time and be met with a very surprising and very unpleasant sight.
And yet, it is the decision she chose to make. And so, I finished washing my hands, avoiding looking anywhere but straight ahead and praying that she would not ask for my assistance. I exited the restroom, power-walked to the front of the store, said good-bye to my fellow cashiers, and burst out into the night air, knowing that--if nothing else--this encounter provided me with some serious material for a story.
Now, before I wrap this up, I just want say a couple of quick things about working at Wal-mart. It may have been unpleasant at times, and maybe it wasn't a postgraduate career that I wanted to pursue, but I would never take back those three months that I spent working there. It was one of the most educational and humbling times of my life. My co-workers were some of the nicest and most down-to-earth people I've ever met. Sure, there were some strange folks, but mostly, just genuinely honest people. People who ask how you are and actually care about your answer. A manager who sincerely thanked me for my time there when I announced that I had to leave.
And then of course there were the humbling moments. Times when customers would ask me about myself and be genuinely surprised that I was in college. Times when I would see people from school come in and feel embarrassed that I was working at Wal-mart--not because I doing research for some liberal expose of corporate America, but because I needed the money. Times when my professors would tell me to quit, not realizing that I couldn't.
But like I said, I would never take those moments back. Not every part of life is sparkly and shiny. Sometimes life is difficult--a lot more difficult than working at Wal-mart for a semester--and not everyone gets to experience that. So many people have to fight every single day to keep going, and so many other people have no idea what that's like. It would be so much easier to live with each other and to create a better world for each other if only everyone knew what it was like to struggle, even just a little bit.
I don't think everyone should go out and work at Wal-mart for a week, but maybe just take a step back from your life and realize that the amount of what you have is the exact amount of what you have to lose.
As some of you may know, I spent a brief time during my last semester of college working at Wal-mart. Yes, Wal-mart. I was going to school part-time, and I needed a job. Though I applied to a myriad of places around Ithaca, Wal-mart was the only establishment that was willing to employ me for just 3 months and then let me fly free. So, I donned my khaki pants, my navy blue shirt, and my little nametag, and I began my adventure at the Wal-mart in Ithaca, NY.
It was an experience. I was a cashier, so I got to deal with all of the customers first-hand. It was about a 50-50 split between college students and residents of Ithaca and the surrounding areas. Now, let's get this straight right now--Wal-mart definitely has a reputation for drawing customers from the more...interesting...scope of the population. If you've ever visited peopleofwalmart.com--or Wal-mart, for that matter--you know what I mean. Now, this being Ithaca, which is populated by mostly priveleged college students, I didn't have too many run-ins with really bizarre people. But I did meet some.
The story you are about to read is completely true. Any relation to persons living or dead is in fact purposeful.
It's 10 o'clock at night. I've just left my post at register 12, and I'm ready to end my shift. I'm shuffling to the back of the store toward the mysterious double doors labeled "Employees Only", my navy blue Keds scuffing along the dusty floor, hands in the pockets of my khaki pants. I bust through the swinging doors and am met by the smell of incomplete construction projects layered with a hint of dog food, or something like it. I go to my locker, twist the knob of my combination lock, and yank open the door to my life. I reach in, grab my crumpled-up sweatshirt and 80s leather purse, say good-bye to whoever is within sight, and head back through the swinging doors.
I always washed my hands before leaving work. It was both a symbolic washing my hands of Wal-mart and also a literal washing of all the dust and grime that had accumulated on my fingertips as I swiped barcodes across the scanner and jammed grimey dollar bills into my cash drawer. (Plus, this Wal-mart, which was already enormous, was in the process of becoming a Super Wal-mart, so there was a layer of sawdust covering just about every inch of the store.) Anyway, there's a public restroom right outside the employee doors, so I head toward the door, being careful to avoid the scooter precariously parked outside of the doorway by a customer who was presumably unable to walk independently around the vast enormity that is the Ithaca Wal-mart.
I enter the ladies' room, assuming (stupidly) that I will be able to wash and dry my hands in peace and then be on my merry way. Instead, I am almost immediately met with the sight of a rather large woman standing in front of the electric hand dryer, pantsless. And I do mean pantsless. Completely naked from the waist down.
Now at this point, I have no idea what to do. Knowing full well that I can't just scream and run out of there--at the risk of embarrassing this woman even further--I simply make my way to the sink and begin the handwashing process, hoping to complete it as quickly as possible and making a mental note to use paper towels to dry my hands.
But of course my hopes of avoiding all interaction with this woman are dashed. Having found herself standing half-naked in a public restroom, she feels the need to provide to me an explanation for her actions.
"I don't usually take my pants off in public restrooms," she says to me.
I glance at myself in the mirror. Reverse Courtney, what do I do? My reflection gives me no counsel and instead simply stares back at me, horrified. I respond with something senseless like, "Oh. Ok."
She then proceeds to relay to me the following story: while driving down the road, she spilled her hot coffee on her lap and was so uncomfortable that she decided to come into Wal-mart and dry her pants and undergarments.
Now, this sort of makes sense. However, I failed to see the logic in what I later gathered must have been the process of her actions. She, 1), spills coffee on her lap. Ow, she thinks, that hurt. And my pants are wet, but I would prefer them to be dry.
2) She sees a Wal-mart in the distance, shining like a beacon of redemption and dryness.
3) She pulls up to the Wal-mart, parks her car, and gets out with some difficulty.
Here's where things get confusing. At this point, the coffee has undoubtedly cooled, though her pants may still be uncomfortably damp.
Now, personally, if it were me, I would tough it out in my wet pants and just drive home, where I could take my clothes off in my privacy of my own room.
But no. She instead decides to walk into Wal-mart, commandeer a scooter, drive all the way to the back of the store, park her scooter, enter the bathroom, take off her pants and her underwear in the public area of the restroom, and begin to dry them under the electric hand dryer, knowing full well that anyone could walk in an any time and be met with a very surprising and very unpleasant sight.
And yet, it is the decision she chose to make. And so, I finished washing my hands, avoiding looking anywhere but straight ahead and praying that she would not ask for my assistance. I exited the restroom, power-walked to the front of the store, said good-bye to my fellow cashiers, and burst out into the night air, knowing that--if nothing else--this encounter provided me with some serious material for a story.
Now, before I wrap this up, I just want say a couple of quick things about working at Wal-mart. It may have been unpleasant at times, and maybe it wasn't a postgraduate career that I wanted to pursue, but I would never take back those three months that I spent working there. It was one of the most educational and humbling times of my life. My co-workers were some of the nicest and most down-to-earth people I've ever met. Sure, there were some strange folks, but mostly, just genuinely honest people. People who ask how you are and actually care about your answer. A manager who sincerely thanked me for my time there when I announced that I had to leave.
And then of course there were the humbling moments. Times when customers would ask me about myself and be genuinely surprised that I was in college. Times when I would see people from school come in and feel embarrassed that I was working at Wal-mart--not because I doing research for some liberal expose of corporate America, but because I needed the money. Times when my professors would tell me to quit, not realizing that I couldn't.
But like I said, I would never take those moments back. Not every part of life is sparkly and shiny. Sometimes life is difficult--a lot more difficult than working at Wal-mart for a semester--and not everyone gets to experience that. So many people have to fight every single day to keep going, and so many other people have no idea what that's like. It would be so much easier to live with each other and to create a better world for each other if only everyone knew what it was like to struggle, even just a little bit.
I don't think everyone should go out and work at Wal-mart for a week, but maybe just take a step back from your life and realize that the amount of what you have is the exact amount of what you have to lose.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Ch-ch-ch-changes...
One of my male co-workers forwarded me an article today from a feminist magazine that discussed the new generation of young adults and how glaringly different we are from our predecessors. We've created a new generation and with it, a new way of life--new expectations for ourselves, new motivations for accomplishing goals, new goals in general.
But one of the most interesting points made in the article was the theory that young men in their 20s are trying to extend their adolescence a little bit further than they have in the past. The author of the article, Kay Hymowitz, argues that young men who have graduated from college are still attempting to live a college-boy lifestyle. They aren't trying to get married, or become responsible father figures, or even necessarily live independently. They're trying to work full-time while still maintaining the care-free and sometimes drunken lifestyle that they maintained in college.
Now, granted, this is a generalization which of course I do not support--at least in full. But it is an interesting point. And the argument that the author made was that young men don't have to get into the responsible and stoic father/husband role just yet because young women are no longer heading toward the mother/wife role as quickly as they used to. Generations ago, women didn't even go to college. They moved through grade school and then prepared for life as a mother and wife. But now women are pursuing careers--not just jobs, but real careers. They don't have time to be pregnant, or engaged, or even in a relationship in their 20s.
As Hymowitz states, "Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing. "
But I must disagree. Just because women are starting to show more fortitude and courage doesn't mean men should give up on those things. While I do think that women have made great progess over the past few generations in terms of indpendence and gender equality, I certainly don't think that a young man who is responsible and faithful is something to be laughed about or to be embarrased by. To me, the most attractive men are the ones who take responsibility for their actions, who work hard, and who show respect for women, for their families, and for other people.
Does that mean I want to get married to a respectable young man tomorrow or even in the next few years? No. I am one of those girls who is trying to create a life for herself that consists of a career and complete financial independence. Because let's face it, you can't successfully be with someone else until you've learned how to be yourself. It sounds corny, but it's true. How can you share your life with someone else when you don't even know what life is?
Someone else I work with was talking about all of the uprisings that have been occurring in Africa and the Middle East and commented that the world was falling apart. But I had to argue. The world isn't falling apart, it's getting better. We're improving our own lives by rising up against oppressive leaders, stereotypes, and the expectations and boundaries set for us by past generations. Sure, we may have absolutely no clue what we're doing because we have no historical examples to follow, but the point is, we're doing something different. And despite its flaws, it seems to be working.
Here's the article (Thanks, Patty): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
But one of the most interesting points made in the article was the theory that young men in their 20s are trying to extend their adolescence a little bit further than they have in the past. The author of the article, Kay Hymowitz, argues that young men who have graduated from college are still attempting to live a college-boy lifestyle. They aren't trying to get married, or become responsible father figures, or even necessarily live independently. They're trying to work full-time while still maintaining the care-free and sometimes drunken lifestyle that they maintained in college.
Now, granted, this is a generalization which of course I do not support--at least in full. But it is an interesting point. And the argument that the author made was that young men don't have to get into the responsible and stoic father/husband role just yet because young women are no longer heading toward the mother/wife role as quickly as they used to. Generations ago, women didn't even go to college. They moved through grade school and then prepared for life as a mother and wife. But now women are pursuing careers--not just jobs, but real careers. They don't have time to be pregnant, or engaged, or even in a relationship in their 20s.
As Hymowitz states, "Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing. "
But I must disagree. Just because women are starting to show more fortitude and courage doesn't mean men should give up on those things. While I do think that women have made great progess over the past few generations in terms of indpendence and gender equality, I certainly don't think that a young man who is responsible and faithful is something to be laughed about or to be embarrased by. To me, the most attractive men are the ones who take responsibility for their actions, who work hard, and who show respect for women, for their families, and for other people.
Does that mean I want to get married to a respectable young man tomorrow or even in the next few years? No. I am one of those girls who is trying to create a life for herself that consists of a career and complete financial independence. Because let's face it, you can't successfully be with someone else until you've learned how to be yourself. It sounds corny, but it's true. How can you share your life with someone else when you don't even know what life is?
Someone else I work with was talking about all of the uprisings that have been occurring in Africa and the Middle East and commented that the world was falling apart. But I had to argue. The world isn't falling apart, it's getting better. We're improving our own lives by rising up against oppressive leaders, stereotypes, and the expectations and boundaries set for us by past generations. Sure, we may have absolutely no clue what we're doing because we have no historical examples to follow, but the point is, we're doing something different. And despite its flaws, it seems to be working.
Here's the article (Thanks, Patty): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Thursday, February 24, 2011
A Step in the Right Direction!
A couple of posts ago, I asked readers to go to freedomtomarry.org and write a letter to their state representatives, pleading with them to work to pass a bill that legalizes gay marriage. I wrote my letter, and I hope that some of you did too.
If you did, you might have made a difference. Yesterday, Obama declared that the federal government could no longer defend the fifteen year-old Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It also states that no state needs to acknowledge a same-sex marriage just because another state deems it a marriage.
So when Obama decided that the DOMA, which bans gay marriage, was unconstitutional, that was a step in the right direction. Not for just one state, but for the whole country.
And then to top it all off, today the Maryland Senate started the ball rolling by approving a bill that legalized gay marriage. Tomorrow, the House will begin their debate and voting process, and if they approve the bill, Governor O'Malley will sign the bill (as he promised to do during his run for office), and Maryland will become the 6th state to legalize gay marriage.
So what does this mean? It means that we're finally making progress when it comes to establishing equal rights for everyone. It means that the people who have been fighting to legalize gay marriage against all odds are finally starting to feel a sense of victory. It means that our own president is finally willing to admit that a ban against gay marriage is unconstitutional and that people who are fighting for equality are finally getting support from their own government.
Others will always fight to keep marriage as some kind of sacred and exclusive bond between a man and a woman. But we will keep fighting back. And someday, decades from now, people will laugh when they think that we ever had to fight at all. Someday marriage will be a right that is afforded to every couple. So keep writing and keep fighting until we've stomped out DOMA altogether!
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/134035020/after-obamas-gay-marriage-decision-a-new-world
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/maryland-senate-oks-bill-on-gay-marriage/
If you did, you might have made a difference. Yesterday, Obama declared that the federal government could no longer defend the fifteen year-old Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It also states that no state needs to acknowledge a same-sex marriage just because another state deems it a marriage.
So when Obama decided that the DOMA, which bans gay marriage, was unconstitutional, that was a step in the right direction. Not for just one state, but for the whole country.
And then to top it all off, today the Maryland Senate started the ball rolling by approving a bill that legalized gay marriage. Tomorrow, the House will begin their debate and voting process, and if they approve the bill, Governor O'Malley will sign the bill (as he promised to do during his run for office), and Maryland will become the 6th state to legalize gay marriage.
So what does this mean? It means that we're finally making progress when it comes to establishing equal rights for everyone. It means that the people who have been fighting to legalize gay marriage against all odds are finally starting to feel a sense of victory. It means that our own president is finally willing to admit that a ban against gay marriage is unconstitutional and that people who are fighting for equality are finally getting support from their own government.
Others will always fight to keep marriage as some kind of sacred and exclusive bond between a man and a woman. But we will keep fighting back. And someday, decades from now, people will laugh when they think that we ever had to fight at all. Someday marriage will be a right that is afforded to every couple. So keep writing and keep fighting until we've stomped out DOMA altogether!
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/134035020/after-obamas-gay-marriage-decision-a-new-world
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/maryland-senate-oks-bill-on-gay-marriage/
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Freedom for Egypt, but at what price for others?
As most people who don't live under a rock now know, on Friday, Egypt's president finally stepped down after a 30-year rule. The people of Egypt protested in the streets for weeks, wondering if and when President Mubarak would ever relinquish his power. Finally, on February 12th, he made the announcement that he would be giving up his presidential seat.
I was excited--in a world full of bad news, finally some victory for people who deserved it. But now, in the wake of this freedom, some other more disturbing stories are starting to surface. Like the report of CBS correspondent Lara Logan being brutally raped and beaten by a mob of men just after Mubarak made his announcement that he was stepping down.
Now sexual and physical assault is bad enough on its own. Rape is one of the most horrendous offenses anyone could commit against a woman. But in a situation like this, where a huge crowd of people has just earned themselves the victory of a lifetime, why would you choose to defile someone in that way? What possesses a person, who has just been freed from a lifetime of oppression by their own government, to then rob someone else of their sexual and physical freedom? Not to mention, a person who is there for the sole purpose of broadcasting said mob's jubilation and celebration of this long-awaited victory?
It's disgusting. When I first heard the story of Egypt's freedom, I was jealous of the energy that the people in those streets must have been feeling. To finally be free after decades of oppression and unfair rule? To be able to celebrate that moment with thousands upon thousands of people who are feeling the same glorious victory that you feel? But now I wonder what kind of energy must have been flowing through that crowd that would motivate a group of protestors who had just achieved a seemingly impossible goal to violate an innocent woman. What kind of celebration is that? What kind of message does that send?
Men are free, women will never be?
Our government is no longer figuratively raping us, let's literally rape someone else?
Let's metaphorically steal something from someone because we've had so much stolen from us?
We hate the United States?
Don't broadcast our freedom?
It makes you wonder what kind of world we live in. Will there never be any good news?
http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2011/02/15/17287441.html#/news/world/2011/02/15/pf-17287436.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12476771
I was excited--in a world full of bad news, finally some victory for people who deserved it. But now, in the wake of this freedom, some other more disturbing stories are starting to surface. Like the report of CBS correspondent Lara Logan being brutally raped and beaten by a mob of men just after Mubarak made his announcement that he was stepping down.
Now sexual and physical assault is bad enough on its own. Rape is one of the most horrendous offenses anyone could commit against a woman. But in a situation like this, where a huge crowd of people has just earned themselves the victory of a lifetime, why would you choose to defile someone in that way? What possesses a person, who has just been freed from a lifetime of oppression by their own government, to then rob someone else of their sexual and physical freedom? Not to mention, a person who is there for the sole purpose of broadcasting said mob's jubilation and celebration of this long-awaited victory?
It's disgusting. When I first heard the story of Egypt's freedom, I was jealous of the energy that the people in those streets must have been feeling. To finally be free after decades of oppression and unfair rule? To be able to celebrate that moment with thousands upon thousands of people who are feeling the same glorious victory that you feel? But now I wonder what kind of energy must have been flowing through that crowd that would motivate a group of protestors who had just achieved a seemingly impossible goal to violate an innocent woman. What kind of celebration is that? What kind of message does that send?
Men are free, women will never be?
Our government is no longer figuratively raping us, let's literally rape someone else?
Let's metaphorically steal something from someone because we've had so much stolen from us?
We hate the United States?
Don't broadcast our freedom?
It makes you wonder what kind of world we live in. Will there never be any good news?
http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2011/02/15/17287441.html#/news/world/2011/02/15/pf-17287436.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12476771
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Could craigslist users get any dumber?
Probably.
It seems like craigslist's reputation gets worse and worse with each passing day. First, craigslist was tainted by the so-called "craigslist killer" who not only used craigslist to find murder victims but then earned a top spot on the Lifetime Movie Network with his self-titled made-for-tv movie.
But craigslist has become more than just a place to find roommates, cheap appliances, and victims. Now it is also serving as a brothel and a blackmarket for stolen goods! Oh, and did I mention that it's now the perfect place to ruin your political career?
That's right; up until recently, craigslist operated an "adult services" section where people could apparently both advertise and look for opportunities that were less than...wholesome. The website shut down this section after pressure from state attorneys and activist groups, but don't worry, weirdos. The prostitutes haven't disappeared. They've moved to facebook.
If that wasn't enough to keep people from using craigslist for anything legitimate ever again, maybe this is: now craigslist is a place where you can sell goods you've stolen from Wal-mart for a profit! That's right, if you're like the Florida woman who was charged with grand theft for stealing electronics from her local superstore, craigslist might be just the place for you. Just don't sell the hard drives to an undercover police detective. Oh, and maybe you should scratch the serial numbers off of the devices so that your local Wal-mart can't match them to the items recently stolen from their establishment.
And as if there weren't enough avenues for politicians to completely destroy their careers, Republican Congressman Chris Lee has found another one in craigslist. The worst part is, he didn't even make an earnest attempt to hide his identity before he sent topless photos of himself to some random woman he found on the site. Oh wait, he did change his name. From Chris Lee to Christopher Lee. And instead of admitting he was a congressman, he told her he was a lobbyist. Really, buddy? That's the best you can do? At least he was smart enough to resign from Congress after that whole debacle. And to think these are the people we have running our country.
I think these stories are just more fuel for the argument that we need to take a few steps back from technology. Or at least from weird illegitimate websites.
Here are the articles for these awesome stories:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110207/23394213001/prostitutes-have-just-moved-craigslist-to-facebook.shtml
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-02-07/news/os-sanford-computer-parts-arrest-20110207_1_external-hard-drives-craigslist-ads-portable-hard-drives
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/rep_chris_lee_r-craigslist.html
It seems like craigslist's reputation gets worse and worse with each passing day. First, craigslist was tainted by the so-called "craigslist killer" who not only used craigslist to find murder victims but then earned a top spot on the Lifetime Movie Network with his self-titled made-for-tv movie.
But craigslist has become more than just a place to find roommates, cheap appliances, and victims. Now it is also serving as a brothel and a blackmarket for stolen goods! Oh, and did I mention that it's now the perfect place to ruin your political career?
That's right; up until recently, craigslist operated an "adult services" section where people could apparently both advertise and look for opportunities that were less than...wholesome. The website shut down this section after pressure from state attorneys and activist groups, but don't worry, weirdos. The prostitutes haven't disappeared. They've moved to facebook.
If that wasn't enough to keep people from using craigslist for anything legitimate ever again, maybe this is: now craigslist is a place where you can sell goods you've stolen from Wal-mart for a profit! That's right, if you're like the Florida woman who was charged with grand theft for stealing electronics from her local superstore, craigslist might be just the place for you. Just don't sell the hard drives to an undercover police detective. Oh, and maybe you should scratch the serial numbers off of the devices so that your local Wal-mart can't match them to the items recently stolen from their establishment.
And as if there weren't enough avenues for politicians to completely destroy their careers, Republican Congressman Chris Lee has found another one in craigslist. The worst part is, he didn't even make an earnest attempt to hide his identity before he sent topless photos of himself to some random woman he found on the site. Oh wait, he did change his name. From Chris Lee to Christopher Lee. And instead of admitting he was a congressman, he told her he was a lobbyist. Really, buddy? That's the best you can do? At least he was smart enough to resign from Congress after that whole debacle. And to think these are the people we have running our country.
I think these stories are just more fuel for the argument that we need to take a few steps back from technology. Or at least from weird illegitimate websites.
Here are the articles for these awesome stories:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110207/23394213001/prostitutes-have-just-moved-craigslist-to-facebook.shtml
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-02-07/news/os-sanford-computer-parts-arrest-20110207_1_external-hard-drives-craigslist-ads-portable-hard-drives
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/rep_chris_lee_r-craigslist.html
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Freedom to marry
Maryland legislators are going to be voting on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Please visit freedomtomarry.org to write a letter to your state representative, urging them to vote for equal marriage rights for all.
There is a standard letter already composed for you if you don't know what to say.
This is what I wrote:
I live in your district at [my address] and I am writing to urge you to vote for a bill allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.
America has long been hailed as a place where people can be free. Being able to marry someone that you love, no matter what, should be one of those freedoms.
As a young woman who hopes to have a family of her own one day, I want to know that I will be able to raise my children in a state--and someday a country--where everyone is afforded the same rights.
We have a responsibility to our fellow humans. You, as state representatives, have the power to make the change that no one else can--to finally give same-sex couples the same rights as everyone else.
Thank you,
[my name]
I'm not going to make an argument for same-sex marriage here. If you don't already believe that everyone should have the same rights in marriage, reading a blog post by someone--no matter who it is--isn't going to change your mind.
But if you, like many others, believe that everyone should be afforded the same rights, please take a couple of minutes to visit freedomtomarry.org and send a letter to your representatives.
We have to start taking care of each other.
There is a standard letter already composed for you if you don't know what to say.
This is what I wrote:
I live in your district at [my address] and I am writing to urge you to vote for a bill allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.
America has long been hailed as a place where people can be free. Being able to marry someone that you love, no matter what, should be one of those freedoms.
As a young woman who hopes to have a family of her own one day, I want to know that I will be able to raise my children in a state--and someday a country--where everyone is afforded the same rights.
We have a responsibility to our fellow humans. You, as state representatives, have the power to make the change that no one else can--to finally give same-sex couples the same rights as everyone else.
Thank you,
[my name]
I'm not going to make an argument for same-sex marriage here. If you don't already believe that everyone should have the same rights in marriage, reading a blog post by someone--no matter who it is--isn't going to change your mind.
But if you, like many others, believe that everyone should be afforded the same rights, please take a couple of minutes to visit freedomtomarry.org and send a letter to your representatives.
We have to start taking care of each other.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
News in a bag
Behold, the news. Compressed:
Snow is coming to the United States. The average household has enough food for 3 days. So we're about nine meals away from anarchy. Similarly, the average Marylander is about nine minutes away from abandoning their car on the side of the road in the middle of a snowstorm. Or a rainstorm. Or a strong wind.
Illegal immigration in the US is stabilizing. Oddly, right after Obama delivers his State of the Union address, foreigners are deciding they no longer want to live here.
Looking for the cool new white iPhone 4? Good luck. Even Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak had to buy the parts online. Illegally. From a teenager.
Finally people are reconsidering the utopian dream that is universal healthcare. Turns out being forced to purchase health care benefits isn't so great when you'd rather spend your money on food.
Mubarak (that's the president of Egypt, people) has finally announced that he will not run for re-election. Really? But, Mubarak, you have so many fans.
Breaking news: Charlie Sheen is addicted to drugs, sex, and he's also kind of a jerk. Even Joan Rivers thinks he's "awful." Lindsay Lohan feels bad for him, though. Maybe she can fill in for him on Two and a Half Men.
Snow is coming to the United States. The average household has enough food for 3 days. So we're about nine meals away from anarchy. Similarly, the average Marylander is about nine minutes away from abandoning their car on the side of the road in the middle of a snowstorm. Or a rainstorm. Or a strong wind.
Illegal immigration in the US is stabilizing. Oddly, right after Obama delivers his State of the Union address, foreigners are deciding they no longer want to live here.
Looking for the cool new white iPhone 4? Good luck. Even Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak had to buy the parts online. Illegally. From a teenager.
Finally people are reconsidering the utopian dream that is universal healthcare. Turns out being forced to purchase health care benefits isn't so great when you'd rather spend your money on food.
Mubarak (that's the president of Egypt, people) has finally announced that he will not run for re-election. Really? But, Mubarak, you have so many fans.
Breaking news: Charlie Sheen is addicted to drugs, sex, and he's also kind of a jerk. Even Joan Rivers thinks he's "awful." Lindsay Lohan feels bad for him, though. Maybe she can fill in for him on Two and a Half Men.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Is there no good news anymore?
In case you haven't picked up a newspaper lately, or watched any non-fiction TV that doesn't have the word "Jersey" in it, let me sum up a few of the most popular news stories for you:
For those of you who advocate the second amendment (that's the right to bear arms if you're not up to date on the U.S. constitution), worry not. Sarah Palin is fighting your battles for you at the Safari Club convention. That's right, she's rallying a bunch of people in ankle-length fur coats and necklaces made of exotic teeth to take up their semi-automatic weapons, fly to a foreign country, hop in a humvee, and shoot a bunch of animals, not for the purpose of feeding their families, but for creating a zoo of death in their basements. What, Grandma didn't have a recipe for leopard stew?
Good luck convincing Capitol Hill to loosen gun laws with this crack team representing you.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/30/sarah-palin-s-gun-control-warnings-at-safari-club-international.html
Hate gay people? Eat at Chick Fil-A!
Or at least that's how some people have been interpreting this chicken chain's business practices. Apparently they run a foundation called WinShape that helps married couples maintain healthy marriages. They claimed that the curriculum taught on the retreats is aimed at heterosexual couples, which caused people to infer that Chick Fil-A bans gay couples from the counseling. But, according to the following article, that's untrue. Still, they play Christian music in some of their stores. That's enough to make any non-Christian uncomfortable. You know what they say, don't pray where you eat. Wait, "pray" is not the word I'm looking for...
http://www.ajc.com/business/chick-fil-a-counters-821566.html
Here's some breaking news: Someone bought the first-ever map of the US for $1.8 million. Great investment, buddy. A map that shows Virginia stretching from the Chesapeake to the Ohio River. Don't give away your GPS just yet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/30/AR2011013003337.html
Apparently if you want to sell drugs legally, all you have to do is disguise them as bath salts. Great job, DEA. Nothing gets past you. Fifty dollars for a tiny packet of aromatherapy. That's not suspicious at all.
-Gee, honey, little Petey sure has been taking a lot of baths lately.
-Oh, well, he's getting to that age where hygiene matters.
Actually, he's addicted to meth.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-drugs-bathsalts-idINTRE70T3PR20110130
Next thing you know, they'll be selling medical marijuana under the guise of a soft drink. Oh wait...
http://gizmodo.com/5746723/canna-cola-a-soda-spiked-with-marijuana
No Christians or big-game hunters were harmed in the making of this blog.
For those of you who advocate the second amendment (that's the right to bear arms if you're not up to date on the U.S. constitution), worry not. Sarah Palin is fighting your battles for you at the Safari Club convention. That's right, she's rallying a bunch of people in ankle-length fur coats and necklaces made of exotic teeth to take up their semi-automatic weapons, fly to a foreign country, hop in a humvee, and shoot a bunch of animals, not for the purpose of feeding their families, but for creating a zoo of death in their basements. What, Grandma didn't have a recipe for leopard stew?
Good luck convincing Capitol Hill to loosen gun laws with this crack team representing you.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/30/sarah-palin-s-gun-control-warnings-at-safari-club-international.html
Hate gay people? Eat at Chick Fil-A!
Or at least that's how some people have been interpreting this chicken chain's business practices. Apparently they run a foundation called WinShape that helps married couples maintain healthy marriages. They claimed that the curriculum taught on the retreats is aimed at heterosexual couples, which caused people to infer that Chick Fil-A bans gay couples from the counseling. But, according to the following article, that's untrue. Still, they play Christian music in some of their stores. That's enough to make any non-Christian uncomfortable. You know what they say, don't pray where you eat. Wait, "pray" is not the word I'm looking for...
http://www.ajc.com/business/chick-fil-a-counters-821566.html
Here's some breaking news: Someone bought the first-ever map of the US for $1.8 million. Great investment, buddy. A map that shows Virginia stretching from the Chesapeake to the Ohio River. Don't give away your GPS just yet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/30/AR2011013003337.html
Apparently if you want to sell drugs legally, all you have to do is disguise them as bath salts. Great job, DEA. Nothing gets past you. Fifty dollars for a tiny packet of aromatherapy. That's not suspicious at all.
-Gee, honey, little Petey sure has been taking a lot of baths lately.
-Oh, well, he's getting to that age where hygiene matters.
Actually, he's addicted to meth.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-drugs-bathsalts-idINTRE70T3PR20110130
Next thing you know, they'll be selling medical marijuana under the guise of a soft drink. Oh wait...
http://gizmodo.com/5746723/canna-cola-a-soda-spiked-with-marijuana
No Christians or big-game hunters were harmed in the making of this blog.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Take off your tie, or you're fired.
This is what John Stone, a car salesman at a dealership in Chicago was told by his boss last week. He wore a Greenbay Packers tie to work, and because his manager was a Bears fan, the manager asked Stone to remove his tie. Twice.
Now, I don't really care about football, but I know that people can get pretty emotional about their team loyalties. But to ask someone to remove a tie that supports the competing team? That seems unreasonable.
To fire that person because they refused to remove their neckwear seems even more unreasonable. And yet, it happened.
Is this what the world is coming to? People are so stubborn and sensitive about a sport that they are willing to seriously threaten the livelihood of someone merely because they support a different team?
Well that manager is really kicking himself now. Not only does he look like a complete idiot and a sore loser for firing someone because their necktie reminded him that their team beat his team, but now Stone is getting calls from Packers fans all over the country who want to buy a car from him and only him!
And he's been offered a job at another dealership by a guy who felt sympathy for him when he read about his story in the news. So I guess it's a happy ending. But still, it makes you wonder about that manager: was there really nothing more important for him to get upset about?
http://www.suntimes.com/3488244-417/stone-packers-wearing-bears-fired.html
Now, I don't really care about football, but I know that people can get pretty emotional about their team loyalties. But to ask someone to remove a tie that supports the competing team? That seems unreasonable.
To fire that person because they refused to remove their neckwear seems even more unreasonable. And yet, it happened.
Is this what the world is coming to? People are so stubborn and sensitive about a sport that they are willing to seriously threaten the livelihood of someone merely because they support a different team?
Well that manager is really kicking himself now. Not only does he look like a complete idiot and a sore loser for firing someone because their necktie reminded him that their team beat his team, but now Stone is getting calls from Packers fans all over the country who want to buy a car from him and only him!
And he's been offered a job at another dealership by a guy who felt sympathy for him when he read about his story in the news. So I guess it's a happy ending. But still, it makes you wonder about that manager: was there really nothing more important for him to get upset about?
http://www.suntimes.com/3488244-417/stone-packers-wearing-bears-fired.html
Sunday, January 16, 2011
If I had a million dollars...
I would save it, because apparently there is nothing worth buying these days. Let's take a look at some of the popular items for sale right now:
The Shakeweight: Seriously? One, it makes you look like a complete idiot. And two, just go lift a real weight.
"Weights are expensive, though!"
Lift a jug of water.
The Snuggie: It's a bathrobe on backwards. Don't have a bathrobe? Cut two holes in a blanket. Boom. Sleeves.
Pajama Jeans: If your pants are so uncomfortable that you feel like you have to line them with fleece just to leave the house in the morning, you have bigger problems. Not to mention, they only come in one color. If these hybrid pants actually become popular, every woman will be wearing the same exact jeans. How will we tell people apart?
Here's a little gadget I found on asseenontv.com (that's As Seen, not Ass Een), called the Watch Phone. Confused by the overwhelmingly creative name, you ask, "What is this thing?" Well, it's a watch in which you can insert your SIM card (sorry, Verizon), and it becomes, well, a phone. Now, people who are really attracted to this idea will conjure up images of James Bond and think, "Oh yes! I can buy this and be like a really cool spy." Except for the fact that you will stick out like a sore thumb when people see you having a conversation with your watch. Mission abort.
There is a good side to this, though. If you were thinking about inventing something but figured no one would ever buy anything as weird as what you created in your bizarre little mind, think again! Because apparently people will buy just about anything.
The Shakeweight: Seriously? One, it makes you look like a complete idiot. And two, just go lift a real weight.
"Weights are expensive, though!"
Lift a jug of water.
The Snuggie: It's a bathrobe on backwards. Don't have a bathrobe? Cut two holes in a blanket. Boom. Sleeves.
Pajama Jeans: If your pants are so uncomfortable that you feel like you have to line them with fleece just to leave the house in the morning, you have bigger problems. Not to mention, they only come in one color. If these hybrid pants actually become popular, every woman will be wearing the same exact jeans. How will we tell people apart?
Here's a little gadget I found on asseenontv.com (that's As Seen, not Ass Een), called the Watch Phone. Confused by the overwhelmingly creative name, you ask, "What is this thing?" Well, it's a watch in which you can insert your SIM card (sorry, Verizon), and it becomes, well, a phone. Now, people who are really attracted to this idea will conjure up images of James Bond and think, "Oh yes! I can buy this and be like a really cool spy." Except for the fact that you will stick out like a sore thumb when people see you having a conversation with your watch. Mission abort.
There is a good side to this, though. If you were thinking about inventing something but figured no one would ever buy anything as weird as what you created in your bizarre little mind, think again! Because apparently people will buy just about anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)