As some of you may or may not know my boyfriend "The Chef" recently moved in with me. So far my desire to strangle him has been quite minimal. Though my hopes for a cleaner apartment and home Chefed meals so far have not become a reality. It's awesome having him around. And I should point out that not only do we live together, he also work sat my company. Ohhh the togetherness. ::vomit::
So Imagine his mirth when he opened up the Red Eye yesterday to an article entitled "Planning to live together? Only fools rush in." He showed it to me and I was hoping for some really interesting commentary on how living together is hard, and how long most people should wait, some statistics maybe (not that they'd be valid, but y'know... they're kinda factual).
But I should have expected less from a column entitled "Sex Playbook":
"I've grown accustomed to my alone time. I can't imagine a woman moving in with me. Like in the movie "Independence Day": When the aliens invaded, their plan to cohabit Earth didn't work. It wouldn't work if my personal space were invaded, either."
Clearly Jon watched a different version of Independence Day. The Aliens weren't looking to cohabitate with humans, they were looking to exterminate. I know they both end in ate, but surely someone who writes for a newspaper can tell the difference. And if your girlfreind is working on exterminating you...well... then perhaps we need to be a bit more choosy, eh?
He Goes on:
Yes, guys, your past can slowly slip away from you during a live-in situation. I once was exclusive with a woman who never wanted to sleep in my bed because she knew I'd had sex with other women in it. As comfy as the bed was, she said if we ever lived together I'd have to get rid of it. The bed's still here, so you know how that relationship turned out
It seems to me Jon, that your problem isn't so much that you don't want to live with women, it's that you don't want to live with PSYCHO women. This is NOT normal behavior, and that you tolerated it leads me to believe that this woman was either VERY hot, or that you are VERY dumb.
I keep waiting for the part where he talks about how he wouldn't be able to watch porn and jerk it anymore. That part is true. But y'know having a sex partner around all the time is pretty fun.
He ends with some good advice. "If, like me, you are not thrilled with the thought of living with your girlfriend, don't do it. Decline until you're sure you can handle it." This has been an update from the department of DUH! If you don't jump at the chance to spend every spare moment possible with someone, (well maybe not EVERY spare moment, but most of them)then you shouldn't even be considering living together.
The reason, in my opinion that Jon doesn't want to live with a girl, and therefore thinks it is a bad idea for everyone else, is that he hasn't actually dated a girl he really liked as a person. He probably liked them as girls, strange entities with breasts and nice concave parts. But it turns out girls are people too, we have interests and personalities. I know in his strange world where only getting a peice of tail matters this doesn't actually matter.
His view of women seems to be this shrill force that will invade your home and change all your habits. Well I have a few suggestions for him:
1. Date women you actually like as people ( see above) preferalby reality based life forms that understand you have a past and wont manipulate you with it.
2. Get to actually know them as a person before you consider moving in together. This means you have to like them beyond liking nailing them.
3.Don't move them into your house, or you move into theirs, move into a new place together. This way you can both bring your individuality together, to create a space where you will both be comfortable, but neither of you will be on "home" turf.
Or, y'know, keep dating multiple crazy chicks at a time. Sounds like it's workin for ya.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
On Being Overplayed
We're sorry Mr. Timberlake, but you can't bring sexy back without a reciept.
(stolen from a facebook group)
(stolen from a facebook group)
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Single Sex Schools
Reading Jill's views against the idea of dividing public schools I see her points. I don't think that either boys or girls will benefit from the dumbing down of subjects to make them "easier to grasp" or "gender friendly" and I don't think that boys and girls should be divided during school because their learning sytles are different. In fact, I don't really buy the whole "making learning fun" thing. Learning, real learning, is hard, and if you aren't expected to do it you aren't going to, regardless of who is in your class.
However do think that they students can benefit from being split up during middle and highschool. Why? Because of sex.
I don't care if teenagers have sex, I'm not a prude. I remember very well that they do, and there is nothing we can do to stop them. In fact, I went to a single sex school. All girls, catholic, uniforms, blah blah naughty male fantasy blah blah. And nobody had any trouble getting laid.
I remember in high school I'd occasionally go out with public school kids, and they'd recoil with horror, "how do you go to single sex school, how BORING what do you DO all day."
Shockingly, we learned stuff.
Without the distraction of flirting during school hours us ladies were able to show up, sans makeup and actually get some actual learning done. This is not to say that it is impossible to learn in a co ed environment, it is demonstrably not. But for some girls I think having the opportunity to focus on school without having to worry about the guy they liked sitting behind them was a big benefit. And I can imagine that guys would reap similar benefits. (Though I am not a guy, so...yeah)
I've heard arguments that single sex school makes it harder for the students to interact with members of the opposite sex. But in my experience, areas with a lot of single sex schools (St. Louis, where I grew up, being one) have a lot of co ed extracurriculars. Tons of events are created simply for the purpose of having different schools get to gether so guys and girls are able to mingle. Theaters open auditions to members of the opposite sex from other schools. There are even cross over classes in some schools, my school offered Latin III with another nearby guys school. And another area girls school had joint group projects with nearby guys schools, making the two genders work together on occasion.
So you go to school, all day and learn, and then AFTER school you flirt. I think this is a good plan. It takes some of the sexual focus away from school. Not that school shouldn't be social, after all, students need to learn to work together, but we all know how distracting having a crush can be, or wanting to flirt with someone, or impress someone. Taking those people away (for the straight folks at least) will help minimize the sex related distractions.
This is mentioned in the slate article Jill links to breifly. But I think it is more important than they realize. I think Most teenagers are distracted by attraction to others. It's a distracting thing, and I presume it has something to do with hormones, but I could be wrong. Another thing they mention breifly:
However do think that they students can benefit from being split up during middle and highschool. Why? Because of sex.
I don't care if teenagers have sex, I'm not a prude. I remember very well that they do, and there is nothing we can do to stop them. In fact, I went to a single sex school. All girls, catholic, uniforms, blah blah naughty male fantasy blah blah. And nobody had any trouble getting laid.
I remember in high school I'd occasionally go out with public school kids, and they'd recoil with horror, "how do you go to single sex school, how BORING what do you DO all day."
Shockingly, we learned stuff.
Without the distraction of flirting during school hours us ladies were able to show up, sans makeup and actually get some actual learning done. This is not to say that it is impossible to learn in a co ed environment, it is demonstrably not. But for some girls I think having the opportunity to focus on school without having to worry about the guy they liked sitting behind them was a big benefit. And I can imagine that guys would reap similar benefits. (Though I am not a guy, so...yeah)
I've heard arguments that single sex school makes it harder for the students to interact with members of the opposite sex. But in my experience, areas with a lot of single sex schools (St. Louis, where I grew up, being one) have a lot of co ed extracurriculars. Tons of events are created simply for the purpose of having different schools get to gether so guys and girls are able to mingle. Theaters open auditions to members of the opposite sex from other schools. There are even cross over classes in some schools, my school offered Latin III with another nearby guys school. And another area girls school had joint group projects with nearby guys schools, making the two genders work together on occasion.
So you go to school, all day and learn, and then AFTER school you flirt. I think this is a good plan. It takes some of the sexual focus away from school. Not that school shouldn't be social, after all, students need to learn to work together, but we all know how distracting having a crush can be, or wanting to flirt with someone, or impress someone. Taking those people away (for the straight folks at least) will help minimize the sex related distractions.
This is mentioned in the slate article Jill links to breifly. But I think it is more important than they realize. I think Most teenagers are distracted by attraction to others. It's a distracting thing, and I presume it has something to do with hormones, but I could be wrong. Another thing they mention breifly:
Proponents of single-sex education would protest that their approach gives
children more latitude to carve out a distinctive identity. Removing "the other"
from the classroom can help kids conceive of themselves as individuals rather
than as members of a gender.
This, to me is very personal. Because that has been my experience. I don't think of myself as a girl, I think of myself as a person, who happens to have female genetalia. I think the biggest effect my gender has on me, is making me a feminist, because I feel (now, I never did in highschool) that I am being pushed into traditional gender roles that I don't identify with. Now maybe that's just because I'm a masculine girl, that could be argued, I suppose. But I think it is because I am independant of gender classifications. I do girly things because I like them, not because I'm supposed to, and I do guy things because I like them, not because I'm trying to be a guy. It's not about gender, it's about doing what you enjoy and being who you are.
But ultimately I think schools should be a choice. A single sex school wont be a better place for a kid if it is a bad single sex school. Parents should be able to evaluate the schools and choose based on a free market type system. They know their child best, and know what kind of environments they will thrive in so they should be the "decider"s when it comes to their kid.
(Edited at 3:30, for content)
Friday, November 10, 2006
Jon Stewart: Jokemaker
An article at town hall (via insty) declares that Jon Stewart was the kingmaker in this election.
But I think that the article couldn't be more wrong. While I agree that Jon Stewart gives voice to liberal frustrations with government through humor, I don't see him as a bastion of liberalism. And nothing he says changes my mind, but it does make me laugh, even when I disagree.
Rusty compares The Daily Show to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. Seriously... What are you smoking?
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh you say? Ah yes, I don't like him, this clearly must be because I am a liberal communism loving hippie who's about to go out and preform 1000 abortions. Or it could be because he is close minded and represents no opinions but his own.
Rusty seems to think that this is what Jon Stewart does as well. But he often has right leaning authors and political figures on his show. And while sometimes Jon will strongly and respectfully disagree with these figures, it rarely gets to the point of, lets say The O'Rielly Factor. He lets these people talk and sometimes one even comes away from the interviews finding common ground with the other side.
One of the things that Daily Show segments frequently poke fun at is the partisanship and combativeness of most news shows. (Not to mention some of the TERRIBLE coverage on 24 hour news networks.) The Colbert Report alone is a huge spoof on The O'Rielly Factor, the idea that one man's opinions are all that matters when it comes to news. And there used to be a segment called Steven versus Steven where Steven Colbert and "The guy from 40 year old Virgin" argued about absolutely nothing. This mocking isn't brainwashing college students against network news, or telling them to go vote democrat. It is pointing out how ridiculous our news coverage has be come, and laughing at the ridiculous things the folks in washington do.
The Daily Show is making Jokes, and Rusty has it right, the audience already knows the punchline to all these jokes. The Daily Show is giving vent to a frustrated younger audience who are tired of combative political commentary and ridiculous headlines that don't mean anything. It allows us to laugh at the painful news coverage of other networks, and the cringeworthy stupidity of some of our politicians.
Jon Stewart didn't make the Democrats more popular. He made Jokes. The Democrats were more popular because they haven't been able to screw anything up for the last 6 years.
Maybe the reason the Democrats won is just what it seems like, people were tired of the Republicans.
Below is a quote from a commentor at townhall called FlimFlamman, I'm re-posting it because I can't link it and I think it is a much better rebuttle of Rusty's article than my post was:
flimflamman writes:
Friday, November, 10, 2006 10:45 AM
Same-old, same-old
Even for its great length, this column is just the same tired, specious argument against The Daily Show. For starters, the main thesis -- that Jon Stewart and cohorts scored the election for the Dems -- doesn't even make sense. Shackleford charges that the nation's youth are zonked out on Stewart's anti-GOP yuks. But that didn't help back in 2004, when the show kicked into far higher gear than it did this past month. (Indeed, the Daily Show mocked the importance of midterm elections as recently as Monday night.) Not to mention: have you not read the polling data? It wasn't only the youth who came out, but everyone. Even 1/3 of Evangelicals turned their back on their conservative brethren and voted Dem. Betcha they're not injecting the Daily Show into their veins every night!
But the problem with this column runs far deeper. The Daily Show has a liberal bias?! What a scoop! Shackleford tries to balloon this into a case that Stewart and Rush Limbaugh are one and the same. But he fails to remotely back this up with evidence -- unless you count claiming that both are stumping for one side of the political spectrum is proof of equivalence. If we're going to define partisanship so narrowly, then who isn't an extreme lunatic who mocks and questions the validity of those suffering from major diseases for ratings and attention?
Shackleford asserts that Stewart's attempt at bi-partisanship has failed miserably, but can't cite a single example, or at least one that holds up to scrutiny. He mentions Bill O'Reilly getting booed when he comes on the show. But that wasnt' Stewart encouraging the boos; in fact, if anything it was O'Reilly who was explicitly encouraging the boos, even scolding the audience. Stewart tries to engage those who disagrees with in a debate. His problem is that he's actually too polite, and winds up cowering when his opponent gets worked up. A year or so ago, he had Rick Santorum on the show. Stewart was nothing but polite to him, and sincerely tried to get to the bottom of his extreme beliefs. When Santorum ducked a question and went off on a rant, Stewart all but hid underneath the desk. Just like Rush Limbaugh! Oh wait...
You also cite Dan Rather being on the show Tuesday night, and how Stewart joked with him rather than grilled him on the events that caused him to prematurely retire. But he fails to mention that this wasn't a typical interview -- it was a special, covering the Midterm Elections. They were joking, sure, but they were joking about...the Midterm Elections. It wasn't a typical interview. He was there as a specialist, someone who's covered elections for most of his life.
There's no doubt that Stewart is a little easier on those with whom he agrees. But not by much. Shackleford claims, "Conservatives are lampoon for being conservative, liberals for not being liberal enough" [sic]. But he fails to cite a single example of Stewart and co. being extreme. They mock the democrats for being wimps (like conservatives!), but never for not being extreme.
And then there's the claim that they have it out for Fox News. What Shackleford fails to note is that they back this hatred up with evidence on a near-daily basis. The way Shackleford words it, it's as though they simply mock Fox News for no good reason. But that hatred is well-founded and buttressed by a neverending supply of clips and analysis.
Lastly, there's this sorry claim: that the youth are getting all their news from The Daily Show. To even understand what the Daily Show does (or for that matter, The Daily Kos), one has to have a working knowledge not just of the news that day, but of news history -- news in general. Young people may not be watching CNN, Fox News or the 6:00 network news. But you don't have to these days. The web has many places one can get news, analysis, and so forth. These days, it's next to impossible to remain ignorant of the news.
The saddest part? Had the Dems won in 2004, this column could've come out, with only minor variations. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Shackleford had written it before Election Day '04 and dusted it off after Election Day '06. That's how relevant and trenchant it is.
P.S. Jon Stewart's name is spelled "Jon." It does alternate between having an "h" and not having an "h," as it does serially throughout this column. Not that fact-checking need be applied to soapbox rants.
But I think that the article couldn't be more wrong. While I agree that Jon Stewart gives voice to liberal frustrations with government through humor, I don't see him as a bastion of liberalism. And nothing he says changes my mind, but it does make me laugh, even when I disagree.
Rusty compares The Daily Show to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. Seriously... What are you smoking?
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh you say? Ah yes, I don't like him, this clearly must be because I am a liberal communism loving hippie who's about to go out and preform 1000 abortions. Or it could be because he is close minded and represents no opinions but his own.
Rusty seems to think that this is what Jon Stewart does as well. But he often has right leaning authors and political figures on his show. And while sometimes Jon will strongly and respectfully disagree with these figures, it rarely gets to the point of, lets say The O'Rielly Factor. He lets these people talk and sometimes one even comes away from the interviews finding common ground with the other side.
One of the things that Daily Show segments frequently poke fun at is the partisanship and combativeness of most news shows. (Not to mention some of the TERRIBLE coverage on 24 hour news networks.) The Colbert Report alone is a huge spoof on The O'Rielly Factor, the idea that one man's opinions are all that matters when it comes to news. And there used to be a segment called Steven versus Steven where Steven Colbert and "The guy from 40 year old Virgin" argued about absolutely nothing. This mocking isn't brainwashing college students against network news, or telling them to go vote democrat. It is pointing out how ridiculous our news coverage has be come, and laughing at the ridiculous things the folks in washington do.
The Daily Show is making Jokes, and Rusty has it right, the audience already knows the punchline to all these jokes. The Daily Show is giving vent to a frustrated younger audience who are tired of combative political commentary and ridiculous headlines that don't mean anything. It allows us to laugh at the painful news coverage of other networks, and the cringeworthy stupidity of some of our politicians.
Jon Stewart didn't make the Democrats more popular. He made Jokes. The Democrats were more popular because they haven't been able to screw anything up for the last 6 years.
Maybe the reason the Democrats won is just what it seems like, people were tired of the Republicans.
Below is a quote from a commentor at townhall called FlimFlamman, I'm re-posting it because I can't link it and I think it is a much better rebuttle of Rusty's article than my post was:
flimflamman writes:
Friday, November, 10, 2006 10:45 AM
Same-old, same-old
Even for its great length, this column is just the same tired, specious argument against The Daily Show. For starters, the main thesis -- that Jon Stewart and cohorts scored the election for the Dems -- doesn't even make sense. Shackleford charges that the nation's youth are zonked out on Stewart's anti-GOP yuks. But that didn't help back in 2004, when the show kicked into far higher gear than it did this past month. (Indeed, the Daily Show mocked the importance of midterm elections as recently as Monday night.) Not to mention: have you not read the polling data? It wasn't only the youth who came out, but everyone. Even 1/3 of Evangelicals turned their back on their conservative brethren and voted Dem. Betcha they're not injecting the Daily Show into their veins every night!
But the problem with this column runs far deeper. The Daily Show has a liberal bias?! What a scoop! Shackleford tries to balloon this into a case that Stewart and Rush Limbaugh are one and the same. But he fails to remotely back this up with evidence -- unless you count claiming that both are stumping for one side of the political spectrum is proof of equivalence. If we're going to define partisanship so narrowly, then who isn't an extreme lunatic who mocks and questions the validity of those suffering from major diseases for ratings and attention?
Shackleford asserts that Stewart's attempt at bi-partisanship has failed miserably, but can't cite a single example, or at least one that holds up to scrutiny. He mentions Bill O'Reilly getting booed when he comes on the show. But that wasnt' Stewart encouraging the boos; in fact, if anything it was O'Reilly who was explicitly encouraging the boos, even scolding the audience. Stewart tries to engage those who disagrees with in a debate. His problem is that he's actually too polite, and winds up cowering when his opponent gets worked up. A year or so ago, he had Rick Santorum on the show. Stewart was nothing but polite to him, and sincerely tried to get to the bottom of his extreme beliefs. When Santorum ducked a question and went off on a rant, Stewart all but hid underneath the desk. Just like Rush Limbaugh! Oh wait...
You also cite Dan Rather being on the show Tuesday night, and how Stewart joked with him rather than grilled him on the events that caused him to prematurely retire. But he fails to mention that this wasn't a typical interview -- it was a special, covering the Midterm Elections. They were joking, sure, but they were joking about...the Midterm Elections. It wasn't a typical interview. He was there as a specialist, someone who's covered elections for most of his life.
There's no doubt that Stewart is a little easier on those with whom he agrees. But not by much. Shackleford claims, "Conservatives are lampoon for being conservative, liberals for not being liberal enough" [sic]. But he fails to cite a single example of Stewart and co. being extreme. They mock the democrats for being wimps (like conservatives!), but never for not being extreme.
And then there's the claim that they have it out for Fox News. What Shackleford fails to note is that they back this hatred up with evidence on a near-daily basis. The way Shackleford words it, it's as though they simply mock Fox News for no good reason. But that hatred is well-founded and buttressed by a neverending supply of clips and analysis.
Lastly, there's this sorry claim: that the youth are getting all their news from The Daily Show. To even understand what the Daily Show does (or for that matter, The Daily Kos), one has to have a working knowledge not just of the news that day, but of news history -- news in general. Young people may not be watching CNN, Fox News or the 6:00 network news. But you don't have to these days. The web has many places one can get news, analysis, and so forth. These days, it's next to impossible to remain ignorant of the news.
The saddest part? Had the Dems won in 2004, this column could've come out, with only minor variations. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Shackleford had written it before Election Day '04 and dusted it off after Election Day '06. That's how relevant and trenchant it is.
P.S. Jon Stewart's name is spelled "Jon." It does alternate between having an "h" and not having an "h," as it does serially throughout this column. Not that fact-checking need be applied to soapbox rants.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Update On Anand and Sudeep
The two students are still being charged, but the feds have declined to take the case. Turns out the two bomb hits in the lexus were false positives. (Shocker)
It is now up to the ADA to prosecute. But as far as I know the two are still being held with $1 million dollar bond.
Evidence indicates that they were in fact trying to shoot a music video. Which may in fact be the dumbest idea two seemingly smart kids have ever had.
But if people went to jail for being dumb, lets just say I'd spend a lot less time being pissed off.
CMU students are starting to get organized and have a facebook group put together. (Free Anand and Sudeep!) But no one has been able to get in touch with either of their parents. And as far as we know no hearings have been scheduled to get their bond reduced.
UPDATE: Anand and Sudeep were released on recognizance. I hope the rest of their legal issues are speedily resolved!
It is now up to the ADA to prosecute. But as far as I know the two are still being held with $1 million dollar bond.
Evidence indicates that they were in fact trying to shoot a music video. Which may in fact be the dumbest idea two seemingly smart kids have ever had.
But if people went to jail for being dumb, lets just say I'd spend a lot less time being pissed off.
CMU students are starting to get organized and have a facebook group put together. (Free Anand and Sudeep!) But no one has been able to get in touch with either of their parents. And as far as we know no hearings have been scheduled to get their bond reduced.
UPDATE: Anand and Sudeep were released on recognizance. I hope the rest of their legal issues are speedily resolved!
Monday, November 06, 2006
A Funny Story
Some kids from my school tried to break into a football stadium from the pittsburgh post gazette:
Oh Ha Ha, college prank:
Doesn't this seem just a tad extreme? A little odd that they would arrest some kids for trying and failing to get into a football stadium? I mean I've never tried to break into anything, but I imagine that security would just tell you to get the hell out. I know Pittsburgh loves their football, but listen to the bios on these two kids:
They sound like real troublemakers.
Until you find out that these two students are arabic.
I took their names out of the excerpts from the PPG article above. What would have seemed a harmless prank by two white students is now treated as a potential terror threat because of the color of these boy's skin.
I don't know either Sudeep Paul or Shankar Durvasula, they are several years younger than me and in different departments. And I don't know if they are terrorists.
But I do know that they deserve a speedy investigation and bail that reflects the crimes for which they are being held.
The CMU community has started a petition group on face book to free them. And I am posting this here in the hopes that publicising this incident will prevent them from being sent to any "secret prisons." These boys are Americans born and raised and I hope that they are treated as such.
Heinz Field security officers spotted the men on a security camera trying
to enter the stadium, a Steelers spokesman said. They first opened an exterior
door at Gate B without going inside, police said. They then took a folding chair
to the fence at Gate 5 on Art Rooney Drive, and one student allegedly stepped
up on the chair to scale the fence.
Heinz Field security officers then approached the pair, and as they
tried to walk away, they were apprehended by Pittsburgh police officers who had
been summoned. They told police initially they were trying to check out the
stadium because they had tickets to yesterday's 4:15 p.m. game against the
Denver Broncos, Chief Harper said.
Oh Ha Ha, college prank:
He said they told investigators later that one student was trying to
complete a music video featuring the other, and they intended to do the
last scene inside Heinz Field. A video camera and tripod were found inside the
vehicle, parked nearby, which police towed away.Both were charged with criminal conspiracy, one with criminal trespass. The $1 million straight bond has to be paid in full for release.
Doesn't this seem just a tad extreme? A little odd that they would arrest some kids for trying and failing to get into a football stadium? I mean I've never tried to break into anything, but I imagine that security would just tell you to get the hell out. I know Pittsburgh loves their football, but listen to the bios on these two kids:
University-related Web sites suggest that both men have been active, involved
students one student is listed as activities director of the Undergraduate
Finance Association, and the other as a committee chairman of the Undergraduate
Entrepreneurship Association. Both also were involved in Carnegie Mellon's Mock
Trial competition, a program in which students take on judicial roles to
practice their speaking and analytical skills.One student, on his own Web home page, lists his grade point average as 3.7 out of 4.0. He made the dean's list last spring.
They sound like real troublemakers.
Until you find out that these two students are arabic.
I took their names out of the excerpts from the PPG article above. What would have seemed a harmless prank by two white students is now treated as a potential terror threat because of the color of these boy's skin.
I don't know either Sudeep Paul or Shankar Durvasula, they are several years younger than me and in different departments. And I don't know if they are terrorists.
But I do know that they deserve a speedy investigation and bail that reflects the crimes for which they are being held.
The CMU community has started a petition group on face book to free them. And I am posting this here in the hopes that publicising this incident will prevent them from being sent to any "secret prisons." These boys are Americans born and raised and I hope that they are treated as such.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The Obvious
John Kerry is not up for reelection this year.
(Oh yeah, and he's not president, nor is he in charge of the DNC)
So why should anyone care what he says? Not to malign a veteran, but by the traditional definition of the word, he's a loser. So why does what a loser say matter?
It doesn't matter what he says except insofar as we can be happy we have a "decider" who uses "the google" on "the internets." Instead of an upper class jerk who thinks soldiers are dumb. (y'know....lesser of two evils)
But an aside, John, seriously you sound like a pompus ass, and that's why you lost. No more talky talky.
(Oh yeah, and he's not president, nor is he in charge of the DNC)
So why should anyone care what he says? Not to malign a veteran, but by the traditional definition of the word, he's a loser. So why does what a loser say matter?
It doesn't matter what he says except insofar as we can be happy we have a "decider" who uses "the google" on "the internets." Instead of an upper class jerk who thinks soldiers are dumb. (y'know....lesser of two evils)
But an aside, John, seriously you sound like a pompus ass, and that's why you lost. No more talky talky.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Be prepared, I'm pissed off.
I read this at feministe:
And I have a simple solution to this problem. It's time to poison the meat, and by that I mean it's time for "uncovered" women to start carrying machine guns.
Maybe when these "cats" go for the "uncovered meat" and get killed, the other "cats" will learn to stay the fuck away.
Sometimes I fantasize about getting a group of kickass women wearing nothing but machine guns walking through cities full of devout muslim men. And while they gawk and stare at our hotness, we can mow the fuckers down. Since men are apparently totally unable to control themselves around women it will be an easy victory for us.
Then we will truly be "satan's" best weapons. And I guess by "satan" I mean George Bush, not that I think he's "satan" it's just that we'd really be helping him out, and I don't believe in "satan." So there we go....
I'm not a muslim woman, and perhaps that is why I know that if anyone told me, and I mean anyone, parents, friends, government, anyone that I had to walk around with a veil over my head in order to be a decent person I would shoot the fucker.
There have been some posts at various feminist blogs arguing about the hijab and the veil. Saying that women who are forbidden to wear them are limited from the public sphere. And that women who chose to wear them gain greater rights from their families.
But here is what I think, not that it matters.
If your family or your religion is holding you back, then I think it is time to leave them behind. Obviously I don't think women should kill their parents, or anyone but I do think they should leave their homes, find other options, if they are unhappy. It is a scary step to take, and easier said than done. But I do not think that someone should remain in a situation where they are not valued or trusted or treated as someone with rights and free will.
I understand the lure of not having to make difficult choices, of submitting to another's will. It is safe, there is little responsibility, though it is not always easy because you have to make sacrifices and do what you would rather not. Religion and love of family can make submiting to another's will feel like it is the right think to do. But in the end no matter how much you trust someone else to decide what is best for you or to guide your decisions, they are still not you. They have no rights over you. And while they may THINK they are doing what is best for you, they are only human. And personally if I am going to make a mistake, or be unhappy, or even be happy, I want to do it because of a choice I made, not because of one that was made for me.
So I guess I'm saying that women who cannot work without sheilding themselves from the gaze of others, should leave the religion and culture that says they must hide themselves, and the family that limits their choices.
Easier said than done.
“But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature,
writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man
and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He
said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have
snatched it.”
“If you get a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in
the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then
you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy.
Isn’t this true?”
And I have a simple solution to this problem. It's time to poison the meat, and by that I mean it's time for "uncovered" women to start carrying machine guns.
Maybe when these "cats" go for the "uncovered meat" and get killed, the other "cats" will learn to stay the fuck away.
“Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger in necessity, Satan
tells women you‘re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons.”
Sometimes I fantasize about getting a group of kickass women wearing nothing but machine guns walking through cities full of devout muslim men. And while they gawk and stare at our hotness, we can mow the fuckers down. Since men are apparently totally unable to control themselves around women it will be an easy victory for us.
Then we will truly be "satan's" best weapons. And I guess by "satan" I mean George Bush, not that I think he's "satan" it's just that we'd really be helping him out, and I don't believe in "satan." So there we go....
I'm not a muslim woman, and perhaps that is why I know that if anyone told me, and I mean anyone, parents, friends, government, anyone that I had to walk around with a veil over my head in order to be a decent person I would shoot the fucker.
There have been some posts at various feminist blogs arguing about the hijab and the veil. Saying that women who are forbidden to wear them are limited from the public sphere. And that women who chose to wear them gain greater rights from their families.
But here is what I think, not that it matters.
If your family or your religion is holding you back, then I think it is time to leave them behind. Obviously I don't think women should kill their parents, or anyone but I do think they should leave their homes, find other options, if they are unhappy. It is a scary step to take, and easier said than done. But I do not think that someone should remain in a situation where they are not valued or trusted or treated as someone with rights and free will.
I understand the lure of not having to make difficult choices, of submitting to another's will. It is safe, there is little responsibility, though it is not always easy because you have to make sacrifices and do what you would rather not. Religion and love of family can make submiting to another's will feel like it is the right think to do. But in the end no matter how much you trust someone else to decide what is best for you or to guide your decisions, they are still not you. They have no rights over you. And while they may THINK they are doing what is best for you, they are only human. And personally if I am going to make a mistake, or be unhappy, or even be happy, I want to do it because of a choice I made, not because of one that was made for me.
So I guess I'm saying that women who cannot work without sheilding themselves from the gaze of others, should leave the religion and culture that says they must hide themselves, and the family that limits their choices.
Easier said than done.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Fall of Reese's
Yes, I mean the candy.
It's Halloween, and that means that my office overflows with candy. And some of the people with candy even have "the good stuff" meaning Reese's, Kit Kats, Twix, Snickers, anything with yummy chocolate.
Reese's are my favorite candy, but I can't help noticing that this year the chocolate seems thinner, and every one I've unwrapped has been warped in some way. The chocolate melts so you can barely get the little cup off the bottom. They changed the packaging, and that I'll overlook, even if I miss the little cardboard peice under the wrapper holding everything together.
But it used to be that you could nibble on the chocolate all the way around the edge of a reese's and it would be satisfyingly crunchy, there would be enough chocolate for two passes. And the rest of the candy wouldn't totally fall apart in your hand.
Now I can't even take a bite of it without getting a little chocolate on my hands (a sign that the chocolate was poorly tempered).
What's up Hershey? What have you done to my Reese's?
It's Halloween, and that means that my office overflows with candy. And some of the people with candy even have "the good stuff" meaning Reese's, Kit Kats, Twix, Snickers, anything with yummy chocolate.
Reese's are my favorite candy, but I can't help noticing that this year the chocolate seems thinner, and every one I've unwrapped has been warped in some way. The chocolate melts so you can barely get the little cup off the bottom. They changed the packaging, and that I'll overlook, even if I miss the little cardboard peice under the wrapper holding everything together.
But it used to be that you could nibble on the chocolate all the way around the edge of a reese's and it would be satisfyingly crunchy, there would be enough chocolate for two passes. And the rest of the candy wouldn't totally fall apart in your hand.
Now I can't even take a bite of it without getting a little chocolate on my hands (a sign that the chocolate was poorly tempered).
What's up Hershey? What have you done to my Reese's?
Thursday, October 19, 2006
The Beginning of the End
I've been trying to cook up a post about the habeas corpus thing. But what do you know, Keith Olberman did an amazing speech and he did it on video.
To paraphrase a friend... I miss worrying about blowjobs.
To paraphrase a friend... I miss worrying about blowjobs.
Friday, October 13, 2006
1.67 Billion down the Tube
Google's purchase of YouTube was, in my humble opinion, stupid. In that google fails to recognize what YouTube's biggest attraction is. (At least to me)
You Tube frequently hosts entire episodes of television shows and large quantities of copyrighted material.
Google frequently deletes this material from google video.
So when Google owns YouTube the copyrighted material will actually have to be removed. And I think this is going to drive traffic levels down significantly as viewers find other sites that host the last episode of South Park.
Now, obviously I could be overestimating the amount of copyrighted stuff on YouTube. There are certainly a lot of home movies and such. It would be interesting to see how much traffic was generated by copyrighted items vs. non copyrighted items. I hope Google did that analysis before they made their purchase.
You Tube frequently hosts entire episodes of television shows and large quantities of copyrighted material.
Google frequently deletes this material from google video.
So when Google owns YouTube the copyrighted material will actually have to be removed. And I think this is going to drive traffic levels down significantly as viewers find other sites that host the last episode of South Park.
Now, obviously I could be overestimating the amount of copyrighted stuff on YouTube. There are certainly a lot of home movies and such. It would be interesting to see how much traffic was generated by copyrighted items vs. non copyrighted items. I hope Google did that analysis before they made their purchase.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Really?
So no one needs the background on this. Foley, e-mails, Naughty, 16 year old boys. We're all on it by now I'm sure.
So, the question of the day is who is more irresponsible, the Republicans or the Democrats.
At first this looked bad for the republicans, apparently there were members of the party who were aware of it. And now the republicans are accusing the Democrats of sitting on the information until it would give them the most bang for their buck.
And this is where I get really contraversial.
Who gives a Shit? We're talking about 16 year olds. And I know, all the parents are simply "Horrified" because they have 16 year olds. But the CHILDREN.
I'm sorry charlie, but 16 year olds are NOT children. They are young adults. They send eachother naughty IMs all the time, how do I know this? Well I was recently 16, and I did it then, and well before I turned 16. None of them are being corrupted.
The worst part of this situation is that they are in a relatively powerless situation and are being sexually harassed by a superior. This isn't about the Children it is about respect in the workplace.
In other news, CONGRESS JUST RESCINDED THE RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS! (Okay okay you have to be declared an "enemy combatant" first.... which requires... y'know... no proof at all, and then you can be imprisoned and tortured by your own government. But hey man, you MIGHT be a terrorist. Interesting about how we keep hearing more about this drugs=terrorism situation........ I wonder how long before an ounce of pot gets you declared an Enemy Combatant.)
And we're seriously concerned about some sexual harassment charges. The government has just given itself the ability to imprison anyone in the world without any proof at all, and we're worried because somebody asked some 16 year olds if they were horny. OF COURSE they're horny, they're 16.
Really America? Is this what you care about? Really?
So, the question of the day is who is more irresponsible, the Republicans or the Democrats.
At first this looked bad for the republicans, apparently there were members of the party who were aware of it. And now the republicans are accusing the Democrats of sitting on the information until it would give them the most bang for their buck.
And this is where I get really contraversial.
Who gives a Shit? We're talking about 16 year olds. And I know, all the parents are simply "Horrified" because they have 16 year olds. But the CHILDREN.
I'm sorry charlie, but 16 year olds are NOT children. They are young adults. They send eachother naughty IMs all the time, how do I know this? Well I was recently 16, and I did it then, and well before I turned 16. None of them are being corrupted.
The worst part of this situation is that they are in a relatively powerless situation and are being sexually harassed by a superior. This isn't about the Children it is about respect in the workplace.
In other news, CONGRESS JUST RESCINDED THE RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS! (Okay okay you have to be declared an "enemy combatant" first.... which requires... y'know... no proof at all, and then you can be imprisoned and tortured by your own government. But hey man, you MIGHT be a terrorist. Interesting about how we keep hearing more about this drugs=terrorism situation........ I wonder how long before an ounce of pot gets you declared an Enemy Combatant.)
And we're seriously concerned about some sexual harassment charges. The government has just given itself the ability to imprison anyone in the world without any proof at all, and we're worried because somebody asked some 16 year olds if they were horny. OF COURSE they're horny, they're 16.
Really America? Is this what you care about? Really?
Monday, October 09, 2006
All I ever wanted
Vacation.
Here are some photos. It ended up taking about 15 hours to get down to florida. I didn't time it exactly, but it turns out the MapQuest directions were not the best. This nice southern guy gave me directions on the way back. Yay nice Southern people, Boo not nice people vacationing in the south.
Anyway... Photos, sortof make me think of corona commercials.
Also we went to this most excellent Irish bar and heard a most eccelent Irish Singer, Bill Craig. He was a great guy with a great voice.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The Great map Debate
I'm getting directions for my impending Florida vacation, from somewhere near Chicago to an undisclosed local in florida. Here are my mileage and time estimates from the various map engines available:
Google Maps: 920 mi (about 18 hours 25 mins)
MapQuest: Est. Time: 14 hours, 31 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 873.45 miles
MSN Maps: Total distance: 920.7 mi
Estimated time: 14 Hours, 54 Minutes
Yahoo Maps: 922.1mi 14hrs 38 Minutes
Rand McNally:
EST. DRIVE TIME: 15 hours, 30 minutes
EST. DISTANCE: 911 miles
My boss observes that only huge dorks would be bothered by this. But I am bothered by it.
Google Maps: 920 mi (about 18 hours 25 mins)
MapQuest: Est. Time: 14 hours, 31 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 873.45 miles
MSN Maps: Total distance: 920.7 mi
Estimated time: 14 Hours, 54 Minutes
Yahoo Maps: 922.1mi 14hrs 38 Minutes
Rand McNally:
EST. DRIVE TIME: 15 hours, 30 minutes
EST. DISTANCE: 911 miles
My boss observes that only huge dorks would be bothered by this. But I am bothered by it.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Where's Our Apology?
In reference to Pope Benedict's Recent remarks muslim groups are throwing molotov cocktails and having demonstrations. Now, I'm no big fan of the pope. Really not at all. I liked the last Pope, this one, I could do without. But when the response to his quotations from old writings that were less than flattering to the muslim religion comes to this:
"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda, according to the Reuters news agency.
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," from bruneidirect
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." from cnn
So, where's my apology? Where is my "I'm sorry our group threatened to kill you even though you didn't do anything to us." Why is it the Muslims are the only ones who don't have to be sorry?
And for that matter, why are you proving his point for him? So he reads some junk about islam being 'evil" and "inhuman" and your response is "Convert or Die?" "His apology is not sufficient because he did not say that what he said was wrong," said Uzair Ahmed, from Pasban-e-Hurriyat, a Pakistani political group. (cnn) hmmmmm I wonder why that is Mr. Ahmed.
And I"m sorry that peaceful muslims all over the world had their feelings hurt: "This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen Guangyuan, president of Islamic Association of China, was quoted as saying in an interview with the Xinhua news agency. (cnn) Well, my feelings are hurt too! Hurt by the collapse of the twin towers, and the women in Burkha's.
Where's my apology?
"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda, according to the Reuters news agency.
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," from bruneidirect
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." from cnn
So, where's my apology? Where is my "I'm sorry our group threatened to kill you even though you didn't do anything to us." Why is it the Muslims are the only ones who don't have to be sorry?
And for that matter, why are you proving his point for him? So he reads some junk about islam being 'evil" and "inhuman" and your response is "Convert or Die?" "His apology is not sufficient because he did not say that what he said was wrong," said Uzair Ahmed, from Pasban-e-Hurriyat, a Pakistani political group. (cnn) hmmmmm I wonder why that is Mr. Ahmed.
And I"m sorry that peaceful muslims all over the world had their feelings hurt: "This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen Guangyuan, president of Islamic Association of China, was quoted as saying in an interview with the Xinhua news agency. (cnn) Well, my feelings are hurt too! Hurt by the collapse of the twin towers, and the women in Burkha's.
Where's my apology?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Stupid
Pajama's Media is trying to decide what to call voters who don't fit into our Left/right pidgeonholes.
How about.... People.
What a stupid question.
more on this later if I have time
How about.... People.
What a stupid question.
more on this later if I have time
Monday, September 11, 2006
Photographing Mountains
The weather in Chicago is extremely crappy today. Funny how I remember the weather on that Tuesday being extremely beautiful. I remember thinking about how nice it was as I walked to my university center to try and donate blood, after watching news coverage all morning.
I wish I didn't somehow resent all the media coverage, and "memorial" events. I certainly agree that this anniversary needs to be recognized. But to me it feels somehow cheapened by headlines and media footage. It seems like maybe what we really need instead of online streaming repeates of the coverage from that day and corny news segments and miniserieses, is just a little quiet, a little respect. Though, of course the media and others are remembering this day the way they know how. It just doesn't work for me, it seems to cheapen it somehow. I don't know why.
But I guess that's because there is no real way to capture what happend that day in film or words, and the memorials all just seem too small to reflect the tragedy, sortof how a photograph of a mountain can never really capture that mountain. You take the photograph and you look at it on your digital screen and realize that it is just a cheap attempt to capture the vastness of that mountain. In real life the mountain is huge, humbling, it towers over you, but in the photo, it just looks like a scenic photo of a mountain. It almost seems like a shame to keep the picture. I guess that's what the memorial services and movies and other coverage seem like to me. It can never do justice to such a huge tragedy, and it almost seems a shame to try.
I will simply remember what my friends and I agreed that morning sitting in my living room watching CNN. I don't remember who said it, but I remember how it resonated, and still does.
I wish I didn't somehow resent all the media coverage, and "memorial" events. I certainly agree that this anniversary needs to be recognized. But to me it feels somehow cheapened by headlines and media footage. It seems like maybe what we really need instead of online streaming repeates of the coverage from that day and corny news segments and miniserieses, is just a little quiet, a little respect. Though, of course the media and others are remembering this day the way they know how. It just doesn't work for me, it seems to cheapen it somehow. I don't know why.
But I guess that's because there is no real way to capture what happend that day in film or words, and the memorials all just seem too small to reflect the tragedy, sortof how a photograph of a mountain can never really capture that mountain. You take the photograph and you look at it on your digital screen and realize that it is just a cheap attempt to capture the vastness of that mountain. In real life the mountain is huge, humbling, it towers over you, but in the photo, it just looks like a scenic photo of a mountain. It almost seems like a shame to keep the picture. I guess that's what the memorial services and movies and other coverage seem like to me. It can never do justice to such a huge tragedy, and it almost seems a shame to try.
I will simply remember what my friends and I agreed that morning sitting in my living room watching CNN. I don't remember who said it, but I remember how it resonated, and still does.
"The world will never be the same again."
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Moving Is Hell
So I moved this weekend, for the 6th time in the last 6 years. Hopefully I'll stay there more than a year this time, that'd be nice. Because after this weekend, FUCK MOVING.
I took Thursday and Friday off for the move. On thursday I picked up the moving truck, a 14' long 11' high monstrosity. We loaded it and at about 7pm I parked it in the lot next door, I even went to the trouble of paying for three spots at the automated payment machine. But I couldn't fit my 11' tall truck in the underground lot, so I parked in the adjacent above ground lot. I looked for any signs that would demarcate it as being a separate lot, but I didn't see any at the entrance to the lot, or on the fences along the edge of the lot. I even asked a girl who was parking there if there were assigned spots in the lot. But there weren't.
So we go, clean my apartment. And we come back out at 9:30, and my giant moving truck has been towed. Of course. I can't say I was surprised as things were going much to smoothly. I call the place and find out that it will cost me $900.00 to get it out. That's right, not a typo $900.00, because they do it by weight and my truck was full of all my worldly belongings.
Well after a small fit of crying and yelling I manage to move on. I'm going to take the lot owners to small claims court for not properly labeling their lot.
But my weekend of horror was not yet over, oh no.
My sister asked me to take her to the salvation army to look for a couch. So we go, and get lost trying to find it, and as I'm going down a street in the left lane she says "Hey turn right!!!!" So I glance and I don't see anyone behind me, I try to get over and, of course, what is lurking in my blind spot but a lovely Cadilac.
Fortunately I mangaged to just ding his wheel well and gas tank lid. But of course it's some old asshole, and he gets out of his car yelling things like "What kind of fucking idiot are you" "How stupid can you be" and then we're exchanging information and he keeps it up "Do you at LEAST have a drivers lisence!?" "Who Owns this car?" (Me!) "Who is the owner" (Me!!!!!!) "Yes but who owns it."
So of course being the anal asshole he is he insists on calling the cops and getting apolice report. I think he was hoping I'd get a ticket or something. CaddiAsshole calls, we wait, he harasses me more. So here's the scene, Three old white guys, yelling at me, My sister getting all riled up, her cute blonde friend sitting staring at the pavement, me, sitting in my car trying not to be hysterical. And about a block away there is loud hip hop music and a basketball game going on. We're about 4 blocks from the United Center, not the worst area ever, but also, not the best. So finally we see a cop in the distance, and wave him down, he cruises by and CaddiAsshole asks him about investigating our accident and the cop was AMAZING.
Seriously, Chicago cops, right now, are my favorite ever. (just for now) He just looked at CaddiAsshole and said "We don't investigate accidents, and we're a little short handed so if you wait here you're going to be waiting a while" He clearly thought CaddiAsshole was an asshole too. An this definetly wasn't the kind of area of the city where cops have time to sit around babysitting senile men whose car gets a little beat up. AwesomeCop said we could go down to the police station and file a report if we wanted, but if we'd already exchanged info there was nothing more to do.
He starts to pull away and CaddiAsshole turns to me and starts trying to do the Jedi- Mind-Trick on me. "You are going to get in your car and follow us to the police station." To which I replied that I didn't think it was necessary to involve the cops in this. I was very polite the entire time, I tried to fight his open hostility with polite indifference, but it was quite difficult. And he keeps saying "I want you to follow us to the police station" like he has some kind of power over me, and I keep refusing, really just because I didn't want to go anywhere else with this total ass clown.
So AwesomeCop was still there and he asks "What's the problem?" And CaddiAsshole says we wouldn't go to the station with him, expecting him to force us. And AwesomeCop just looks at him and says "They don't have to, if you've exchanged information then you don't have to do anything else, they have 72 hours to file a police report if they want." At which point us three young chicas pile back into the car and I thank CaddiAsshole and I thank the cop for informing us of the law.
And then I went home after having left the house, gotten in an accident and then gone home again.
Of course, my weekend, not quite over, last night I got home from dinner with Boyfriend2.0's family and while trying to park my car in my new parking spot I ripped the mirror off my car.
Then just for an added bonus, I get to my room and start to get ready for bed and I find that one of my cats has used one of my bra's that was on the floor as a litter box. I think I might have tacos for dinner tonight. And a new fur hat tomorrow.
I took Thursday and Friday off for the move. On thursday I picked up the moving truck, a 14' long 11' high monstrosity. We loaded it and at about 7pm I parked it in the lot next door, I even went to the trouble of paying for three spots at the automated payment machine. But I couldn't fit my 11' tall truck in the underground lot, so I parked in the adjacent above ground lot. I looked for any signs that would demarcate it as being a separate lot, but I didn't see any at the entrance to the lot, or on the fences along the edge of the lot. I even asked a girl who was parking there if there were assigned spots in the lot. But there weren't.
So we go, clean my apartment. And we come back out at 9:30, and my giant moving truck has been towed. Of course. I can't say I was surprised as things were going much to smoothly. I call the place and find out that it will cost me $900.00 to get it out. That's right, not a typo $900.00, because they do it by weight and my truck was full of all my worldly belongings.
Well after a small fit of crying and yelling I manage to move on. I'm going to take the lot owners to small claims court for not properly labeling their lot.
But my weekend of horror was not yet over, oh no.
My sister asked me to take her to the salvation army to look for a couch. So we go, and get lost trying to find it, and as I'm going down a street in the left lane she says "Hey turn right!!!!" So I glance and I don't see anyone behind me, I try to get over and, of course, what is lurking in my blind spot but a lovely Cadilac.
Fortunately I mangaged to just ding his wheel well and gas tank lid. But of course it's some old asshole, and he gets out of his car yelling things like "What kind of fucking idiot are you" "How stupid can you be" and then we're exchanging information and he keeps it up "Do you at LEAST have a drivers lisence!?" "Who Owns this car?" (Me!) "Who is the owner" (Me!!!!!!) "Yes but who owns it."
So of course being the anal asshole he is he insists on calling the cops and getting apolice report. I think he was hoping I'd get a ticket or something. CaddiAsshole calls, we wait, he harasses me more. So here's the scene, Three old white guys, yelling at me, My sister getting all riled up, her cute blonde friend sitting staring at the pavement, me, sitting in my car trying not to be hysterical. And about a block away there is loud hip hop music and a basketball game going on. We're about 4 blocks from the United Center, not the worst area ever, but also, not the best. So finally we see a cop in the distance, and wave him down, he cruises by and CaddiAsshole asks him about investigating our accident and the cop was AMAZING.
Seriously, Chicago cops, right now, are my favorite ever. (just for now) He just looked at CaddiAsshole and said "We don't investigate accidents, and we're a little short handed so if you wait here you're going to be waiting a while" He clearly thought CaddiAsshole was an asshole too. An this definetly wasn't the kind of area of the city where cops have time to sit around babysitting senile men whose car gets a little beat up. AwesomeCop said we could go down to the police station and file a report if we wanted, but if we'd already exchanged info there was nothing more to do.
He starts to pull away and CaddiAsshole turns to me and starts trying to do the Jedi- Mind-Trick on me. "You are going to get in your car and follow us to the police station." To which I replied that I didn't think it was necessary to involve the cops in this. I was very polite the entire time, I tried to fight his open hostility with polite indifference, but it was quite difficult. And he keeps saying "I want you to follow us to the police station" like he has some kind of power over me, and I keep refusing, really just because I didn't want to go anywhere else with this total ass clown.
So AwesomeCop was still there and he asks "What's the problem?" And CaddiAsshole says we wouldn't go to the station with him, expecting him to force us. And AwesomeCop just looks at him and says "They don't have to, if you've exchanged information then you don't have to do anything else, they have 72 hours to file a police report if they want." At which point us three young chicas pile back into the car and I thank CaddiAsshole and I thank the cop for informing us of the law.
And then I went home after having left the house, gotten in an accident and then gone home again.
Of course, my weekend, not quite over, last night I got home from dinner with Boyfriend2.0's family and while trying to park my car in my new parking spot I ripped the mirror off my car.
Then just for an added bonus, I get to my room and start to get ready for bed and I find that one of my cats has used one of my bra's that was on the floor as a litter box. I think I might have tacos for dinner tonight. And a new fur hat tomorrow.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Active Procrastination
Active Procrastination: n. Procrastinating by inventing other things to do that are seemingly more urgent than the thing you have to do but don't feel like doing right now.
I feel that I have to link this (via Ace) just in case anyone hasn't already seen the video of "green helmet" playing movie director. It is the second video down and it is horribly fucked up.
On a lighter note I would also like to tell my tiny readership about pandora.com. You go here and type in the name of any band whose music you particularly enjoy, or a song that you like and tell it to create a station for you. Then it will play a song from that band, and from there it will go on to play songs with similar sounds to that band and help you discover new music you might like. You can give songs the thumbs up or thumbs down as you wish and guide the music choices on your personal radio station. I have one for Michael Buble, Mindless Self Indulgence, Snake River Conspiracy and A Perfect Circle. You can make up to 100 stations!!
Also awesome for inhabitants of a few select cities is yelp.com which provides a place to review local businesses, from resturants to physicians. It is great for getting started in a new locale, and for praising places you particularly enjoy.
I guess I'll go do work now.
I feel that I have to link this (via Ace) just in case anyone hasn't already seen the video of "green helmet" playing movie director. It is the second video down and it is horribly fucked up.
On a lighter note I would also like to tell my tiny readership about pandora.com. You go here and type in the name of any band whose music you particularly enjoy, or a song that you like and tell it to create a station for you. Then it will play a song from that band, and from there it will go on to play songs with similar sounds to that band and help you discover new music you might like. You can give songs the thumbs up or thumbs down as you wish and guide the music choices on your personal radio station. I have one for Michael Buble, Mindless Self Indulgence, Snake River Conspiracy and A Perfect Circle. You can make up to 100 stations!!
Also awesome for inhabitants of a few select cities is yelp.com which provides a place to review local businesses, from resturants to physicians. It is great for getting started in a new locale, and for praising places you particularly enjoy.
I guess I'll go do work now.
Monday, August 07, 2006
It's the Research Methods Stupid
My good friend is a newspaper graphics editor, and we occasionally get into it about the MSM and it's inherent stupidity. He'd just sent me this adorable math cheat sheet showing me that some journalists do indeed care about math, when I started reading a simply FABululous article on CNN.com, entitled:
Whether it's hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found.
Songs depicting men as "sex-driven studs," women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.
How do I know this? Well let us look at their methodology:
Most participants were virgins when they were first questioned in 2001. Follow-up interviews were done in 2002 and 2004 to see if music choice had influenced subsequent behavior.
Well there goes my attempt to make peace with the media. I can tell by the title of this article that I will not be able to maintain my ceasefire.
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found.
Whether it's hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found.
Songs depicting men as "sex-driven studs," women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.
So finally there is proof, it is in the MUSIC, we have something we can BLAME! YAY! Parents of the world rejoice, researchers of the world sigh with resignation.
This study cannot conclusively prove that the music causes kids to behave a certain way. All it shows is that there is a significant link* between sexy music and kids who have sex early. (But that doesn't sound nearly as sexy.)
How do I know this? Well let us look at their methodology:
The study, based on telephone interviews with 1,461 participants aged 12 to 17, appears in the August issue of Pediatrics, being released Monday.
Most participants were virgins when they were first questioned in 2001. Follow-up interviews were done in 2002 and 2004 to see if music choice had influenced subsequent behavior.
So what we're saying is, teens who like sexy music had sex. I bet we could show the same relationship between a thousand different types of music. Teens who listen to music about drugs, do drugs, teens who listen to music about anarchy, like anarchy, teens who listen to music about racism, like racism, teens who listen to music about Jesus, like Jesus. Is it because of the music? Or is it because they like X and therefore listen to music that they can relate to?
It's a chicken and the egg problem. And this research cannot prove the link because it did not control for outside factors like views that were already formed. If they truly wanted to test this they would have to randomly assign kids to different groups and force these groups to listen to randomly determined types of music for an assigned period of time and see if their preferences changed.
All of us humans have choices about the music that we store on or iPods or we tolerate on our radio, and these choices could actually reflect our personal views more than change them. I am not saying that music can't affect our life choices, I am saying that this study in no way proves that because of the way it was conducted.
The problem I have with the MSM is that they don't understand research methods and they report irresponsibly on things they clearly don't understand. Sorry Pat.
*Significant Link- This is NOT NOT NOT the same thing as saying X causes Y. It just means that X is related to Y. People who prefer Y are more likely to prefer X, people who prefer X are more likely to prefer Y, it works both ways. But neither necessarily determines the other, it could even be caused by force Z that isn't even included in the analysis.
UPDATE: My journalist friend just sent me a PDF or the article from the front page of his paper, my e-mailed response used the f word a lot. I wish someone was actually going to read this post, then maybe I'd feel better having told at least one person that this study is completely full of shit. Alas, too bad my traffic is actually in negative numbers now.
UPDATE II: The guys from Freakonomics posted on this, so did Jeff Jarvis. And thanks to Flashman for the link! I'm very glad this story is getting some visibility!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
