Why is the federal government providing $25 billion dollars to an American industry that has been on the brink of bankruptcy for years? Does no one in Congress understand the concept of capitalism? If an entire industry is going under it is because there is not a demand for their products. If GM, Ford and Chrysler can’t compete on the global market, they need to stop making cars or increase efficiency, not borrow money to cover the discrepancy between supply and demand. This $25 billion amounts to nothing more than dead weight loss. Now, the manufacturers will have to replace that loss in addition to getting their supply and demand curves back in line.
Although I have not been briefed on the economic forecast for the “Detroit 3,” I do know that people are not buying cars they days. This means manufacturing cars is ill advised and cutting back production is the answer. Unfortunately, this might mean people will lose their jobs but it does not make sense to continue pumping money into an industry that is not taking measures to operate in accordance with the demands associated with their consumer market.
If they are going out of business, they need to go to a bank or they need to close their doors. That’s what capitalism is all about. It is inappropriate for the Federal Government to “loan” money to whoever asks. What happens if the auto manufacturers go out of business? How will the American people get their $25 billion back? The answer, if we are concerned with helping the American auto industry, is finding a way to stimulate the economy so that people can buy cars, not giving businesses money to make a product no one can buy!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The State of the Union
Pursuant to last night's presidential elections and the ensuing commentary, I have a few things I feel are absolutely necessary to point out.
1. Why was there "unprecedented security" in Grant Park but the same was not warranted in Arizona?
Although it has certainly (albeit, sadly) been a concern that Obama might meet the fate of JFK, thus being the motivating factor behind the "unprecedented security" in Grant Park, it seems to me that far more people despise Sara Palin. Granted, I would suggest she's more likely to meet said fate on an unfortunate hunting trip, perhaps with Vice President Cheney, than at any lackluster Republican political fiesta. Does no one find it ironic that the "moral evangelical" Republicans are the ones we're actually concerned about murdering someone for once? Due to my frank disregard for Republican political issues in the wake of the Democratic victory, I will not discuss, but will only hint at similar acts with regards to, say... abortion clinics. Yet, on the whole, the country still maintains the stereotype that it is blacks who we should be afraid of in a dark alley, for at any moment, they might pull a gun on us.
2. I heard some moron on talk radio (because I never listen to talk radio I have no idea who it was, 810 am around Albany, NY) this morning suggest that higher taxation is a "loss of liberty."
As a preliminary matter, you might have a point. But riddle me this: isn't it a far greater loss of liberty NOT TO HAVE A JOB? I am fairly certain that is the predicament that the Bush, i.e. Republican, administration managed to get millions of Americans in. Shit, if you can't afford to put gas in your gas and a beer at the bar, you're stuck your house. How free does that make you?! As Southwest airlines says, "You are now free to move about the country." If you can't afford to get anywhere, you're not free. If you can't put food on the table, you're hardly living the American Dream. If your house is being foreclosed on, what good is the right to property? I think we all get the point. Pay a few extra bucks in taxes, circulate money in the economy, and we'll all prosper.
Interestingly, CEOs, top execs, many (aka pretty much anyone who hasn't already lost their Wall Street job) are taking a pay cut. So, riddle me this: what's the difference between a pay cut because the Bush administration let the economy get this bad and higher taxes? I'll tell you: the money doesn't go anywhere because it doesn't exist, apparently, so the government can't reinvest it in the economy so it might eventually get back to you. I wonder if there are any job requirements to being a political commentator, like having a basic understanding of politics or the economy.
3. Last night on CNN Bill Bennett made a comment to the tune of: We have a black President of the United States, clearly there is no longer any basis to state that African-Americans in this country are disadvantaged in their ability to succeed.
First of all, Barack Obama is a mixed race individual who identifies himself as an African-American. He is free to associate with whatever racial group he feels most comfortable, but that does not change the most important fact at play, his upbringing. Were Bennett's comment to be anything short of ignorant, we'd have to overlook the two African-Americans that have been appointed to the Supreme Court. And, for that matter, all accomplishments any individual African-American has achieved. The theory, that because one man did it, means that the problem of racism is resolved on the whole is ludicrous. The systematic structural basis of racism in this country is well documented and it was pathetic to see 3 other intelligent, educated people comment after Bennett before finally, someone spoke up, and pointed out the ridiculousness of the conclusion Bennett had drawn. And to think that man was once the Secretary of Education in the United States... talk about structural racism!
Bennett's comment was the equivalent of someone saying in 1947 that because Jackie Robinson was allowed to play baseball in the major leagues that the racial playing field had been leveled. It was not until 1984 that Ronald Reagan awarded Robinson a Congressional Medal of Freedom recognizing the amazing courage of the first man to break the racial divide and begin the movement toward racial equality. Sports are a field of employment which now are largely racially biased toward minorities where hires are made based on the athletes' ability and, as Martin Luther King once dreamed, not based on the color of their skin. Perhaps Bennett had a brain fart and thought for a moment he was on ESPN rather than CNN? I suppose with his apparent level of comprehension, it might be easy to get the two networks confused.
1. Why was there "unprecedented security" in Grant Park but the same was not warranted in Arizona?
Although it has certainly (albeit, sadly) been a concern that Obama might meet the fate of JFK, thus being the motivating factor behind the "unprecedented security" in Grant Park, it seems to me that far more people despise Sara Palin. Granted, I would suggest she's more likely to meet said fate on an unfortunate hunting trip, perhaps with Vice President Cheney, than at any lackluster Republican political fiesta. Does no one find it ironic that the "moral evangelical" Republicans are the ones we're actually concerned about murdering someone for once? Due to my frank disregard for Republican political issues in the wake of the Democratic victory, I will not discuss, but will only hint at similar acts with regards to, say... abortion clinics. Yet, on the whole, the country still maintains the stereotype that it is blacks who we should be afraid of in a dark alley, for at any moment, they might pull a gun on us.
2. I heard some moron on talk radio (because I never listen to talk radio I have no idea who it was, 810 am around Albany, NY) this morning suggest that higher taxation is a "loss of liberty."
As a preliminary matter, you might have a point. But riddle me this: isn't it a far greater loss of liberty NOT TO HAVE A JOB? I am fairly certain that is the predicament that the Bush, i.e. Republican, administration managed to get millions of Americans in. Shit, if you can't afford to put gas in your gas and a beer at the bar, you're stuck your house. How free does that make you?! As Southwest airlines says, "You are now free to move about the country." If you can't afford to get anywhere, you're not free. If you can't put food on the table, you're hardly living the American Dream. If your house is being foreclosed on, what good is the right to property? I think we all get the point. Pay a few extra bucks in taxes, circulate money in the economy, and we'll all prosper.
Interestingly, CEOs, top execs, many (aka pretty much anyone who hasn't already lost their Wall Street job) are taking a pay cut. So, riddle me this: what's the difference between a pay cut because the Bush administration let the economy get this bad and higher taxes? I'll tell you: the money doesn't go anywhere because it doesn't exist, apparently, so the government can't reinvest it in the economy so it might eventually get back to you. I wonder if there are any job requirements to being a political commentator, like having a basic understanding of politics or the economy.
3. Last night on CNN Bill Bennett made a comment to the tune of: We have a black President of the United States, clearly there is no longer any basis to state that African-Americans in this country are disadvantaged in their ability to succeed.
First of all, Barack Obama is a mixed race individual who identifies himself as an African-American. He is free to associate with whatever racial group he feels most comfortable, but that does not change the most important fact at play, his upbringing. Were Bennett's comment to be anything short of ignorant, we'd have to overlook the two African-Americans that have been appointed to the Supreme Court. And, for that matter, all accomplishments any individual African-American has achieved. The theory, that because one man did it, means that the problem of racism is resolved on the whole is ludicrous. The systematic structural basis of racism in this country is well documented and it was pathetic to see 3 other intelligent, educated people comment after Bennett before finally, someone spoke up, and pointed out the ridiculousness of the conclusion Bennett had drawn. And to think that man was once the Secretary of Education in the United States... talk about structural racism!
Bennett's comment was the equivalent of someone saying in 1947 that because Jackie Robinson was allowed to play baseball in the major leagues that the racial playing field had been leveled. It was not until 1984 that Ronald Reagan awarded Robinson a Congressional Medal of Freedom recognizing the amazing courage of the first man to break the racial divide and begin the movement toward racial equality. Sports are a field of employment which now are largely racially biased toward minorities where hires are made based on the athletes' ability and, as Martin Luther King once dreamed, not based on the color of their skin. Perhaps Bennett had a brain fart and thought for a moment he was on ESPN rather than CNN? I suppose with his apparent level of comprehension, it might be easy to get the two networks confused.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Choose Wisely
Something that many Americans do not consider when voting is the President's power to appoint Supreme Court Justices. This is of the utmost importance in our nation. Currently, our Supreme Court largely consists of Republicans who would likely overrule Roe v. Wade if the right case were to come along.
This would mean that women would no longer have a Constitutionally protected right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before the point of viability. It would, however, leave the issue to states and allow them to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. Because this procedure is expensive and traveling great distances to obtain an abortion is not feasible for everyone, overturning Roe v. Wade would have dramatic affects on millions of young women in America. Of course, this issue affects all of us as it has implications on welfare, teen pregnancy, child abuse rates, child neglect, nutrition, crime, and so much more.
A Supreme Court that is too politically skewed is dangerous with respect to any issue. Certainly, the Framers envisioned balance on the political spectrum when they established the 9 Justice panel. In the modern era we should anticipate an even broader balance; one encompassing race, class, politics, gender, sexual orientation, geographic origin, etc. In the next Presidential term, it is likely that at least two of the Justices will be replaced for one reason or another. However, the two oldest, and most likely to retire, are on the liberal side of the political spectrum and hold that vote in the Court. Failing to replace their votes with other like votes will throw off the political balance in the Supreme Court that is so crucial to fair and equal justice in this Nation.
Most importantly, should McCain be elected and should any Justice choose to retire or leave their position for any other reason (i.e. death), replacing a liberal vote with a conservative vote could be detrimental to the woman's right to have an abortion. Because McCain has been criticize for his views on abortion, his party is likely to be more critical of any Supreme Court nominee on this particular issue. For this reason, McCain is more likely to nominate a judge or attorney that is known to be pro-life and will support the conservative vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Certainly, we can speculate all we want about the possibilities of these occurrences. But, if the lessons that Sandra Day O'Connor taught us about unpredictability on the Supreme Court mean anything, I think it worth while to consider all possibilities when voting in November and hedge our bets with the safest vote.
This would mean that women would no longer have a Constitutionally protected right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before the point of viability. It would, however, leave the issue to states and allow them to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. Because this procedure is expensive and traveling great distances to obtain an abortion is not feasible for everyone, overturning Roe v. Wade would have dramatic affects on millions of young women in America. Of course, this issue affects all of us as it has implications on welfare, teen pregnancy, child abuse rates, child neglect, nutrition, crime, and so much more.
A Supreme Court that is too politically skewed is dangerous with respect to any issue. Certainly, the Framers envisioned balance on the political spectrum when they established the 9 Justice panel. In the modern era we should anticipate an even broader balance; one encompassing race, class, politics, gender, sexual orientation, geographic origin, etc. In the next Presidential term, it is likely that at least two of the Justices will be replaced for one reason or another. However, the two oldest, and most likely to retire, are on the liberal side of the political spectrum and hold that vote in the Court. Failing to replace their votes with other like votes will throw off the political balance in the Supreme Court that is so crucial to fair and equal justice in this Nation.
Most importantly, should McCain be elected and should any Justice choose to retire or leave their position for any other reason (i.e. death), replacing a liberal vote with a conservative vote could be detrimental to the woman's right to have an abortion. Because McCain has been criticize for his views on abortion, his party is likely to be more critical of any Supreme Court nominee on this particular issue. For this reason, McCain is more likely to nominate a judge or attorney that is known to be pro-life and will support the conservative vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Certainly, we can speculate all we want about the possibilities of these occurrences. But, if the lessons that Sandra Day O'Connor taught us about unpredictability on the Supreme Court mean anything, I think it worth while to consider all possibilities when voting in November and hedge our bets with the safest vote.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Ladies, Put Down Your Cell Phones and No One Will Get Hurt!
It baffles me that women don't understand that men are so easily tamed. Women fail to appreciate the value of silence when it comes to men. They fail to appreciate the value of actually saying what you mean and meaning what you say. These women fail to get what the want.
A friend called me a while ago and told me that he boyfriend wasn't responding to her calls and texts as promptly as she wished. She told me that she would call several times before her boyfriend would call her back.
First of all, there is nothing more annoying that having someone you don't want to speak to call you a million times. Now, this might sound harsh because who wants to consider that they are being annoying in a relationship. But, let's give it a scenario. Boyfriend is hanging out with the boys tossing the football. His phone rings during the fun time and it's his beautiful, charming, fun, classy girlfriend. However, he knows that he's in the company of 6 other guys and he doesn't want to give his girlfriend anything less than his undivided attention. So, he doesn't pick up and plans to call her as soon as he has some alone time.
Girlfriend doesn't like this, she continues to call. She starts speculating about how beautiful the girl is that he's cheating on her with. She becomes even more upset that he has not answered her calls and irrationally texts and calls a million times. Boyfriend, at this point, knows that he is in a lot of trouble for absolutely nothing. As any smart human being would do, he becomes frightened about the inevitable fight which is about to ensue, all because he was tossing a football around with his guy friends.
Of course, this is not always the scenario. There are lots of innocent activities a boyfriend might be doing when it is inappropriate to answer of phone. He might be trying to find out who Number Two works for. He might be sleeping. He might be in a movie, a meeting, etc.
Gradually, the girl begins to call the boy like 10 times more than she gets called. She begins to resent the fact that she can only communicate with her boyfriend on his time. Acknowledging that his actions are selfish, we must consider how selfish it is to believe that anyone else is at our beckon call 24/7. Moreover, the guy begins to learn that his girlfriend will ALWAYS be available when he wants to talk because she always answers the phone or he'll just pick up when he's good and ready.
The answer: STOP CALLING! Let them come to you! Hopefully, that's how it was in the beginning of your relationship. Things should not change just because you are an official couple or just because you have gone on a couple dates! Women apparently don't know this. Then, men wonder how they got themselves into this mess and insist this is not what they signed up for. She seemed so nice and sweet at the beginning, now she's some crazy stalker who won't leave me alone. Alas, the relationship begins a slow, steady collapse.
Sure enough, following this advice, within a very short time, he was calling her as a good boy should. The lesson: Never ever underestimate the power of silence!
I spoke to another friend who told me that her boyfriend was supposed to come visit her this weekend and is trying to wiggle his way out of it. As a preliminary matter, that already means two things. (1) You have allowed him to walk all over you; and (2) you need to break up with him because you obviously aren't a priority.
She tells me that he has a game of some sort and his team is counting on him. She proceeds to tell him via text "obviously this is not a good time, come another time." Women apparently fail to understand that sarcasm will not be detected and such a statement will be construed liberally and literally. Her boyfriend now thinks it is perfectly fine if he doesn't come. Meanwhile, what she meant to say was, "If you are not here but such and such a time, this relationship is over."
With about 99% certainty, he will tell her that he is not going to come and she's start flipping out. She will do so under the pretense that she made it clear to him that he was to skip his game and come. He will be baffled and confused. He will insist that you just said it was ok for him to go to the game. Alas, you DID actually say that. Now, there will be a fight over something that could have been adequately handled by saying what you mean and meaning what you say.
A friend called me a while ago and told me that he boyfriend wasn't responding to her calls and texts as promptly as she wished. She told me that she would call several times before her boyfriend would call her back.
First of all, there is nothing more annoying that having someone you don't want to speak to call you a million times. Now, this might sound harsh because who wants to consider that they are being annoying in a relationship. But, let's give it a scenario. Boyfriend is hanging out with the boys tossing the football. His phone rings during the fun time and it's his beautiful, charming, fun, classy girlfriend. However, he knows that he's in the company of 6 other guys and he doesn't want to give his girlfriend anything less than his undivided attention. So, he doesn't pick up and plans to call her as soon as he has some alone time.
Girlfriend doesn't like this, she continues to call. She starts speculating about how beautiful the girl is that he's cheating on her with. She becomes even more upset that he has not answered her calls and irrationally texts and calls a million times. Boyfriend, at this point, knows that he is in a lot of trouble for absolutely nothing. As any smart human being would do, he becomes frightened about the inevitable fight which is about to ensue, all because he was tossing a football around with his guy friends.
Of course, this is not always the scenario. There are lots of innocent activities a boyfriend might be doing when it is inappropriate to answer of phone. He might be trying to find out who Number Two works for. He might be sleeping. He might be in a movie, a meeting, etc.
Gradually, the girl begins to call the boy like 10 times more than she gets called. She begins to resent the fact that she can only communicate with her boyfriend on his time. Acknowledging that his actions are selfish, we must consider how selfish it is to believe that anyone else is at our beckon call 24/7. Moreover, the guy begins to learn that his girlfriend will ALWAYS be available when he wants to talk because she always answers the phone or he'll just pick up when he's good and ready.
The answer: STOP CALLING! Let them come to you! Hopefully, that's how it was in the beginning of your relationship. Things should not change just because you are an official couple or just because you have gone on a couple dates! Women apparently don't know this. Then, men wonder how they got themselves into this mess and insist this is not what they signed up for. She seemed so nice and sweet at the beginning, now she's some crazy stalker who won't leave me alone. Alas, the relationship begins a slow, steady collapse.
Sure enough, following this advice, within a very short time, he was calling her as a good boy should. The lesson: Never ever underestimate the power of silence!
I spoke to another friend who told me that her boyfriend was supposed to come visit her this weekend and is trying to wiggle his way out of it. As a preliminary matter, that already means two things. (1) You have allowed him to walk all over you; and (2) you need to break up with him because you obviously aren't a priority.
She tells me that he has a game of some sort and his team is counting on him. She proceeds to tell him via text "obviously this is not a good time, come another time." Women apparently fail to understand that sarcasm will not be detected and such a statement will be construed liberally and literally. Her boyfriend now thinks it is perfectly fine if he doesn't come. Meanwhile, what she meant to say was, "If you are not here but such and such a time, this relationship is over."
With about 99% certainty, he will tell her that he is not going to come and she's start flipping out. She will do so under the pretense that she made it clear to him that he was to skip his game and come. He will be baffled and confused. He will insist that you just said it was ok for him to go to the game. Alas, you DID actually say that. Now, there will be a fight over something that could have been adequately handled by saying what you mean and meaning what you say.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Seriously, You Must Be Joking!
In dating, men and women are looking for very different things. Early on, men are looking for perks of a sexual nature, while the perks for women tend to be more alcoholic and caloric in nature. For anyone that says they don't play games, that means you just go right ahead and hop into bed because honestly, the entire dating process is a game. What varies is how seriously people play that game.
So, you meet someone, they ask for your number and they call to ask you on a date. There are several reasons a girl might say yes to such an offer. One, is that she actually really liked the guy and thinks he's her future husband. Another is that she thought the date sounded fun. Maybe she's just bored. Really, it doesn't matter why we go, but if we go, we begin "dating".
Men, for some unknown reason have come to equate buying dinner with getting ass. It's funny when you have gone on a couple dates with someone and they haven't gotten any ass, you'll notice the restaurants you go to get nicer and nicer. Then, if you do sleep with that person, they'll do one of two things. One, is they'll continue to wine and dine you acknowledging that you are still "dating" and maybe that they actually have class. The second move involves nesting.
You know what I mean. The nesters. The ones that either want to settle down or their just homebodies and they think because they impressed you sufficiently to get you into bed, that they no longer have to do any work. This tactic must have worked on some, otherwise it simply wouldn't exist. However, that tactic will never work with me! In fact, it's the fastest way to ensure I will never speak to you again. Nesting! You have got to be kidding.
Frankly, I think nesting is for people that hate to date. It's for people that actually dread the dating experience all together. The people who get nauseated and clammy at the thought of conversation, wine, and a MEAL with another people because they might actually have to talk to them for like two whole hours! The way I see things, if you don't have an hour of talking points on yourself (half the time of a date, assuming your date has an hour on themselves) then you deserve to be single! And, if your date deserves to be single, then you should have two hours of stuff to talk about! I mean, have you done nothing with your life? Never gone on vacation? Seen a good sports game? Seen someone fall out of no where? NOTHING!?!
Which brings me to a funny dating story. So, sometimes, just to be mean and cruel I date people so that I have horrible dating stories to tell. The guy moves along, thinking I am actually interested in him and he might have a chance of getting some action, when really, it's all just a big joke on him. So, sparing the details of how this particular individual landed himself in this pitiful spot, we were out at lunch one day and the bill comes. We were finishing up cocktails so it sits there, he doesn't touch it. Then, I finally open the bill up and look at it. He asks some question regarding how I would like to handle it. Not surprisingly, it was obvious I was going to have to pay for at least my own lunch. But he now begins to suggest that I might like to buy him lunch as well.
I was very confused because I don't remember telling him that I wanted to buy him lunch. He's a pretty big loser and a really big jerk, so I couldn't think of any reason why I would want to buy him lunch. But, for some reason, he thought I might want to buy him lunch. So, I simply told him that I did not, in fact, want to buy him lunch. After which he still proceeded to put his wallet in his pocket. After instilling some further clarity into the statement regarding his payment, he finally coughed up some money.
During the course of the lunch, there was a discussion about being a "player" and how when girls met him they always thought he was the "player type". Now, as I laughed internally thinking, "Who in their right mind would seriously date you, thus allowing you to be dating multiple girls at once?" I told a story about someone I used to date thinking so much of our relationship, meanwhile I was dating all these other people at the time, it lasted a couple weeks, etc. So, this guy asks me how many people I was seeing now. "What do you mean?" His response was, "Well, like you and me?"
So... what you are asking is how many losers do I get to take out to lunch on a regular basis? Well, frankly, I don't even have guy friends as pathetic as that. Apparently he thought we were like really dating and feared he was being played. I thought this was hysterical because we're not hooking up, he doesn't pick up the bill, he doesn't drive me places, we don't do couple activities, etc.
So, the moral is if you don't pay the bill, you're probably not dating so you probably wouldn't qualify as someone that is getting played. And, even if you think you're actually dating someone without having to pay all the bills, you need to get your shit straight because you're obviously going to get played if you aren't paying for shit! I thought this was a basic principle but I have met more and more boys in this unsophisticated part of the country that seem to lack even the most basic manners!
So, you meet someone, they ask for your number and they call to ask you on a date. There are several reasons a girl might say yes to such an offer. One, is that she actually really liked the guy and thinks he's her future husband. Another is that she thought the date sounded fun. Maybe she's just bored. Really, it doesn't matter why we go, but if we go, we begin "dating".
Men, for some unknown reason have come to equate buying dinner with getting ass. It's funny when you have gone on a couple dates with someone and they haven't gotten any ass, you'll notice the restaurants you go to get nicer and nicer. Then, if you do sleep with that person, they'll do one of two things. One, is they'll continue to wine and dine you acknowledging that you are still "dating" and maybe that they actually have class. The second move involves nesting.
You know what I mean. The nesters. The ones that either want to settle down or their just homebodies and they think because they impressed you sufficiently to get you into bed, that they no longer have to do any work. This tactic must have worked on some, otherwise it simply wouldn't exist. However, that tactic will never work with me! In fact, it's the fastest way to ensure I will never speak to you again. Nesting! You have got to be kidding.
Frankly, I think nesting is for people that hate to date. It's for people that actually dread the dating experience all together. The people who get nauseated and clammy at the thought of conversation, wine, and a MEAL with another people because they might actually have to talk to them for like two whole hours! The way I see things, if you don't have an hour of talking points on yourself (half the time of a date, assuming your date has an hour on themselves) then you deserve to be single! And, if your date deserves to be single, then you should have two hours of stuff to talk about! I mean, have you done nothing with your life? Never gone on vacation? Seen a good sports game? Seen someone fall out of no where? NOTHING!?!
Which brings me to a funny dating story. So, sometimes, just to be mean and cruel I date people so that I have horrible dating stories to tell. The guy moves along, thinking I am actually interested in him and he might have a chance of getting some action, when really, it's all just a big joke on him. So, sparing the details of how this particular individual landed himself in this pitiful spot, we were out at lunch one day and the bill comes. We were finishing up cocktails so it sits there, he doesn't touch it. Then, I finally open the bill up and look at it. He asks some question regarding how I would like to handle it. Not surprisingly, it was obvious I was going to have to pay for at least my own lunch. But he now begins to suggest that I might like to buy him lunch as well.
I was very confused because I don't remember telling him that I wanted to buy him lunch. He's a pretty big loser and a really big jerk, so I couldn't think of any reason why I would want to buy him lunch. But, for some reason, he thought I might want to buy him lunch. So, I simply told him that I did not, in fact, want to buy him lunch. After which he still proceeded to put his wallet in his pocket. After instilling some further clarity into the statement regarding his payment, he finally coughed up some money.
During the course of the lunch, there was a discussion about being a "player" and how when girls met him they always thought he was the "player type". Now, as I laughed internally thinking, "Who in their right mind would seriously date you, thus allowing you to be dating multiple girls at once?" I told a story about someone I used to date thinking so much of our relationship, meanwhile I was dating all these other people at the time, it lasted a couple weeks, etc. So, this guy asks me how many people I was seeing now. "What do you mean?" His response was, "Well, like you and me?"
So... what you are asking is how many losers do I get to take out to lunch on a regular basis? Well, frankly, I don't even have guy friends as pathetic as that. Apparently he thought we were like really dating and feared he was being played. I thought this was hysterical because we're not hooking up, he doesn't pick up the bill, he doesn't drive me places, we don't do couple activities, etc.
So, the moral is if you don't pay the bill, you're probably not dating so you probably wouldn't qualify as someone that is getting played. And, even if you think you're actually dating someone without having to pay all the bills, you need to get your shit straight because you're obviously going to get played if you aren't paying for shit! I thought this was a basic principle but I have met more and more boys in this unsophisticated part of the country that seem to lack even the most basic manners!
Monday, May 28, 2007
Drycleaners...
Riddle me This: Why is it that every dry cleaner loves their customers? I mean, seriously, how can this be the case? At least one of their customers has to be an ass hole. "You're an axe murder? Oh, that's cool, we still love you." Perhaps the next time you are feeling unloved you should head over to the dry cleaner for a reminder that they love you. Of course, depending on their turn over rate, it might take a day or two before you get the message . But alas, it will come sooner than later.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
One Hysterical Example of Why Our Drug Policy Undermines Respect for Our Criminal Justice System
Notice the snort in the newsroom. "I think we're dead"...?! What!? It's too funny! But it is also a prime example of why the criminalization of marijuana undermines respect for our criminal laws in general. If the very individuals who are supposed to uphold our criminal laws are breaking them, then acting like idiots, making the news, and not being charged with a crime themselves... don't we think it's time we simply admitted they committed no crime and change our laws!
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ducky Ducky; Quack!
This is precisely the kind of quack I am talking about. This idiot says "the State is God walking on Earth"? What does that even mean?! I guess he might mean something along the lines of the state is an almighty being? I am still unclear if that's what he meant because even if it is it is completely irrelevant to anything else he says...
Abortion "creates promiscuity." Now that's a moronic statement if I have ever heard one! Maybe its organisms, arguably a gift God gave us. Maybe this dude is just bitter he's not getting any. "Murder, inc."? And he calls other people radicals! Hahaha, this kinda cracks me up!
"The Federal Government has no role in the instrument of salvation" and yet he thinks that the government should be involved to promote his religious views, specifically those against homosexuality and abortion. He says there is a "founding Christian principles in the Constitution". Uh, have you heard and the separation of Church and State you fruitcake? And what the hell is this about "black churches" were destabilized because of Federal funding? I suppose white churches were doing just fine with any "funding" they were receiving so uh... what're you getting at here buddy, no common denominator... You certainly aren't saying that funding to churches is destabilizing to society since you only specified "black churches" and I imagine since you're so gung-ho about religion that you can't believe the church itself is a "perverse cause". It sounds to me that his argument is "black churches" constitute "moral degradation". So, I have to think he's just plain racist. (Please see the commentary by Kanye West below...) And interestingly, I hear him say nothing about what this "degradation" was that was "caused by federal funding". He only rattles off a list of organizations, all of which benefit gay communities or the poor (and apparently mostly "black communities") and calls them "perverse".
It's no wonder that every President has appropriated more and more money, it's because you're a moron buddy and you haven't made even one coherent argument! In fact pretty much everything you have said is hypocritical. It is so troublesome to me that there are still individuals out there that can listen to this man and think he's making a good, or even, decent argument for anything logical or coherent. He might as well have just recorded himself saying, I am a racist capitalist who wants to hoard all the money for myself. I believe in a Republican party that is compassionate, not a group of moron monkeys like this fool!
Monday, May 14, 2007
My Party; The Hypocrisy in Our Bipartisan System
The bipartisan system. What a concept. A system in which believing in a laissez faire economic system and the right to abortion are incompatible. I think what bothers me the most about bipartisanism are the candidates. Although, upon reflection the candidates are likely motivated to act by what they believe their “party” wants. Or perhaps what their “party” wants is really what is required to become nominated as a “representative of the party”. The thinking is something like: “If you’re not “Republican” enough you won’t appeal to the “Republican” vote so we can’t nominate you, regardless of how socially logical your policies might be”. So perhaps it is simply a nasty cycle that American voters have precipitated since the birth of our Constitution.
To be sure, there are benefits of the system. Some additional checks and balances that even the Framers never intended. I have to be honest, though: the idea that a woman in our Nation cannot freely exercise the right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy appalls me. That is simply one belief I think there is simply no place for in the world and I consider myself to be sympathetic to some pretty outrageous ideas and social policies, conservative and liberal alike. It further appalls me when MEN have the audacity to speak on a WOMAN'S right to choose. (This comment is made in regards to the overarching issue, I do believe I man has every right to assert his belief on the matter when it comes to his own child, but in that circumstance alone. Otherwise, I find this issue to be one that is exclusively a “women’s issue” only because when it really comes down to it, a woman is really the one who will suffer the ultimate sacrifices of bearing a child. A man may participate in the child's life or not at his will.) Obviously, I cannot and would not argue that abortion is good or right or Christian. Nonetheless, imposing a responsibility of bearing a child on a woman simply because of her female status and the truly unavoidable nature of women to get pregnant is a grave disservice to this Nation and most importantly, to that child.
I say unavoidable which is sure to evoke attack. Of course you can use “protection”. But no method of “birth control” apart from sterilization (which some of these lunatics might be lobbying for) is completely effective. Furthermore, the loudest speakers against abortion are generally those who oppose it for religious reasons. Ironically, however, Catholics do not believe in using any method of birth control. I can only presume that those Catholics who actively oppose a woman’s right to choose live in a fantasy world or think women should just be baby makers and rearers (perhaps the ideal of the "fantasy world" and the A.D. women's role are not that inconsistent). Unfortunately, this is the real world. It is a world in which young girls have unprotected sex with other young boys when they are not married. A world where poor single mothers cannot afford to feed their children and those children are growing up without fathers because the father had the “luxury” of leaving to live his own childhood. And so I beg the question, what kind of family values are these?!
Of course, these are not the circumstances of every abortion, or even most abortions, in this country. In fact, I might argue that preventing the precipitation of poverty and teenage motherhood is the “ideal” exercise of a woman’s right to choose (if such an abstract of an "ideal exercise of the right to choose" exists, and of course, it would be secondary to abortion necessitated by health risks). Abortions are expensive for many individuals and difficult to obtain if you do not know how, have no transportation, have no clinics near you, etc. Ironically, babies are more expensive and more difficult to raise than an abortion is to obtain. But welfare assistance is free and relatively easy to get because most poor people know how. If they don’t, they can usually ask a friend or neighbor.
I am appalled because it seems to me that the very same individuals who preach against abortion (and usually vote “Republican”) seem to be opposed to paying for welfare. Those people are nothing but hypocrites. I would challenge those individuals who squarely fit into the group that oppose abortion and favor welfare spending cuts to go to a poor community and talk to teen mothers. Ask them how many of them would have gotten an abortion if given the opportunity at a low reasonable cost and if the abortion was made accessible. Welfare is accessible. People in poor communities know how to get welfare and yet they can’t get an abortion so they can’t get off welfare because they have children to raise and they can’t work because they have no education because they dropped out of high school because they were pregnant because they could not get an abortion. I think you know where I am going with this. Furthermore, even if they got a job that required no job skills or education (which exist but we still don’t hire people who don’t have a high school education because we now hire college grads for these jobs!) they would have no health benefits and end up making less money than they did on welfare. (I suggest you read The Working Poor by David Shipler who addresses these issue in depth).
I challenge people who fit squarely in that category of believing in “pro-life/welfare cuts” to go to improverished communities and ask teen mothers that would have opted for an abortion if it were cheap and readily available to them how many of them think they would have finished at least high school. Or how many of those women think their lives would be better if they had not had to care for a small child when they were themselves a small child. Or more importantly, how many of them think their child’s lives would be better if they had waited until they were an adult to have a baby. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were fiscally prepared for the event. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were married and lived with a husband and had a dual income. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they had an education which allowed them to assist the child with their homework. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they weren’t living in a housing project surrounded by addicts, gangs and drug dealers.
I challenge those idealists to go to improvished communities and ask how many people support their cause! I can guarantee they’ll find not one person who supports their cause or agrees with their views. I imagine some argument along the lines of “it’s because these people are uneducated free-loaders”. The truth is rather that those fitting squarely within this ideology are uneducated themselves. They are uneducated about the true social issues the surround those on welfare.
Why could they find not one person? It is because they have no idea what they are talking about and seek to impose their idealistic views on a world they know nothing about. Worse, however, is that they make no attempt to find out what the issues in the “ghettos” are. They simply don’t care. They think that every clump of cells in a womb has the right to be brought into gang banging poverty; has the right to families that can barely afford food; has the right to have inadequate education; has the right to lack responsible parents that wanted to or were ready to have children; and has the right to have little or no hope of breaking that cycle. Then, they seek to impose social policies that will make the situation in this clump of cell’s life even bleaker.
Bipartisanism bothers me because I believe that a woman should have the right to choose not to have a baby she is not financially, emotionally and socially prepared to raise so that we can cut welfare spending. But that “party” doesn’t exist.
To be sure, there are benefits of the system. Some additional checks and balances that even the Framers never intended. I have to be honest, though: the idea that a woman in our Nation cannot freely exercise the right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy appalls me. That is simply one belief I think there is simply no place for in the world and I consider myself to be sympathetic to some pretty outrageous ideas and social policies, conservative and liberal alike. It further appalls me when MEN have the audacity to speak on a WOMAN'S right to choose. (This comment is made in regards to the overarching issue, I do believe I man has every right to assert his belief on the matter when it comes to his own child, but in that circumstance alone. Otherwise, I find this issue to be one that is exclusively a “women’s issue” only because when it really comes down to it, a woman is really the one who will suffer the ultimate sacrifices of bearing a child. A man may participate in the child's life or not at his will.) Obviously, I cannot and would not argue that abortion is good or right or Christian. Nonetheless, imposing a responsibility of bearing a child on a woman simply because of her female status and the truly unavoidable nature of women to get pregnant is a grave disservice to this Nation and most importantly, to that child.
I say unavoidable which is sure to evoke attack. Of course you can use “protection”. But no method of “birth control” apart from sterilization (which some of these lunatics might be lobbying for) is completely effective. Furthermore, the loudest speakers against abortion are generally those who oppose it for religious reasons. Ironically, however, Catholics do not believe in using any method of birth control. I can only presume that those Catholics who actively oppose a woman’s right to choose live in a fantasy world or think women should just be baby makers and rearers (perhaps the ideal of the "fantasy world" and the A.D. women's role are not that inconsistent). Unfortunately, this is the real world. It is a world in which young girls have unprotected sex with other young boys when they are not married. A world where poor single mothers cannot afford to feed their children and those children are growing up without fathers because the father had the “luxury” of leaving to live his own childhood. And so I beg the question, what kind of family values are these?!
Of course, these are not the circumstances of every abortion, or even most abortions, in this country. In fact, I might argue that preventing the precipitation of poverty and teenage motherhood is the “ideal” exercise of a woman’s right to choose (if such an abstract of an "ideal exercise of the right to choose" exists, and of course, it would be secondary to abortion necessitated by health risks). Abortions are expensive for many individuals and difficult to obtain if you do not know how, have no transportation, have no clinics near you, etc. Ironically, babies are more expensive and more difficult to raise than an abortion is to obtain. But welfare assistance is free and relatively easy to get because most poor people know how. If they don’t, they can usually ask a friend or neighbor.
I am appalled because it seems to me that the very same individuals who preach against abortion (and usually vote “Republican”) seem to be opposed to paying for welfare. Those people are nothing but hypocrites. I would challenge those individuals who squarely fit into the group that oppose abortion and favor welfare spending cuts to go to a poor community and talk to teen mothers. Ask them how many of them would have gotten an abortion if given the opportunity at a low reasonable cost and if the abortion was made accessible. Welfare is accessible. People in poor communities know how to get welfare and yet they can’t get an abortion so they can’t get off welfare because they have children to raise and they can’t work because they have no education because they dropped out of high school because they were pregnant because they could not get an abortion. I think you know where I am going with this. Furthermore, even if they got a job that required no job skills or education (which exist but we still don’t hire people who don’t have a high school education because we now hire college grads for these jobs!) they would have no health benefits and end up making less money than they did on welfare. (I suggest you read The Working Poor by David Shipler who addresses these issue in depth).
I challenge people who fit squarely in that category of believing in “pro-life/welfare cuts” to go to improverished communities and ask teen mothers that would have opted for an abortion if it were cheap and readily available to them how many of them think they would have finished at least high school. Or how many of those women think their lives would be better if they had not had to care for a small child when they were themselves a small child. Or more importantly, how many of them think their child’s lives would be better if they had waited until they were an adult to have a baby. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were fiscally prepared for the event. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were married and lived with a husband and had a dual income. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they had an education which allowed them to assist the child with their homework. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they weren’t living in a housing project surrounded by addicts, gangs and drug dealers.
I challenge those idealists to go to improvished communities and ask how many people support their cause! I can guarantee they’ll find not one person who supports their cause or agrees with their views. I imagine some argument along the lines of “it’s because these people are uneducated free-loaders”. The truth is rather that those fitting squarely within this ideology are uneducated themselves. They are uneducated about the true social issues the surround those on welfare.
Why could they find not one person? It is because they have no idea what they are talking about and seek to impose their idealistic views on a world they know nothing about. Worse, however, is that they make no attempt to find out what the issues in the “ghettos” are. They simply don’t care. They think that every clump of cells in a womb has the right to be brought into gang banging poverty; has the right to families that can barely afford food; has the right to have inadequate education; has the right to lack responsible parents that wanted to or were ready to have children; and has the right to have little or no hope of breaking that cycle. Then, they seek to impose social policies that will make the situation in this clump of cell’s life even bleaker.
Bipartisanism bothers me because I believe that a woman should have the right to choose not to have a baby she is not financially, emotionally and socially prepared to raise so that we can cut welfare spending. But that “party” doesn’t exist.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
If the Men That We Love Aren't the Men That Love Us, Then *!%& The Men And Here's to Us!
I started looking for something funny on youtube to comment on... just 'cause. I think I needed it. But, I found these instead and I thought they were so awesome that they should be shared. I can't imagine the courage of putting yourself out there like these women did here (and for all the world to see). But the inspiration is something I know I need in my life right now. I need the reminder of how much I love myself as things have gotten a bit low lately. But most importantly, I think women should remember our strengths and powers which we so often mistake as weaknesses. Our ability to love and comfort but our need to be doing it for the right reasons, which often I find my friends and I do not. So, I'm "hollerin' when I heard it".
I thought this was great too. We should always remember who we are. We should always remember who others are, even when we think we might have lost them. Or perhaps, when we think they might have lost themselves. We must be compassionate. We must be understanding. We must put ourselves in someone else's shoes.
And, although I was feeling really good about not having a man until I saw this... I thought it was hysterical.
I thought this was great too. We should always remember who we are. We should always remember who others are, even when we think we might have lost them. Or perhaps, when we think they might have lost themselves. We must be compassionate. We must be understanding. We must put ourselves in someone else's shoes.
And, although I was feeling really good about not having a man until I saw this... I thought it was hysterical.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)