Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tourism
Why is it that Asians make the quintessential tourist? I think it may be because they have futuristic technology to tour with like high tech cameras. I question whether Americans reciprocate when visiting Asia. There is something about Asian's enthusiasm about capturing absolutely ever site on camera that worries me and yet I find myself slightly intrigued. Are the rest of us taking everything for granted?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Maurice Clarett started blogging. I feel like suddenly there is hope in the world. First of all, who would have thought Maurice Clarett was so articulate? And, the criminal justice system almost working? Impossible!
Of course, I say almost because Clarett is apparently attending college while he's in prison. Most prisoner's are denied that opportunity. Moreover, many states have seen a decline in the number of participants in prison college programs. Nonetheless, Clarett, once a bright young football star, has stepped into a whole new arena. He's got the name, the story, and the marketing to make it work.
Personally, I have always had a fondness for Maurice Clarett because I was very sympathetic to his story. I really thought he got screwed by the NCAA. While I did not think he was a saint by any means, I felt he'd been taken advantage of by lawyers and the overly oppressive rules of the NCAA. Admittedly, Clarett made some mistakes in the past but his blog suggests he has truly learned from them. On so many levels this is thrilling to me. Of course, there is the broader societal inspiration. On a very personal level I feel vindicated in siding with Clarett through the thick and the thin. I am thrilled to see someone publicly exhibiting that the criminal justice system does rehabilitate people and we need not fear ex-cons on a stereotypical level.
Maurice Clarett proved everyone wrong and because I always believed in him, I feel a sense of victory too. Clarett does not know me nor does he have knowledge that I always felt he got the bad end of the stick. While I am sure many have expressed their opinion on either side of that line to Clarett, I certainly was never one of those people. Nonetheless, I feel that I won something today. Clarett definitely did and even if my victory is merely a facade it's that winning feeling that really counts!
Of course, I say almost because Clarett is apparently attending college while he's in prison. Most prisoner's are denied that opportunity. Moreover, many states have seen a decline in the number of participants in prison college programs. Nonetheless, Clarett, once a bright young football star, has stepped into a whole new arena. He's got the name, the story, and the marketing to make it work.
Personally, I have always had a fondness for Maurice Clarett because I was very sympathetic to his story. I really thought he got screwed by the NCAA. While I did not think he was a saint by any means, I felt he'd been taken advantage of by lawyers and the overly oppressive rules of the NCAA. Admittedly, Clarett made some mistakes in the past but his blog suggests he has truly learned from them. On so many levels this is thrilling to me. Of course, there is the broader societal inspiration. On a very personal level I feel vindicated in siding with Clarett through the thick and the thin. I am thrilled to see someone publicly exhibiting that the criminal justice system does rehabilitate people and we need not fear ex-cons on a stereotypical level.
Maurice Clarett proved everyone wrong and because I always believed in him, I feel a sense of victory too. Clarett does not know me nor does he have knowledge that I always felt he got the bad end of the stick. While I am sure many have expressed their opinion on either side of that line to Clarett, I certainly was never one of those people. Nonetheless, I feel that I won something today. Clarett definitely did and even if my victory is merely a facade it's that winning feeling that really counts!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
What Has Happened to Capitalism?
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!
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!
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.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Finally, Someone Knows I am Right!
I finally found someone this weekend that also thinks Brady Quinn is going to be a bust and that he should be thanking his lucky stars he didn't get drafted any higher than 22. This fairly high, yet lower than expected, draft number should afford him the luxury of slipping out of the League without too much embarrassment. Although, perhaps for personal reasons I wouldn't mind if he had taken over as the biggest bust in draft history.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Telfair's Nameplate Gives Way to Apple Strudel Poptarts
"He seems to have a recurrent handgun issue. He also seems to have an expired driver's license issue and a wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time issue. He is a soon-to-be-former Celtic, at least according to co-owner Wyc Grousbeck, who alerted the media via e-mail to the fact that Sebastian Telfair was not going to be a part of any Celtics' plans. 'I wanted to let you know that we have removed Sebastian's nameplate from his locker in Waltham,' Grousbeck wrote. 'The facts and circumstances of his case have not yet been determined but he does not have a Celtics locker and we do not anticipate that he will.'" -Telfair didn't belong in Boston, Bob Ryan, Boston Globe
Ok, first of all, "wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time issue". I would venture to say, and I'm just spitballin' here, the real problem is most likely it's just about always the wrong time when it comes to Sebastian Telfair. [At this juncture you should throw on Eminem's "Criminal", which is the soundtrack for this blog entry.] Not that I am shadowing Telfair as part of his security detail (as it's pretty clear he's got that handled himself) and would know exactly how he spends his time but I mean, come on! Most people can get through a lifetime without criminal charges. He can't make it one year!
There is a group of "compassionate people" out there that think the Celtics should wait until it has been determined for sure that the gun did not belong to his "girlfriend". First of all, that excuse is getting old. "Seems" to have a handgun issue is an understatement. I think it's pretty clear at this point that he does in fact have a recurrent handgun "issue". And last time I checked carrying around a loaded handgun is against league rules regardless of whether it licensed to your "girlfriend". Of course, he wasn't working at the time of the most recent incident, but Telfair has proven he's a huge liability, the Celtics have enough problems as it is.
In other news, apple strudel poptarts are pretty good. Check 'em out. Perhaps they can take over Telfair's spot on the Celtic's bench. They don't pack heat...
And coming soon: Why Sebastian Telfair should have taken advantage of a free education.
Ok, first of all, "wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time issue". I would venture to say, and I'm just spitballin' here, the real problem is most likely it's just about always the wrong time when it comes to Sebastian Telfair. [At this juncture you should throw on Eminem's "Criminal", which is the soundtrack for this blog entry.] Not that I am shadowing Telfair as part of his security detail (as it's pretty clear he's got that handled himself) and would know exactly how he spends his time but I mean, come on! Most people can get through a lifetime without criminal charges. He can't make it one year!
There is a group of "compassionate people" out there that think the Celtics should wait until it has been determined for sure that the gun did not belong to his "girlfriend". First of all, that excuse is getting old. "Seems" to have a handgun issue is an understatement. I think it's pretty clear at this point that he does in fact have a recurrent handgun "issue". And last time I checked carrying around a loaded handgun is against league rules regardless of whether it licensed to your "girlfriend". Of course, he wasn't working at the time of the most recent incident, but Telfair has proven he's a huge liability, the Celtics have enough problems as it is.
In other news, apple strudel poptarts are pretty good. Check 'em out. Perhaps they can take over Telfair's spot on the Celtic's bench. They don't pack heat...
And coming soon: Why Sebastian Telfair should have taken advantage of a free education.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Methadone Treatment: Policies of Legal Narcotics in the U.S. Work
Criminal laws do not and cannot cure addiction. A fact we must face as a Nation in order to address our failing 'War on Drugs'. A fact that we must face as a Nation if we believe in compassion and seek to find a viable long-term solution for this affliction. A fact that we must face if we want to find socially beneficial remedies to drug problems rather than exacerbating the problems with band-aid jail sentences which cost Americans millions annually.
This trailer shows some insight about the true power of heroin addiction:
The FDA recognized this sentiment when it approved methadone treatment. Methadone is a legal synthetic narcotic. It is used to treat heroin addiction as well as addiction to narcotic painkillers. This concept in the abstract is shocking to many that know nothing about American drug laws and policies. Methadone provides opiates to addicts because they cannot live without them. Synthetic simply means that it produces the same reaction in the brain but is not made from natural poppy plants. By taking this medication heroin addicts are able to function normally in society by feeding their addiction for opiates but in a synthetic form. It has been one of the greatest steps toward treating addiction ever realized.
Methadone is one of the greatest steps toward treating addiction because the individuals who are treated with methadone are getting their “fix” and they are taken out of the illicit drug culture in order to achieve this necessity of addiction. Those using methadone are no longer required to steal, prostitute themselves, or otherwise participate in crime in order to feed their habit. They are no longer required to visit their drug dealer every day. They are able to acquire their “fix” easily and at a low cost. They do not have to worry about their dealer not being able to supply which could leave them suffering from unbearable withdrawal symptoms. They do not have run the risk of getting AIDs or other intravenous diseases because they share needles. Moreover, because they know where they can get their “fix” they do not have to spend their day as they did as an illicit addict.
The daily life of a heroin addict is a repetitive cycle with only one goal: to get that fix. Because of the nature of the brain’s dependence on heroin (and to a somewhat lesser extent, other narcotics) once an individual is addicted, there is no way to avoid this goal. It will cause a truly addicted individual to do anything in order to achieve that goal. Nothing is as important as achieving that goal. That is what we must understand when we approach this problem and determine how to deal with it as a society. We must understand that an addict has no control over the crimes they commit in order to achieve their goal to a large extent. A compassionate criminal code should and could view this type of crime as that of necessity given the mental state of the criminal. It is armed with this knowledge that we examine the benefits of methadone.
Methadone provides normalcy for those afflicted with addiction. Without opiates to quell the demands of the opiate receptors in the brain, addicts cannot function as normal human beings within our society. By providing them with this “fix” methadone allows those on the treatment to acquire gainful employment and otherwise contribute positively to society because they no longer are employed as a full-time heroin addict. Prior to their treatment on methadone, they were forced by their addiction to spend the entire day doing whatever it is they had to do in order to get their fix. Through methadone treatment, they simply have to take their medication and are freed from the requirements the illicit drug world necessitated.
Methadone is a wonderful example of how decriminalization of drugs in the United States will decrease crime and increase productivity. Those on the treatment are now free to participate positively to our society, not because we have denied them their “fix”, but rather because we have made it legal for them to get it. Although these individuals can never be restored to their preaddiction state, they are far better off on methadone treatment than as narcotic addicts. The government has decreased crime by allowing these individuals to take advantage of methadone treatment because they are no longer required to participate in an illicit market. The government has taken money out of the hands of undeserving drug dealers who used to sell these addicted individuals heroin. The government has negated the requirement of these individuals to participate in theft, prostitution and a variety of other crimes that afforded them their drug addiction. The government has obviated the need to spend much needed tax dollars on jailing these individuals for crimes they no longer have to commit to feed their addiction. The government has alleviated the risk that these individuals will overdose and die because of their drug addiction. The government has decreased the spread of AIDs and HIV in the U.S. through this drug policy. The government has created jobs and put money into the American economy through the creation of methadone clinics and the sale of a legal drug.
At which point I leave you with your thoughts.
“You can’t stop here. This is bat country.” -Hunter S. Thompson
This trailer shows some insight about the true power of heroin addiction:
The FDA recognized this sentiment when it approved methadone treatment. Methadone is a legal synthetic narcotic. It is used to treat heroin addiction as well as addiction to narcotic painkillers. This concept in the abstract is shocking to many that know nothing about American drug laws and policies. Methadone provides opiates to addicts because they cannot live without them. Synthetic simply means that it produces the same reaction in the brain but is not made from natural poppy plants. By taking this medication heroin addicts are able to function normally in society by feeding their addiction for opiates but in a synthetic form. It has been one of the greatest steps toward treating addiction ever realized.
Methadone is one of the greatest steps toward treating addiction because the individuals who are treated with methadone are getting their “fix” and they are taken out of the illicit drug culture in order to achieve this necessity of addiction. Those using methadone are no longer required to steal, prostitute themselves, or otherwise participate in crime in order to feed their habit. They are no longer required to visit their drug dealer every day. They are able to acquire their “fix” easily and at a low cost. They do not have to worry about their dealer not being able to supply which could leave them suffering from unbearable withdrawal symptoms. They do not have run the risk of getting AIDs or other intravenous diseases because they share needles. Moreover, because they know where they can get their “fix” they do not have to spend their day as they did as an illicit addict.
The daily life of a heroin addict is a repetitive cycle with only one goal: to get that fix. Because of the nature of the brain’s dependence on heroin (and to a somewhat lesser extent, other narcotics) once an individual is addicted, there is no way to avoid this goal. It will cause a truly addicted individual to do anything in order to achieve that goal. Nothing is as important as achieving that goal. That is what we must understand when we approach this problem and determine how to deal with it as a society. We must understand that an addict has no control over the crimes they commit in order to achieve their goal to a large extent. A compassionate criminal code should and could view this type of crime as that of necessity given the mental state of the criminal. It is armed with this knowledge that we examine the benefits of methadone.
Methadone provides normalcy for those afflicted with addiction. Without opiates to quell the demands of the opiate receptors in the brain, addicts cannot function as normal human beings within our society. By providing them with this “fix” methadone allows those on the treatment to acquire gainful employment and otherwise contribute positively to society because they no longer are employed as a full-time heroin addict. Prior to their treatment on methadone, they were forced by their addiction to spend the entire day doing whatever it is they had to do in order to get their fix. Through methadone treatment, they simply have to take their medication and are freed from the requirements the illicit drug world necessitated.
Methadone is a wonderful example of how decriminalization of drugs in the United States will decrease crime and increase productivity. Those on the treatment are now free to participate positively to our society, not because we have denied them their “fix”, but rather because we have made it legal for them to get it. Although these individuals can never be restored to their preaddiction state, they are far better off on methadone treatment than as narcotic addicts. The government has decreased crime by allowing these individuals to take advantage of methadone treatment because they are no longer required to participate in an illicit market. The government has taken money out of the hands of undeserving drug dealers who used to sell these addicted individuals heroin. The government has negated the requirement of these individuals to participate in theft, prostitution and a variety of other crimes that afforded them their drug addiction. The government has obviated the need to spend much needed tax dollars on jailing these individuals for crimes they no longer have to commit to feed their addiction. The government has alleviated the risk that these individuals will overdose and die because of their drug addiction. The government has decreased the spread of AIDs and HIV in the U.S. through this drug policy. The government has created jobs and put money into the American economy through the creation of methadone clinics and the sale of a legal drug.
At which point I leave you with your thoughts.
“You can’t stop here. This is bat country.” -Hunter S. Thompson
Woman's Best Friend: The Ultimate Battle Every Woman Must Face
As I have encouraged my friends to visit my blog, I have pointed out that my procrastination levels are at an all time high. They continue to climb. This is of course also a product of the fact that I suffer from exam period insomnia. This is not a clinical diagnosis. Nor, surprisely even a disease recognized within the medical profession to date. Fear not though, I am fighting (by way of raising awareness through my blog) for recongition. Nonetheless, I have suffered from it at all relevant times of my collegiate and now legal education. This cuento (that's spanish for "story") occurred during second semester freshmen year during which time I first began to understand and embrace what it meant to be in college. It meant that you never had to go to class and that frankly, you had little to no accountability whatsoever. Your main objective was, and probably should be, partying (of course for the purpose of self discovery) in true hippy style and mindset. So, after a semester of partial slacking (although compared to the slacking yet to come, this was nothing) I had some serious making up to do before exams. I didn't sleep for three straight days during exams. We're talking 72 straight hours of consciousness completely unassisted aside from small doses of caffeine in the wee hours of the morning. This came after roughly three weeks of minimal sleep, no more than 5 hours a night and on average I would say 3 hours a night. By the last day, I was basically not coherent. I attended my math final in this state.
My instructor was a rather frightening French graduate student named Yann. He was hysterical and frightening only because he was abrasively French. He swore and yelled. He was mean to children, smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, had a ponytail and wore tight jeans. You couldn't find a more stereotypical Frenchman. Here nor there. I commenced the exam and had a question on the last problem. I asked Yann who provided some insight that proved very helpful. I then went back to check my answers at which point I became very scared. More scared in fact than I had ever been of Yann. At this point, I would like to point out that Yann was only scary at the very beginning of the semester; we actually grew to be friends because he was a pretty hysterical guy. Back to the test. I was terrified because as I re-read the first problem I was sure I had never seen it before. It didn't even look remotely familiar so there was no way I had provided an answer to this problem just an hour and a half before. But as I looked over the answer to that and the remainder of the problems that my brain had expunged, they all looked correct. When I got my grade for the exam I had received a 96. Every semester at the University, roughly 500 to 700 students take this math class, the average for the exam was a 54. So, I like to think that my insomnia provides some benefits aside from memory loss, the obvious lack of sleep, and clear blogging addiction. But alas, we shall see when I receive my grades.
I now move on to the topic summarized in the heading of this blog entry: Woman's Best Friend; Dog, Shoes or Handbag. For those that know me, you know that this is, well, I am at a loss for words. The shoes thing I would like to tackle first.
If you don't think that's funny the first time you watch it. Give it at least two more times before you completely discount it. It took me three tries before I appreciated it. And, frankly, on the first go, I thought it was pathetic and not funny at all. Much like Zoolander, which I now hail as a hallmark of American cinematography.
So, shoes obviously make any outfit great. But the real question is their durability. You could spend a fortune on a pair of shoes and have them last 10 wears and be trashed. On the other hand, you could spend peanuts and get years of faithful use. Then, of course, there is the comfort issue. If they aren't comfortable, they are of no or limited use no matter how good they look. So, I have to say that although I love shoes and do appreciate each and every pair of my shoes, they are not the ultimate accessory.
This brings me to the handbag. Now, the handbag cannot fall victim to the same criticisms as shoes. If cared for properly, a good quality handbag could last a lifetime. They too make an outfit. Furthermore, they serve a functional purpose while never running the risk of discomfort (at least in no recorded cases I have heard of). They come in all shapes and sizes and can serve a variety of purposes, making them far more versatile than shoes. If you have really expensive ones they attract complements and clearly make people like you! Clearly, they have already beaten out the shoe. The real question is, can they beat out the dog?
The dog. I know what you're thinking: the ultimate accessory! Everyone is doing it! That's right, everyone from Paris to Brit Brit has a little pooch in tote. Although these little guys have passed their hay day we can't avoid the fact that their lifespan is longer than Paris' trend-life, so Tinkerbell is here for the next 7-12 years. Ok, in all seriousness, a dog, no matter what size has some great qualities as a woman's best friend. For one, it has more of a personality than a purse. And it doesn't talk back like Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie but you can tell it what to do. Plus, if you have a small dog, you can PUT IT IN YOUR PURSE. And they too attract complements and make people like you! I know, I know, you're all opening up another web browser right now to puppyfind.com to find your very own canine pal! It's a tough call, but I think the pooch wins!!! Yea!
Disclaimer: For those that lack any viable sense of humor, the second portion of this entry as it relates to shoes, handbags, Brit Brit and dogs is satire.
My instructor was a rather frightening French graduate student named Yann. He was hysterical and frightening only because he was abrasively French. He swore and yelled. He was mean to children, smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, had a ponytail and wore tight jeans. You couldn't find a more stereotypical Frenchman. Here nor there. I commenced the exam and had a question on the last problem. I asked Yann who provided some insight that proved very helpful. I then went back to check my answers at which point I became very scared. More scared in fact than I had ever been of Yann. At this point, I would like to point out that Yann was only scary at the very beginning of the semester; we actually grew to be friends because he was a pretty hysterical guy. Back to the test. I was terrified because as I re-read the first problem I was sure I had never seen it before. It didn't even look remotely familiar so there was no way I had provided an answer to this problem just an hour and a half before. But as I looked over the answer to that and the remainder of the problems that my brain had expunged, they all looked correct. When I got my grade for the exam I had received a 96. Every semester at the University, roughly 500 to 700 students take this math class, the average for the exam was a 54. So, I like to think that my insomnia provides some benefits aside from memory loss, the obvious lack of sleep, and clear blogging addiction. But alas, we shall see when I receive my grades.
I now move on to the topic summarized in the heading of this blog entry: Woman's Best Friend; Dog, Shoes or Handbag. For those that know me, you know that this is, well, I am at a loss for words. The shoes thing I would like to tackle first.
If you don't think that's funny the first time you watch it. Give it at least two more times before you completely discount it. It took me three tries before I appreciated it. And, frankly, on the first go, I thought it was pathetic and not funny at all. Much like Zoolander, which I now hail as a hallmark of American cinematography.
So, shoes obviously make any outfit great. But the real question is their durability. You could spend a fortune on a pair of shoes and have them last 10 wears and be trashed. On the other hand, you could spend peanuts and get years of faithful use. Then, of course, there is the comfort issue. If they aren't comfortable, they are of no or limited use no matter how good they look. So, I have to say that although I love shoes and do appreciate each and every pair of my shoes, they are not the ultimate accessory.
This brings me to the handbag. Now, the handbag cannot fall victim to the same criticisms as shoes. If cared for properly, a good quality handbag could last a lifetime. They too make an outfit. Furthermore, they serve a functional purpose while never running the risk of discomfort (at least in no recorded cases I have heard of). They come in all shapes and sizes and can serve a variety of purposes, making them far more versatile than shoes. If you have really expensive ones they attract complements and clearly make people like you! Clearly, they have already beaten out the shoe. The real question is, can they beat out the dog?
The dog. I know what you're thinking: the ultimate accessory! Everyone is doing it! That's right, everyone from Paris to Brit Brit has a little pooch in tote. Although these little guys have passed their hay day we can't avoid the fact that their lifespan is longer than Paris' trend-life, so Tinkerbell is here for the next 7-12 years. Ok, in all seriousness, a dog, no matter what size has some great qualities as a woman's best friend. For one, it has more of a personality than a purse. And it doesn't talk back like Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie but you can tell it what to do. Plus, if you have a small dog, you can PUT IT IN YOUR PURSE. And they too attract complements and make people like you! I know, I know, you're all opening up another web browser right now to puppyfind.com to find your very own canine pal! It's a tough call, but I think the pooch wins!!! Yea!
Disclaimer: For those that lack any viable sense of humor, the second portion of this entry as it relates to shoes, handbags, Brit Brit and dogs is satire.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Drunken Messaging... Hysterical or Shameful, You Decide!
As I continue to “blog” I have mixed feelings. One is fear. I spoke with a fellow classmate of mine recently who has attended very few classes all semester. I informed him that procrastination was at an all time high and that I had in fact, started a blog. His response, “Wow, you have reached new heights.” Usually I sew instead of study and make myself a kick ass wardrobe. Now, apparently as an alternative for of procrastination I have begun an online journal of sorts when I should be learning property law. Needless to say, he’s right and I should be studying and fearful that I will fail. I think the imminent fright he instilled was largely a result of the fact that if someone who had barely gone to school all semester thought I should be worried, then perhaps I should be worried. On the other hand, I continue to write this. I do feel it is somewhat productive, although I am still on the fence about whether it is more or less so than sewing.
I recently had a conversation on myspace messaging which I found particularly humorous and decided to share. Names have been changed to protect the innocent (or not so innocent as the case may be).
This morning I woke up to this message:
its a 4:30 in the morning. Im a little drunk (applause)<------ theres a narrations for ya. I got two numbers but I think thayll be worthless (applause followed by gasps). on chick has a kid....what am i gonna do with her? i am a kid....i dont want nothere one aroudn (laughter and a man coughing). the other one wnet to my high school and was a grade under my sister .... i think i might getr on her just fro the principle of it. ...so i can say i got on someone a gradde under my sister (chuckles and one boo). shes cute but not a lot ofs chest. ne ways...your a weirdo...(knods of agreement and one laugh) i gots me drunk on a coupld vodka Tonicos. its the best drink....the drink of professionals (people in suits stand up and cheers me) ok...i can narrate !! cause im a badd muda fucker...when i t comes to narration....( no one does anything and i smack someone in the face in the front row) damnb hecklers....
My response:Just so you are aware, in all seriousness, I am going to take you response, change the names to protect the innocent and comment on it as a blog entry. This is precisely the kind of material I have been looking for. Be afraid be very afraid. In other news, you should check out my first entry. It is posted on my other myspace page which shouldn't be hard to find because it's your other friend... no your other friend. Haha, later!
Ackmed’s response:Hey thats cool, Id be honored if you took the message I wrote in an intoxicated, drunkin stupor and in which i berated two women, a mother and and old classmate, and labeled them as worthless. Just make sure you leave my name off lol. I read your blog. I liked it. i kind of want to blog also. But i know i will have to comment on yours...so instead of doing double work, my blogs are just going to be my comments to your bogging. I think thats more efficient for everyone lol. Also i am taking your internal narrations bit, im hooked. Lastly, how long you think you can ride the friend comment jokes :) they are well placed though, and they do bring a smile to my face. but its inevitable to run out. Have a good day!
My Response:
Frankly Ackmed, I plan to make the friends comment joke until you have some friends. I suggest you get on that. Frankly it can't get old until "the chuckles all around" cease. Since in reality (I know this may come as a shock) I am the only chuckler, as long as I find it funny (which I don't see ending any time soon), it won't be old. Furthermore, I was not intending to paint your drunken banter in such bad light. Frankly, I hadn't interpreted it as such. But, clearly I overestimated your character. No wonder you don't have any friends! Hahaha! I'll have to re-consider whether we should be friends!
A few things are clear from this. One is that I clearly employ the word "frankly" too frequently in casual message exchanges. Another is that sharing this exchange with whoever chooses to read it is not only a waste of my time, but likely a large waste of yours as well. One can only hope you're in my property class and I have just thrown the curve in my favor by distracting you from studying. But, frankly, I doubt that to be the case. And, lastly, Ackmed would clearly be a great name for a friend who sends ridiculous messages at 4:30 in the a.m. about women he met at the bar and dubbed as "worthless" for no good reason.
I recently had a conversation on myspace messaging which I found particularly humorous and decided to share. Names have been changed to protect the innocent (or not so innocent as the case may be).
This morning I woke up to this message:
its a 4:30 in the morning. Im a little drunk (applause)<------ theres a narrations for ya. I got two numbers but I think thayll be worthless (applause followed by gasps). on chick has a kid....what am i gonna do with her? i am a kid....i dont want nothere one aroudn (laughter and a man coughing). the other one wnet to my high school and was a grade under my sister .... i think i might getr on her just fro the principle of it. ...so i can say i got on someone a gradde under my sister (chuckles and one boo). shes cute but not a lot ofs chest. ne ways...your a weirdo...(knods of agreement and one laugh) i gots me drunk on a coupld vodka Tonicos. its the best drink....the drink of professionals (people in suits stand up and cheers me) ok...i can narrate !! cause im a badd muda fucker...when i t comes to narration....( no one does anything and i smack someone in the face in the front row) damnb hecklers....
My response:Just so you are aware, in all seriousness, I am going to take you response, change the names to protect the innocent and comment on it as a blog entry. This is precisely the kind of material I have been looking for. Be afraid be very afraid. In other news, you should check out my first entry. It is posted on my other myspace page which shouldn't be hard to find because it's your other friend... no your other friend. Haha, later!
Ackmed’s response:Hey thats cool, Id be honored if you took the message I wrote in an intoxicated, drunkin stupor and in which i berated two women, a mother and and old classmate, and labeled them as worthless. Just make sure you leave my name off lol. I read your blog. I liked it. i kind of want to blog also. But i know i will have to comment on yours...so instead of doing double work, my blogs are just going to be my comments to your bogging. I think thats more efficient for everyone lol. Also i am taking your internal narrations bit, im hooked. Lastly, how long you think you can ride the friend comment jokes :) they are well placed though, and they do bring a smile to my face. but its inevitable to run out. Have a good day!
My Response:
Frankly Ackmed, I plan to make the friends comment joke until you have some friends. I suggest you get on that. Frankly it can't get old until "the chuckles all around" cease. Since in reality (I know this may come as a shock) I am the only chuckler, as long as I find it funny (which I don't see ending any time soon), it won't be old. Furthermore, I was not intending to paint your drunken banter in such bad light. Frankly, I hadn't interpreted it as such. But, clearly I overestimated your character. No wonder you don't have any friends! Hahaha! I'll have to re-consider whether we should be friends!
A few things are clear from this. One is that I clearly employ the word "frankly" too frequently in casual message exchanges. Another is that sharing this exchange with whoever chooses to read it is not only a waste of my time, but likely a large waste of yours as well. One can only hope you're in my property class and I have just thrown the curve in my favor by distracting you from studying. But, frankly, I doubt that to be the case. And, lastly, Ackmed would clearly be a great name for a friend who sends ridiculous messages at 4:30 in the a.m. about women he met at the bar and dubbed as "worthless" for no good reason.
What Not To Do When Courting Women (humorous accounts of my recent past and their ensuing lessons)
Myspace stalkers. What can you say about them really? I think mainly, that they have too much time on their hands. I have had people find me on myspace met me at a bar 6 months ago with no evidence that we even have a mutual friend on this “networking” site. When someone finds you on myspace and you haven’t talked to them save for one time in a bar and they send you a message, what goes through your head? I’ll tell you what goes through mine. Why are you sending me this message? Followed immediately by: You’re a weirdo?! Obviously, this thought depends largely on the content of the message, whether or not I actually remember the person and the extent of our "meeting". But if you met someone one time a long time ago and haven’t seen or talked to them since, finding them online is a bit strange. Hate to be the bearer of the bad news. So, lest we have categorical rule #1: If it wouldn’t happen in real life, it shouldn’t happen on myspace!
I now turn to an example: I got a message and friend request from a person with no name or photo who told me they met me at a bar 6 months ago. They were surprised to see I had moved out of the state. I find this surprise frightening because apparently I had told them I was planning on doing so when I met them at the bar. That sounds psycho. I mean, that just sounds completely psycho. If this individual thought that I wanted so little to do with them at a bar that I would lie to such a degree that I would say I was MOVING OUT OF THE STATE, why would they take the time and effort to find me on myspace and then send a message!?! More importantly, why mention their surprise about me moving out of the state, thus admitting they thought I had lied to them? You could try and fly under the psycho radar instead of red flagging yourself and not mention that even YOU thought you were so weird that I would lie about moving to another part of the country. He might as well have written to me, “You probably don’t know who I am [because I have no name or picture on my profile] but you thought I was a total weirdo when I met you at a bar 6 months ago. Nonetheless, I thought I’d be even more weird and contact you online after all this time has elapsed just to announce that you were right and further show how weird I really am.”
I have to be honest though, because I would rather know who my stalkers are than have them lurking behind my back at any moment completely oblivious to it, I wrote back trying to determine who this individual could be. The psycho radar was off the charts when I received his response. He told me he didn’t have a picture because he didn’t want his teenage siblings to find him on myspace. Now, that would be a viable excuse, but for the fact that there was nothing that wasn’t PG on his profile. And, frankly, unless it’s genetic, I doubt his teenage siblings are going around looking for him online. Why don’t you just make your profile private buddy? Oh, that’s right, because you’re probably lying and just a freakin’ weirdo! At that point, I was, for the first time, thankful that I had in fact moved out of the state.
On that note, I would like to bring up a young man I met at another bar more recently. I was waiting for some male friends of mine who are always late. So, as I stood alone waiting, I was almost immediately upon my arrival approached by this individual who was polite and offered to buy me a drink after a short discussion on a topic I cannot recall. Because I did not want to give him the wrong idea, and because I knew my friends would be there any minute, I let him know I was waiting for someone. He said that was fine, he would still like to buy me a drink and I could go on my way. So, I acquiesced. He bought me a drink and we had a friendly (although quite forced) conversation while I waited for my friends.
Finally, my friends arrived and I tried to politely excuse myself which I didn't envision being hard since, after all, I had clearly told this guy I'd be ditching him upon their arrival and he clearly said that was acceptable. But, he made a request for my phone number to which I felt some responsibility to comply so I agreed. However, he had no idea how to use his cell phone. Eventually, I had to tell him to find me if he figured it out. Frankly, I think that's a clear message, particularly under the circumstances, to take a hike. Persistence is certainly not something this individually lacked. Because, alas, he returned in about 20 minutes, apparently after some tutorial on his phone, and tried to store my phone number. Although I was definitely second guessing this, I felt bad saying no now since I had already said yes. After a bit of struggle, he seemed to have it down. Immediately, I wished I hadn't just given this guy my number.
Basically, the point is that this person had no social skills to speak of whatsoever. Which brings us to categorical rule #2: When asking for a girl's number, at a bare minimum, KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR PHONE or in the alternative, bring a pen. If you aren't familiar with the functioning of your electronics or lack a writing utensil or are otherwise later turned down for being an idiot during the process of receipt of said phone number, do not approach her again. And categorical rule #3: Observations about race are of the nature that they do not need to be openly clarified to someone you don't know. And on a much broader scale, no need to point out any physical characteristics unless you have a well meaning question based on the observation (which rarely if ever occurs in a polite confrontation with a stranger).
I mean, that's the equivalent of: "You're wearing white shoes. I'm as weird as your myspace stalker. Check you later!"
Weirdo #3 is an individual I met at yet another bar on a date. This guy, I actually felt really bad for at first because he approached me while my date was in the bathroom and thought I was with the group of women standing next to me. We chatted for a bit and then he asked some question about who I was there with, clearly thinking I would then introduce him to my female friends, to which I turned and pointed to my date. He immediately kind of apologized and then said it was nice meeting me and left. No harm, no foul. All in all, I thought he was a decent guy, and felt bad about him being misled in the situation.
I ran into him a month later at another bar. Now, mind you, I was, on both occasions, a visitor in the city where this transpired. So, I think he also believed I had lied to him about living out of state when he approached me on the second occasion. This time I was with some girl friends. I chatted with this guy briefly and determined some very valuable information which affected very much my impression of him. First, he suffered from halitosis. Second, and most importantly (well, actually, maybe one is the most important), that he clearly expected me to spend the entire night talking to him. And, lastly, with reference to the second observation, that he thought I must be romantically interested in him. So, I politely excused myself to find my friends. He followed me. I excused myself again. Again, he found me and started talking to me. Then he did something to piss me off. Which, basically was acknowledge the fact that I clearly wanted nothing to do with him because he was annoying the shit out of me. Nonetheless, I had been polite all night about my disinterest in talking with him any further and now this jerk has the audacity to confront me like I owe him some duty of companionship all night! This isn't a date! I didn't invite you here! So, I think at this point, I was fairly rude and pretty much told him it wasn't my intention to spend the entire night in his company, that I had many friends in the bar that I wanted to see and socialize with and I was sorry if he thought that was rude and walked away. Yet, somehow, he determined it would be appropriate to approach me again after a short time.
I could not believe it. What didn't this guy get?! So, I got one of my male friends who happened to be at the bar to go over and tell him to leave me alone. This apparently had no effect and I had to spend the remainder of the night hiding from him. Luckily the night had pretty much come to an end and I was able to sneak out without any serious further contact. Which brings up to our final categorical rule for the night, rule #4: If you meet a girl and you have bumped into her one or more times, don't think that you are entitled to spend any time with her unless you're expressly on a date. Be thankful for whatever time she affords you. If you want, say hello and strike up a conversation. But, once she excuses herself one time, let her go!
I regularly tell men at bars I am going to find my friends and that I'll come find them later and mean it. On the other hand, sometimes I say I am going to find my friends and might bump into them later. I mean "might" and generally don't have any serious intention of seeking you out. But the most important thing to glean from this information is that men should stop getting mad at women before they have fulfilled their fears that they are just lying when they say these things. More importantly, have some respect for the courtesy involved. After all, men do this far more the women and in more serious situations! For example, after you sleep with someone you have no intention of pursuing a relationship, friendship and even further sexual contact with.
The point is that both men and women should put a much greater weight on actions of the other rather than words of the other, particularly at the onset of a relationship. If I actually come and find you after I find my friends, it means I wanted to talk to you some more. If I didn't it doesn't necessarily mean I am not interested at all, or perhaps it does. But wouldn't you rather know that and just have a good time a bar than spend your time following me around some bar like a lost puppy and later have me write on my blog about why you're such a weirdo?!
I now turn to an example: I got a message and friend request from a person with no name or photo who told me they met me at a bar 6 months ago. They were surprised to see I had moved out of the state. I find this surprise frightening because apparently I had told them I was planning on doing so when I met them at the bar. That sounds psycho. I mean, that just sounds completely psycho. If this individual thought that I wanted so little to do with them at a bar that I would lie to such a degree that I would say I was MOVING OUT OF THE STATE, why would they take the time and effort to find me on myspace and then send a message!?! More importantly, why mention their surprise about me moving out of the state, thus admitting they thought I had lied to them? You could try and fly under the psycho radar instead of red flagging yourself and not mention that even YOU thought you were so weird that I would lie about moving to another part of the country. He might as well have written to me, “You probably don’t know who I am [because I have no name or picture on my profile] but you thought I was a total weirdo when I met you at a bar 6 months ago. Nonetheless, I thought I’d be even more weird and contact you online after all this time has elapsed just to announce that you were right and further show how weird I really am.”
I have to be honest though, because I would rather know who my stalkers are than have them lurking behind my back at any moment completely oblivious to it, I wrote back trying to determine who this individual could be. The psycho radar was off the charts when I received his response. He told me he didn’t have a picture because he didn’t want his teenage siblings to find him on myspace. Now, that would be a viable excuse, but for the fact that there was nothing that wasn’t PG on his profile. And, frankly, unless it’s genetic, I doubt his teenage siblings are going around looking for him online. Why don’t you just make your profile private buddy? Oh, that’s right, because you’re probably lying and just a freakin’ weirdo! At that point, I was, for the first time, thankful that I had in fact moved out of the state.
On that note, I would like to bring up a young man I met at another bar more recently. I was waiting for some male friends of mine who are always late. So, as I stood alone waiting, I was almost immediately upon my arrival approached by this individual who was polite and offered to buy me a drink after a short discussion on a topic I cannot recall. Because I did not want to give him the wrong idea, and because I knew my friends would be there any minute, I let him know I was waiting for someone. He said that was fine, he would still like to buy me a drink and I could go on my way. So, I acquiesced. He bought me a drink and we had a friendly (although quite forced) conversation while I waited for my friends.
Finally, my friends arrived and I tried to politely excuse myself which I didn't envision being hard since, after all, I had clearly told this guy I'd be ditching him upon their arrival and he clearly said that was acceptable. But, he made a request for my phone number to which I felt some responsibility to comply so I agreed. However, he had no idea how to use his cell phone. Eventually, I had to tell him to find me if he figured it out. Frankly, I think that's a clear message, particularly under the circumstances, to take a hike. Persistence is certainly not something this individually lacked. Because, alas, he returned in about 20 minutes, apparently after some tutorial on his phone, and tried to store my phone number. Although I was definitely second guessing this, I felt bad saying no now since I had already said yes. After a bit of struggle, he seemed to have it down. Immediately, I wished I hadn't just given this guy my number.
Basically, the point is that this person had no social skills to speak of whatsoever. Which brings us to categorical rule #2: When asking for a girl's number, at a bare minimum, KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR PHONE or in the alternative, bring a pen. If you aren't familiar with the functioning of your electronics or lack a writing utensil or are otherwise later turned down for being an idiot during the process of receipt of said phone number, do not approach her again. And categorical rule #3: Observations about race are of the nature that they do not need to be openly clarified to someone you don't know. And on a much broader scale, no need to point out any physical characteristics unless you have a well meaning question based on the observation (which rarely if ever occurs in a polite confrontation with a stranger).
I mean, that's the equivalent of: "You're wearing white shoes. I'm as weird as your myspace stalker. Check you later!"
Weirdo #3 is an individual I met at yet another bar on a date. This guy, I actually felt really bad for at first because he approached me while my date was in the bathroom and thought I was with the group of women standing next to me. We chatted for a bit and then he asked some question about who I was there with, clearly thinking I would then introduce him to my female friends, to which I turned and pointed to my date. He immediately kind of apologized and then said it was nice meeting me and left. No harm, no foul. All in all, I thought he was a decent guy, and felt bad about him being misled in the situation.
I ran into him a month later at another bar. Now, mind you, I was, on both occasions, a visitor in the city where this transpired. So, I think he also believed I had lied to him about living out of state when he approached me on the second occasion. This time I was with some girl friends. I chatted with this guy briefly and determined some very valuable information which affected very much my impression of him. First, he suffered from halitosis. Second, and most importantly (well, actually, maybe one is the most important), that he clearly expected me to spend the entire night talking to him. And, lastly, with reference to the second observation, that he thought I must be romantically interested in him. So, I politely excused myself to find my friends. He followed me. I excused myself again. Again, he found me and started talking to me. Then he did something to piss me off. Which, basically was acknowledge the fact that I clearly wanted nothing to do with him because he was annoying the shit out of me. Nonetheless, I had been polite all night about my disinterest in talking with him any further and now this jerk has the audacity to confront me like I owe him some duty of companionship all night! This isn't a date! I didn't invite you here! So, I think at this point, I was fairly rude and pretty much told him it wasn't my intention to spend the entire night in his company, that I had many friends in the bar that I wanted to see and socialize with and I was sorry if he thought that was rude and walked away. Yet, somehow, he determined it would be appropriate to approach me again after a short time.
I could not believe it. What didn't this guy get?! So, I got one of my male friends who happened to be at the bar to go over and tell him to leave me alone. This apparently had no effect and I had to spend the remainder of the night hiding from him. Luckily the night had pretty much come to an end and I was able to sneak out without any serious further contact. Which brings up to our final categorical rule for the night, rule #4: If you meet a girl and you have bumped into her one or more times, don't think that you are entitled to spend any time with her unless you're expressly on a date. Be thankful for whatever time she affords you. If you want, say hello and strike up a conversation. But, once she excuses herself one time, let her go!
I regularly tell men at bars I am going to find my friends and that I'll come find them later and mean it. On the other hand, sometimes I say I am going to find my friends and might bump into them later. I mean "might" and generally don't have any serious intention of seeking you out. But the most important thing to glean from this information is that men should stop getting mad at women before they have fulfilled their fears that they are just lying when they say these things. More importantly, have some respect for the courtesy involved. After all, men do this far more the women and in more serious situations! For example, after you sleep with someone you have no intention of pursuing a relationship, friendship and even further sexual contact with.
The point is that both men and women should put a much greater weight on actions of the other rather than words of the other, particularly at the onset of a relationship. If I actually come and find you after I find my friends, it means I wanted to talk to you some more. If I didn't it doesn't necessarily mean I am not interested at all, or perhaps it does. But wouldn't you rather know that and just have a good time a bar than spend your time following me around some bar like a lost puppy and later have me write on my blog about why you're such a weirdo?!
Monday, April 30, 2007
Just So You Know... About My Baby's Mama
Upon reflection regarding my last post I realized it could be construed as me suggesting I believed in laziness and evading responsibility, and getting out of promises to yourself and others. First of all, that post was largely humor but I don't want to send an underlying message that I don't believe in. So, I clarify: my stance is that you should make promises to yourself that you can and will keep. Perhaps my own resolutions were made in light of the fact that an injury prevented me from accomplishing my goal of running the Chicago Marathon last year. I was very disappointed with myself when in reality I had no control over the situation.
In fact, I ran through this injury (apparently in such denial that it existed) to the point where I could no longer walk normally. The realization that this was not sustainable came when someone at work commented on the fact that I had been limping around for the past two weeks. I decided to take a short break from running. Months later, I was still limping and a year later I am still doing PT to hopefully be able to run again at some point. In fact, recently I have been able to run for 15 or 20 minutes at a time, a huge accomplishment which I am very proud of. Yet nothing compared to the hour or hour and a half runs I used to do. Although I had failed at my goal to run the marathon I realized that I had to accept that I had clearly (given my inability to walk normally for 5 months) given it my best effort. So, the point of that post was you should reach for the stars every day of your life, but be sure that if you fall short you don't consider it a failure. After all, the stars are pretty high up there!
In fact, I ran through this injury (apparently in such denial that it existed) to the point where I could no longer walk normally. The realization that this was not sustainable came when someone at work commented on the fact that I had been limping around for the past two weeks. I decided to take a short break from running. Months later, I was still limping and a year later I am still doing PT to hopefully be able to run again at some point. In fact, recently I have been able to run for 15 or 20 minutes at a time, a huge accomplishment which I am very proud of. Yet nothing compared to the hour or hour and a half runs I used to do. Although I had failed at my goal to run the marathon I realized that I had to accept that I had clearly (given my inability to walk normally for 5 months) given it my best effort. So, the point of that post was you should reach for the stars every day of your life, but be sure that if you fall short you don't consider it a failure. After all, the stars are pretty high up there!
Who Said A White Man Don't Want a Baby's Mama?
Recently, I have really embraced the use of YouTube.com, as evidenced pretty clearly by my blog. I find it to be an interesting source of thought provoking information or simply a place to find entertainment. I stumbled upon this recently and thought it was fabulous for several reasons. I think, if you've watched it, the main reason is clear. That's right, the baby's mama.
However, it provoked many questions, for example, what does he mean, "stop growing"? Does he suffer from elephantitis? Of course when I say "he", you all know who I am talking about. The individual conducting the interview couldn't even keep a straight face when this man suggested that his New Year's Resolution was to find "a baby's mama". I think the piece was meant to be a serious piece and surely, had that comment not provided enough humor for me to post it and spend time commenting about it, I think the director would have cut it out due to background laughter. Here nor there.
Another question you might have is what does that "other guy" mean when he says "clip my toenails"? First, the "other guy" says he wants to stop his nasty habits and then he mentions clipping his toenails. This is actually an interesting concept. Clipping your toenails can be a nasty habit if done at an improper time and/or place. On the other hand, not clipping your toenails is just plain nasty.
As for the individual who doesn't make resolutions because they "don't keep promises to themselves", I have to say I can relate this year. My resolutions were as follows: (and so you know, I have them saved as a Word document in my computer, I guess in case I forget...?) (1) Go to church; (2) Be nicer, maybe find a female friend or two; and (3) "Great ass" (by which I mean on my own body, so get your minds out of the gutter... come to think of it, your minds might still be there...).
I guess, if I want to be a lawyer about it, I haven't really "not kept" any of my resolutions. I went to church on Easter. And, I think about going almost every week which is, well, 100% more than I thought about it last year (its amazing how you can make any fraction 100% when you don't consider how far you intended to go as long as you didn't do absolutely nothing). As for the second one, I can't say I have any new "best friends" that are girls, but I am certainly making an effort, which was the goal. And, after all, it did say "maybe". The ass thing. Well, I have pretty much ceased going to the gym but I like to think my ass was great to begin with. And, after all, isn't beauty relative? I mean, doesn't that resolution revolve around a subjective definition of the word "great"? Obviously it does! My ass is great!
Now, the intent that I had when I made these resolutions is a different story. I intended to go to church fairly regularly. The second one, I have probably achieved to some degree. As for the last one, I had an idea of "great" and my ass is not looking like what I had in mind. Frankly, I don't think, however, that my ass was ever meant to look like what I had in mind. So, the point is that that dude just needs to learn to lie to himself better. Or at least tell "half truths"! I didn't break any promises to myself! Moreover, I still have 7 months to go! I think he needs a motivational speaker. In my world I have not only made three resolutions but I have succeeded as to every one! He can't even do that because he didn't make any and therefore can't be as proud of himself as I am. The key is being very careful (lawyerly) in the resolutions that you do and don't make. When done properly you can always suceed and if nothing else, boost your self-esteem for having been sucessful. Finally, some wisdom!
So what have we learned today? New Years Resolutions should contain key words like "maybe" and be held to subjective standards like "great". If you say I am going to lose 15 lbs., as many Americans make the mistake of doing, you fail unless you do it. I am just helping your self-esteem here people!
Of course, this is not to suggest that I don't believe in resolving to do things you are actually going to do. However, I would argue that our friend had a good argument against the making of resolutions. Rather than not making any, though, I would suggest if you are the type to break your resolutions, that you should heed my advice and its a win-win situation! At least in the latter case you have a chance at true sucess.
In conclusion, I got a deep belly laugh from "he", am very worried and confused by the "other guy" and think the non-resolving individual has taught us all a valuable lesson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)