You People Are Weird
.
My recent site stats show a huge interest in the close up shot of my stitches. If someone out there suffered an injury similar to my own, I feel for you.
To the person who searched for: how to protect self from animals in the wilderness ...
Generally, if they know you're coming, they'll get out of your way. If you stumble across a bear cub, get the hell outta there fast. Pretty much everything else will run from *you*.
I'm not sure how 'eat every other day blog' led to me. I eat every day, several times a day. Although the concept of consuming every other day is pretty interesting. Just consuming your day instead of having your day consume you.
Um. Anchor Slobber Aquamarine? I have no idea what you were looking for; but apparantly you found all those words on one page here. Congratulations!
And those of you wondering about blood diamonds - it's a name for diamonds that are sold to fund terrorism, civil wars, and atrocities beyond your imagining. Almost all blood diamonds pass through the hands of DeBeers. You know, the people who make all those nice diamond commercials? The company that tells you only diamonds show your love? DeBeers wholesales rough diamonds and controls 80% of the diamond market. If you want to be horrified, but educated; visit Amnesty International and search their site for blood diamonds.
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Rant
.
I can't keep my mouth shut any longer. What The Fuck does Israel think they're doing?!
They say they have no wish to invade Lebanon. (even though Israel has sent troops across the border to "attack Hezbollah". No... they're not invading; they're just crossing the border for a while) They say they have no problems with the Lebanese government. They say they're leaving the Lebanese infrastructure in place. And they say they're being mindful of civilians.
Yet the first thing Israel did was bomb the airports. Then the hit the roads, bridges, and bunkers that may or may not hold Hezbollah leaders. They still don't know if they hit their targets, but they know they've killed civilians -civilians from multiple countries, to boot.
Now I'm not saying Hezbollah is in any way innocent. They've been firing missiles and killing Israeli civilians too. But Israel is saying that "Hezbollah and their patrons" should pay for the reconstruction of Lebanon. Um. Really? How do they figure that? Hezbollah and their patrons aren't bombing Lebanese airports etc.
Mind you, Lebanon has been reasonably free of Syrian control for LESS THAN A YEAR. They've been TRYING to deal with the Hezbollah problem. Lebanon is a soveriegn nation and Israel has no business bombing their bridges, roads, homes, ports, airports and people.
This conflict started practically without warning, and there are tourist and visitors from countries around the world who can't fly out of Lebanon. They can't leave by Lebanese ships either, because Israel is blockading the waterways. Which leads to my next bit of ranting...
Canada. France. England. Ireland. And many other countries are evacuating their citizens as fast as they possibly can. America has (8 days into the bombing) begun to "relocate" OUR citizens. The government has told the media not to use the word "evacuation" in reference to U.S. citizens being removed from Lebanon. I guess that means they're not "refugees" when they're taking refuge in Cypress -the country they're being relocated to until they can get back to the U.S.
This is the biggest piece of bullshit since the hurricane Katrina fiasco. And like after Katrina, Bush is doing absolutely nothing about it.
Well, ok... he did one thing. He voted against the UN resolution to stop Israel and order a cease-fire. He was the only holdout.
God, he's such a shitbiscuit.
.
I can't keep my mouth shut any longer. What The Fuck does Israel think they're doing?!
They say they have no wish to invade Lebanon. (even though Israel has sent troops across the border to "attack Hezbollah". No... they're not invading; they're just crossing the border for a while) They say they have no problems with the Lebanese government. They say they're leaving the Lebanese infrastructure in place. And they say they're being mindful of civilians.
Yet the first thing Israel did was bomb the airports. Then the hit the roads, bridges, and bunkers that may or may not hold Hezbollah leaders. They still don't know if they hit their targets, but they know they've killed civilians -civilians from multiple countries, to boot.
Now I'm not saying Hezbollah is in any way innocent. They've been firing missiles and killing Israeli civilians too. But Israel is saying that "Hezbollah and their patrons" should pay for the reconstruction of Lebanon. Um. Really? How do they figure that? Hezbollah and their patrons aren't bombing Lebanese airports etc.
Mind you, Lebanon has been reasonably free of Syrian control for LESS THAN A YEAR. They've been TRYING to deal with the Hezbollah problem. Lebanon is a soveriegn nation and Israel has no business bombing their bridges, roads, homes, ports, airports and people.
This conflict started practically without warning, and there are tourist and visitors from countries around the world who can't fly out of Lebanon. They can't leave by Lebanese ships either, because Israel is blockading the waterways. Which leads to my next bit of ranting...
Canada. France. England. Ireland. And many other countries are evacuating their citizens as fast as they possibly can. America has (8 days into the bombing) begun to "relocate" OUR citizens. The government has told the media not to use the word "evacuation" in reference to U.S. citizens being removed from Lebanon. I guess that means they're not "refugees" when they're taking refuge in Cypress -the country they're being relocated to until they can get back to the U.S.
This is the biggest piece of bullshit since the hurricane Katrina fiasco. And like after Katrina, Bush is doing absolutely nothing about it.
Well, ok... he did one thing. He voted against the UN resolution to stop Israel and order a cease-fire. He was the only holdout.
God, he's such a shitbiscuit.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Today's Embarassing Moment
So there I was, waiting in line as the checker scanned my groceries. I had noticed her bright orange hair, of course. You can't miss that color. But as I stood there, I thought, "What a lovely shade for a redhead." I looked at her pale, freckled skin. I observed her invisible eyebrows and lashes.
I looked at her hair again. Not one white hair in that glorious mass of orange-red. I looked at her face; trying to pin an age on her. Was she older than me, or younger?
Again my eyes were drawn to her hair. Nope, not white hairs. But her face said 40.
To my horror, I heard these words coming out of my mouth; "I know this is really inappropriate, but tell me that's your natural color! And if it's not," I rushed on, "then tell me what brand of dye you found, because that's my color!"
She gave me a steely look, and I babbled on; knowing I looked like a fool. Knowing that this checker could give a shit less about my whitening hair. I said, "Not that you look old, 'cause you don't. But I can't find a dye to cover my grey that matches my hair, and you have my color, and I was thinking that if you had found a dye to cover your grey, which you don't have... then I... might..."
She let me off the hook. She declared, "Nope, this is my natural color. And I don't have any grey." She gave me a falsely bright smile, and turned to the next customer.
I'm so ashamed.
So there I was, waiting in line as the checker scanned my groceries. I had noticed her bright orange hair, of course. You can't miss that color. But as I stood there, I thought, "What a lovely shade for a redhead." I looked at her pale, freckled skin. I observed her invisible eyebrows and lashes.
I looked at her hair again. Not one white hair in that glorious mass of orange-red. I looked at her face; trying to pin an age on her. Was she older than me, or younger?
Again my eyes were drawn to her hair. Nope, not white hairs. But her face said 40.
To my horror, I heard these words coming out of my mouth; "I know this is really inappropriate, but tell me that's your natural color! And if it's not," I rushed on, "then tell me what brand of dye you found, because that's my color!"
She gave me a steely look, and I babbled on; knowing I looked like a fool. Knowing that this checker could give a shit less about my whitening hair. I said, "Not that you look old, 'cause you don't. But I can't find a dye to cover my grey that matches my hair, and you have my color, and I was thinking that if you had found a dye to cover your grey, which you don't have... then I... might..."
She let me off the hook. She declared, "Nope, this is my natural color. And I don't have any grey." She gave me a falsely bright smile, and turned to the next customer.
I'm so ashamed.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Rant rant rant
"The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," Bush said.
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
BULLSHIT! I can understand the common, barely educated American buying this stuff. I understand that resistance is a gut reaction. Hate and fear beget more hate and fear. It's normal. And we have self awareness. We have intelligence. We have logical minds that can overide our gut responses. Society teaches us control of our gut reactions. We choose to control our emotional responses because of the greater benefits of friendship, community and yes, strength in numbers. Yet, being human, we continue to respond on an emotional level. Look how I just ranted an entire paragraph from my gut.
Now then, the union of a man and a woman is not the most enduring human institution. It is not honored and encouraged in all cultures, or by every religious faith. Let's take a little walk through history as we know it.
Wikipedia online encyclopedia claims that marriage is generally considered to be the union of one man and one woman, i.e., husband and wife. But if you scroll down past the table of contents, you'll read this: "In most societies, marriage was polygynic, where a man could have multiple wives..."
There's a bit more to it than that. Throughout history, a person in a position of power -for example a king or queen- would take multiple husbands or wives. True, it was always someone of the opposite sex. This made sense, of course. Each new spouse was a link to another country, and a chance for the perpetuation of power. However; in nearly all ancient societies, people would reproduce with the opposite sex, but have lovers of the same sex. You would have been considered strange if you didn't have at least one same sex lover. This was especially common with conquest based cultures. again, it just made sense. Having a lover within your ranks brought a share of power, gave you a focus for your energies, created camraderie and provided a tangible hope for the future. The pain of loss could be eased by another lover, who had also experienced loss.
I can see why having same sex lovers was pushed aside during long stretches of peace. I can see where it became a less acceptable lifestyle. Women wanted babies, and they wanted all of the power (and the monetary security that came with it) to pass on to the next generation. Yet these same women had plenty of woman lovers while the men were at war. That bit of history always repeats itself. I surmise that most people are inherently bi-sexual. We long for partnership, aside from the longing to create new generations; and we will find partnership with people of either sex.
My personal preference is for men. If all the men in the world dissappeared, I would find a woman to love me. A vibrator does not -cannot- love. I even think that if all the attractive men vanished, I'd find a woman. I'm not likely to ever know. There are lots of hairy, smelly men around.
Excuse my rambling, please. Back to the subject. Several present day religious groups support multiple person marriages. Most of them say the wives should treat each other like partners. Religious writings codify how these spouses (spice) should treat each other, and even cover the reproduction issue. They discuss how to deal with one's wives preferring each other over their joint husband. I don't see those writings vilifying homosexuality. I see them acknowledging it, and still providing for the continuation of the species.
To reiterate: The union of a man and a woman is not the most enduring human institution. Bi-sexuality is. It is not honored and encouraged in all cultures or faiths. Union is honored and encouraged. Reproduction of healthy human beings is honored and encouraged. Monogamy between one man and one woman is only honored and encouraged in certain religions.
Get your facts straight, Mr. President, before you open your mouth.
"The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," Bush said.
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
BULLSHIT! I can understand the common, barely educated American buying this stuff. I understand that resistance is a gut reaction. Hate and fear beget more hate and fear. It's normal. And we have self awareness. We have intelligence. We have logical minds that can overide our gut responses. Society teaches us control of our gut reactions. We choose to control our emotional responses because of the greater benefits of friendship, community and yes, strength in numbers. Yet, being human, we continue to respond on an emotional level. Look how I just ranted an entire paragraph from my gut.
Now then, the union of a man and a woman is not the most enduring human institution. It is not honored and encouraged in all cultures, or by every religious faith. Let's take a little walk through history as we know it.
Wikipedia online encyclopedia claims that marriage is generally considered to be the union of one man and one woman, i.e., husband and wife. But if you scroll down past the table of contents, you'll read this: "In most societies, marriage was polygynic, where a man could have multiple wives..."
There's a bit more to it than that. Throughout history, a person in a position of power -for example a king or queen- would take multiple husbands or wives. True, it was always someone of the opposite sex. This made sense, of course. Each new spouse was a link to another country, and a chance for the perpetuation of power. However; in nearly all ancient societies, people would reproduce with the opposite sex, but have lovers of the same sex. You would have been considered strange if you didn't have at least one same sex lover. This was especially common with conquest based cultures. again, it just made sense. Having a lover within your ranks brought a share of power, gave you a focus for your energies, created camraderie and provided a tangible hope for the future. The pain of loss could be eased by another lover, who had also experienced loss.
I can see why having same sex lovers was pushed aside during long stretches of peace. I can see where it became a less acceptable lifestyle. Women wanted babies, and they wanted all of the power (and the monetary security that came with it) to pass on to the next generation. Yet these same women had plenty of woman lovers while the men were at war. That bit of history always repeats itself. I surmise that most people are inherently bi-sexual. We long for partnership, aside from the longing to create new generations; and we will find partnership with people of either sex.
My personal preference is for men. If all the men in the world dissappeared, I would find a woman to love me. A vibrator does not -cannot- love. I even think that if all the attractive men vanished, I'd find a woman. I'm not likely to ever know. There are lots of hairy, smelly men around.
Excuse my rambling, please. Back to the subject. Several present day religious groups support multiple person marriages. Most of them say the wives should treat each other like partners. Religious writings codify how these spouses (spice) should treat each other, and even cover the reproduction issue. They discuss how to deal with one's wives preferring each other over their joint husband. I don't see those writings vilifying homosexuality. I see them acknowledging it, and still providing for the continuation of the species.
To reiterate: The union of a man and a woman is not the most enduring human institution. Bi-sexuality is. It is not honored and encouraged in all cultures or faiths. Union is honored and encouraged. Reproduction of healthy human beings is honored and encouraged. Monogamy between one man and one woman is only honored and encouraged in certain religions.
Get your facts straight, Mr. President, before you open your mouth.
Monday, January 19, 2004
*shudder* twitch twitch
I try to respect Christianity. I do try. I'll get myself all convinced that it is a fine religion, serving the needs of so many people. I think of the Christians I know who are lit up inside, glowing with love. I think of them and say, "See, Christianity is good." I love seeing people who have found a path.
You know you're on your path when you don't need to convince anyone to walk your path with you. I've been saying that for years. It doesn't mean religion is lonely, and it doesn't mean everyone should be solitary. It means when you've found the religion that fits, you're happy. When you haven't, you try to justify the rightness of your religion by making everyone else join.
I know, this seems to single out Christians, because they proselytize as part of their faith. And I've had pagans try to convince me that their path is right, and my own is wrong. I've noticed that if I have stepped off my path, I get all huffy and insulted. When I'm being my path, nothing they say offends me. I listen with interest. I feel happy for them, for finding what works... what fits their lives and lights them up.
Whenever a new church opens in my neighborhood, people knock on my door and invite me to attend. I always tell them, "Thank you! I have a church that I attend, but thanks for letting me know you're here." I generally add, "Welcome to the neighborhood." I don't tell them I'm Pagan, and they don't ask me if I've found Jesus. It works out quite well. I don't mind invitations. I do mind being told that I'm broken, lost or needy. Which brings me to today's point.
I was looking at some St. Louis Bloggers, and clicked on one described as, "A blog on my thoughts and such, and an ongoing photographic essay of St. Louis and various travels..." I'm an absolute nut for St. Louis architecture, of course I went to read the blog. Not as described, would be an understatement. (Yeah, when was the last time you read something here about fine arts, I know) The blog is pretty Christian, and completely inoffensive... except for this one bit. So I'm taking the one negative post out of context, from an otherwise decent blog, and copying it here for all to see.
"January 5, 2004 - 3:32:01 PM
I'm not sure weather to be happy or offended by this article on how fundamental Christian groups are working in foreign countries. Apparently we use all sorts of insidious tactics like humnitarian aid, education, and medical help to further our prosylitization program.
There was one quote in particular that gave me pause. I was reminded of the early objections of the Roman Empire against Christianity. The writer of the article said,
'What is objectionable in this fundamentalist campaign is not its desire to gain adherents, but in its determination to totally alienate their converts from all their traditions and all 'non-believers'. '
During the first few hundred years of the Christian church, Christians were murdered, not because we believed in a different God than anyone else. You see, the Romans allowed for all sorts of diverse pagan deities, but we were murdered because we had the audacity to declare that our God is the only true God. We survived then, prospered even. And we will prosper in Nepal too. I know. I've read the ending. We win."
See? I was all OK with this guy's opinion, until that last bit. The smug assurance of "we win".
I read the entire article about fundamentalist groups, and had no problem with it. Not once does the article encourage "murder". Toward the end, it mentions the legal battle between a women's group and a group of Christians.
here it is:
"Foreign funded fundamentalists are increasingly aware of the rising opposition by tradition-centred groups. (Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka) to their activities and endeavour to camouflage their activities with a cloak of legitimacy. In Sri Lanka this has taken two forms. One is the presentation in Parliament of Acts to incorporate assorted fundamentalist groups so that they can pursue their subtle proselytization as a legal activity. The other is to use the 'carte blanche' given by the open economy to register their organisations as commercial enterprises.
The All Ceylon Women's Buddhist Congress (ACWBC) decided to face the legal challenge head on.
Two such Christian groups, based in Norway and Austria respectively, attempted to get their organisations incorporated in the laws of the country.
The ACWBC contested both cases in the Supreme Court and won landmark decisions rejecting their applications. It should be understood that this was no mere reliance on the duty of the State to protect Buddhism.
The point made by the Supreme Court was that while it upheld the freedom of worship of all citizens it could not countenance the establishment of bodies that would extend material and other benefits to those who converted to their set of beliefs. " thanks to the Daily News for the article.
I try to respect Christianity. I do try. I'll get myself all convinced that it is a fine religion, serving the needs of so many people. I think of the Christians I know who are lit up inside, glowing with love. I think of them and say, "See, Christianity is good." I love seeing people who have found a path.
You know you're on your path when you don't need to convince anyone to walk your path with you. I've been saying that for years. It doesn't mean religion is lonely, and it doesn't mean everyone should be solitary. It means when you've found the religion that fits, you're happy. When you haven't, you try to justify the rightness of your religion by making everyone else join.
I know, this seems to single out Christians, because they proselytize as part of their faith. And I've had pagans try to convince me that their path is right, and my own is wrong. I've noticed that if I have stepped off my path, I get all huffy and insulted. When I'm being my path, nothing they say offends me. I listen with interest. I feel happy for them, for finding what works... what fits their lives and lights them up.
Whenever a new church opens in my neighborhood, people knock on my door and invite me to attend. I always tell them, "Thank you! I have a church that I attend, but thanks for letting me know you're here." I generally add, "Welcome to the neighborhood." I don't tell them I'm Pagan, and they don't ask me if I've found Jesus. It works out quite well. I don't mind invitations. I do mind being told that I'm broken, lost or needy. Which brings me to today's point.
I was looking at some St. Louis Bloggers, and clicked on one described as, "A blog on my thoughts and such, and an ongoing photographic essay of St. Louis and various travels..." I'm an absolute nut for St. Louis architecture, of course I went to read the blog. Not as described, would be an understatement. (Yeah, when was the last time you read something here about fine arts, I know) The blog is pretty Christian, and completely inoffensive... except for this one bit. So I'm taking the one negative post out of context, from an otherwise decent blog, and copying it here for all to see.
"January 5, 2004 - 3:32:01 PM
I'm not sure weather to be happy or offended by this article on how fundamental Christian groups are working in foreign countries. Apparently we use all sorts of insidious tactics like humnitarian aid, education, and medical help to further our prosylitization program.
There was one quote in particular that gave me pause. I was reminded of the early objections of the Roman Empire against Christianity. The writer of the article said,
'What is objectionable in this fundamentalist campaign is not its desire to gain adherents, but in its determination to totally alienate their converts from all their traditions and all 'non-believers'. '
During the first few hundred years of the Christian church, Christians were murdered, not because we believed in a different God than anyone else. You see, the Romans allowed for all sorts of diverse pagan deities, but we were murdered because we had the audacity to declare that our God is the only true God. We survived then, prospered even. And we will prosper in Nepal too. I know. I've read the ending. We win."
See? I was all OK with this guy's opinion, until that last bit. The smug assurance of "we win".
I read the entire article about fundamentalist groups, and had no problem with it. Not once does the article encourage "murder". Toward the end, it mentions the legal battle between a women's group and a group of Christians.
here it is:
"Foreign funded fundamentalists are increasingly aware of the rising opposition by tradition-centred groups. (Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka) to their activities and endeavour to camouflage their activities with a cloak of legitimacy. In Sri Lanka this has taken two forms. One is the presentation in Parliament of Acts to incorporate assorted fundamentalist groups so that they can pursue their subtle proselytization as a legal activity. The other is to use the 'carte blanche' given by the open economy to register their organisations as commercial enterprises.
The All Ceylon Women's Buddhist Congress (ACWBC) decided to face the legal challenge head on.
Two such Christian groups, based in Norway and Austria respectively, attempted to get their organisations incorporated in the laws of the country.
The ACWBC contested both cases in the Supreme Court and won landmark decisions rejecting their applications. It should be understood that this was no mere reliance on the duty of the State to protect Buddhism.
The point made by the Supreme Court was that while it upheld the freedom of worship of all citizens it could not countenance the establishment of bodies that would extend material and other benefits to those who converted to their set of beliefs. " thanks to the Daily News for the article.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
No Title
If you're unaware of the "Bryan Lamb is an asshat plagiarist" theme of the month; well, I'm sorry for you. You've been missing out. You can't read the majority of his plagiarism now, he deleted it wholesale, although the blog lives on.
However, Poundy wrote a lot of truly eloquent words about why you should care about this. If, instead, you'd like to expand your insult vocabulary, visit the "Bryan Lamb is a sorry plagiarist punk" guestbook. Created by the inestimable Sour Bob, it holds pages and pages of insults. Not your standard insults, either. You can giggle over great phrases like, "You are a waste of skin". (sorry, no name or link to give credit for that one)
If you're unaware of the "Bryan Lamb is an asshat plagiarist" theme of the month; well, I'm sorry for you. You've been missing out. You can't read the majority of his plagiarism now, he deleted it wholesale, although the blog lives on.
However, Poundy wrote a lot of truly eloquent words about why you should care about this. If, instead, you'd like to expand your insult vocabulary, visit the "Bryan Lamb is a sorry plagiarist punk" guestbook. Created by the inestimable Sour Bob, it holds pages and pages of insults. Not your standard insults, either. You can giggle over great phrases like, "You are a waste of skin". (sorry, no name or link to give credit for that one)
Friday, January 09, 2004
Haven't had this much fun since Christmas
The most righteous Sour Bob, who encouraged e-mails to the plagiarist (who's name and/or link will not sully my blog) has set up a guestbook for us outraged peoples. I read all the entries and laughed so hard my tummy hurts. Then I realized I should have added my comments before I read all that gorgeous writing. I'm a decent blogger, and I am totally outclassed by some of those people. I love it!
You can read what others have to say, or you can tell off the sorry sack of shit. Or both :)
The most righteous Sour Bob, who encouraged e-mails to the plagiarist (who's name and/or link will not sully my blog) has set up a guestbook for us outraged peoples. I read all the entries and laughed so hard my tummy hurts. Then I realized I should have added my comments before I read all that gorgeous writing. I'm a decent blogger, and I am totally outclassed by some of those people. I love it!
You can read what others have to say, or you can tell off the sorry sack of shit. Or both :)
Thank the Gods for Blogging
Blogs are great for working stuff out on. I can type my heart out, knowing that someone, somewhere, at some time, will read it. It helps me to know I'm writing to an audience. It forces me to be clear.
Today, thanks to Chasmyn, I'm working out my thoughts on plagiarism. We don't think twice when we write, "I just read this great thing at NewsOnTheNet (insert linkage) and I'm reposting it here, and ranting about it" Copy and paste is pretty damned easy. I'm guilty of it myself. But I never take credit for it. I link to whatever I'm yacking about, and give credit to the authors. I never pretend someone else's work is my own. Why would I? I love finding good blogs and spreading the word about them. I love visiting a friend's blog and seeing they've added someone I discovered.
Now then. All original thoughts and ideas are copyrighted. Our laws say so. Even when an author (and all bloggers are authors) doesn't state that their work is copyrighted, it is copyrighted. When you copy someone's material, and pretend that it's your own, it is plagiarism. It is theft. And you are breaking the law.
Some dirtball in St. Louis plagiarized a well known blogger. Multiple times. The well known blogger has hired a lawyer. I applaud her. The second she puts up a paypal button, I'll be donating to her lawyer fees. (of course, this blogger has a lot of integrity, and may never ask for donations. If she does, I'll donate. In pressing a law suit, she's doing me and everyone else a favor.)
The dirtball recently removed the post that was the worst example of plagiarism, but guess what? Google makes copies. It's called a google cache. And until Google re-checks that tiny little blog, his theft will live on.
Blogs are great for working stuff out on. I can type my heart out, knowing that someone, somewhere, at some time, will read it. It helps me to know I'm writing to an audience. It forces me to be clear.
Today, thanks to Chasmyn, I'm working out my thoughts on plagiarism. We don't think twice when we write, "I just read this great thing at NewsOnTheNet (insert linkage) and I'm reposting it here, and ranting about it" Copy and paste is pretty damned easy. I'm guilty of it myself. But I never take credit for it. I link to whatever I'm yacking about, and give credit to the authors. I never pretend someone else's work is my own. Why would I? I love finding good blogs and spreading the word about them. I love visiting a friend's blog and seeing they've added someone I discovered.
Now then. All original thoughts and ideas are copyrighted. Our laws say so. Even when an author (and all bloggers are authors) doesn't state that their work is copyrighted, it is copyrighted. When you copy someone's material, and pretend that it's your own, it is plagiarism. It is theft. And you are breaking the law.
Some dirtball in St. Louis plagiarized a well known blogger. Multiple times. The well known blogger has hired a lawyer. I applaud her. The second she puts up a paypal button, I'll be donating to her lawyer fees. (of course, this blogger has a lot of integrity, and may never ask for donations. If she does, I'll donate. In pressing a law suit, she's doing me and everyone else a favor.)
The dirtball recently removed the post that was the worst example of plagiarism, but guess what? Google makes copies. It's called a google cache. And until Google re-checks that tiny little blog, his theft will live on.
Another Bush Rant but you should read it anyway
A few days ago, Bush came to St. Louis. Protesters were there, showing their objections to the change in overtime thing. Bush (supposedly) never knew they were there. Last year, Bush came to St. Louis. Protesters were there, showing their objections. Bush never saw them. I know he never saw them because they were kept on a side street a quarter of a mile away. This is happening all over the country!
It bothers me. It bothers me in a way I'm finding hard to express. Every other President I can think of has driven through crowds of protesters. Why can't this one? Is he afraid that someone will attempt to harm him? I doubt it. Is he unwilling to see the protesters? More likely. Will he one day declare, "Let them eat cake", being totally unaware of the plights and upsets of the citizens?
My in-laws go to Washington, and have dinner with every President. They were upset when Clinton was in office, because the "dinner" consisted of eating separately from the President, and watching He and Hillary walk past. They felt horribly snubbed because they were penned behind a velvet rope, and didn't even get to shake his hand.
(I agree, btw. It was horribly rude.)
Bush on the other hand, shook hands with everyone, let them take photos and even signed his autograph. My in-laws love him. They sent my son a framed photo montage, including a White House napkin signed by GW Bush himself.
I don't know what to do with the darned thing. L has taken it to school twice, which has only served to alienate him farther from his classmates. I think they resent him knowing someone who is special enough to go to the White House. (sigh)
I wish they'd sent the autograph of a President I like. We keep it in the closet "so the sunlight doesn't fade it". Isn't that awful?
My point is: GW will meet with other politically connected people, but he doesn't want to see anyone who doesn't care for him. I think he can't handle being disliked. I also think that if you can't handle being disliked, you shouldn't try to be President of the United States. When you're President, some people will actively hate you. Some will love you, and most will change their opinions on a daily basis. It comes with the job.
A few days ago, Bush came to St. Louis. Protesters were there, showing their objections to the change in overtime thing. Bush (supposedly) never knew they were there. Last year, Bush came to St. Louis. Protesters were there, showing their objections. Bush never saw them. I know he never saw them because they were kept on a side street a quarter of a mile away. This is happening all over the country!
It bothers me. It bothers me in a way I'm finding hard to express. Every other President I can think of has driven through crowds of protesters. Why can't this one? Is he afraid that someone will attempt to harm him? I doubt it. Is he unwilling to see the protesters? More likely. Will he one day declare, "Let them eat cake", being totally unaware of the plights and upsets of the citizens?
My in-laws go to Washington, and have dinner with every President. They were upset when Clinton was in office, because the "dinner" consisted of eating separately from the President, and watching He and Hillary walk past. They felt horribly snubbed because they were penned behind a velvet rope, and didn't even get to shake his hand.
(I agree, btw. It was horribly rude.)
Bush on the other hand, shook hands with everyone, let them take photos and even signed his autograph. My in-laws love him. They sent my son a framed photo montage, including a White House napkin signed by GW Bush himself.
I don't know what to do with the darned thing. L has taken it to school twice, which has only served to alienate him farther from his classmates. I think they resent him knowing someone who is special enough to go to the White House. (sigh)
I wish they'd sent the autograph of a President I like. We keep it in the closet "so the sunlight doesn't fade it". Isn't that awful?
My point is: GW will meet with other politically connected people, but he doesn't want to see anyone who doesn't care for him. I think he can't handle being disliked. I also think that if you can't handle being disliked, you shouldn't try to be President of the United States. When you're President, some people will actively hate you. Some will love you, and most will change their opinions on a daily basis. It comes with the job.
Friday, December 05, 2003
Free Issues
I like that I can categorize my posts. That way my readers can skip the bullshit and go straight to the rants. This particular rant is about a free issue of a magazine my mom received in the mail. The Latin Mass is supposedly a Catholic Magazine filled with interesting and well researched articles. Yeah. Uh huh.
My mother, the devout Catholic, who prays daily for my Pagan soul; skimmed the magazine and decided it didn't concur with her beliefs. She wants to read the whole thing through, though; because of the 7 page article (in small print, even) about Goddess Worship.
Yesterday mom handed me the magazine, folded open at the start of the article. She said, "I haven't read more than the first few paragraphs of this, but I find it offensive."
What? My mother finds something Catholic offensive? This I have to read! I will link to the article in it's entirety whenever I get around to putting it on the Bitparts website. The gist of the article is that "Goddess Worshipers" are trying to take over religion. It's rather fear oriented.
I found it interesting that they carefully explained the history of modern Wicca, and then shoved in blatant lies in psychologically approved sections. The whole thing seemed designed to suck otherwise intelligent Catholics into the history of the neo-pagan movement, and then make them afraid.
I don't understand why Catholics should be afraid of a mere 2% of the American population. And a peaceful 2% at that. (Based on a stat in the article of 735,000 pagans in the US)
The article asked these questions: "What is this 'Goddess'?" "Who are her apostles?" "What do they evengelise for?"
The "Goddess" does not have apostles. Pagans do not evangelise. Pagans don't like evangelism. Scary stuff. Of course, what do you expect from a publication endorsed by Patrick J. Buchanan ?
I like that I can categorize my posts. That way my readers can skip the bullshit and go straight to the rants. This particular rant is about a free issue of a magazine my mom received in the mail. The Latin Mass is supposedly a Catholic Magazine filled with interesting and well researched articles. Yeah. Uh huh.
My mother, the devout Catholic, who prays daily for my Pagan soul; skimmed the magazine and decided it didn't concur with her beliefs. She wants to read the whole thing through, though; because of the 7 page article (in small print, even) about Goddess Worship.
Yesterday mom handed me the magazine, folded open at the start of the article. She said, "I haven't read more than the first few paragraphs of this, but I find it offensive."
What? My mother finds something Catholic offensive? This I have to read! I will link to the article in it's entirety whenever I get around to putting it on the Bitparts website. The gist of the article is that "Goddess Worshipers" are trying to take over religion. It's rather fear oriented.
I found it interesting that they carefully explained the history of modern Wicca, and then shoved in blatant lies in psychologically approved sections. The whole thing seemed designed to suck otherwise intelligent Catholics into the history of the neo-pagan movement, and then make them afraid.
I don't understand why Catholics should be afraid of a mere 2% of the American population. And a peaceful 2% at that. (Based on a stat in the article of 735,000 pagans in the US)
The article asked these questions: "What is this 'Goddess'?" "Who are her apostles?" "What do they evengelise for?"
The "Goddess" does not have apostles. Pagans do not evangelise. Pagans don't like evangelism. Scary stuff. Of course, what do you expect from a publication endorsed by Patrick J. Buchanan ?
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Have I been living under a rock?
WTF is narcoterrorism?
The American Heritage® Dictionary defines it as "Terrorism carried out to prevent interference with or divert attention from illegal narcotics trafficking. "
By that definition, drive by shootings are narcoterrorism. (Not that I disagree. Drive by shootings ARE an act of terrorism, in my opinion. But why bother with the narco specification)
The same dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing."
I think that's pretty straightforward. Playground bullies engage in terrorism, as do drug dealers, militant groups, activist groups and entire governments. Why do we turn a blind eye to some of it, and bomb the snot out of people for other acts of terrorism? Why is it acceptable for a child to be abused at school (or home) by another child, yet unacceptable for a small group of people to blow up a bus? Why do we smile at Greenpeace, laugh at PETA, ignore the inner-city, and squash Afghanistan? Why do we need to add cute little prefixes to terrorism? If it's ecoterrorism, is it somehow more special than just regular terrorism?
WTF is narcoterrorism?
The American Heritage® Dictionary defines it as "Terrorism carried out to prevent interference with or divert attention from illegal narcotics trafficking. "
By that definition, drive by shootings are narcoterrorism. (Not that I disagree. Drive by shootings ARE an act of terrorism, in my opinion. But why bother with the narco specification)
The same dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing."
I think that's pretty straightforward. Playground bullies engage in terrorism, as do drug dealers, militant groups, activist groups and entire governments. Why do we turn a blind eye to some of it, and bomb the snot out of people for other acts of terrorism? Why is it acceptable for a child to be abused at school (or home) by another child, yet unacceptable for a small group of people to blow up a bus? Why do we smile at Greenpeace, laugh at PETA, ignore the inner-city, and squash Afghanistan? Why do we need to add cute little prefixes to terrorism? If it's ecoterrorism, is it somehow more special than just regular terrorism?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Just My Opinion
I have assiduously avoided blogging about Jessica Lynch, for the same reason I refuse to blog about Elizabeth Smart. I believe the best thing for either of them is to cope in their own ways, without me avidly reading all the gossipy bits of their lives. I'm not going to gossip now, either. Instead, I'm going to get on my soapbox for my favorite pet-peeve... Stupid People!
According to popular news, back in April, Jessica Lynch joined the army for the GI Bill. She wanted to go to college, her family couldn't afford it, and (my guess is) like most underpriveleged familes -they didn't think they were worthy of student loans. It was kind of a family tradition. Join the army, then go to college.
Reporters are pissing and moaning because she got a one million dollar book deal. "Oh, boo hoo! The girl who didn't do anything but survive gets money! It's so unfair! She doesn't deserve it!" They say.
I say, think of Dr. Evil, asking for ONE MILLION dollars. That will buy a very nice house. Or maybe it will be just enough to cover her medical deductibles. She's not going to be remembered a few years from now, she's permanently disabled, why not grab some money while she can? She was 19 years old. She has an average of 50 more years to live with her body. That breaks down to a measly 20 grand a year. I have arthritis in both my knees, and I broke my toe a few years ago. It hurts like hell some days. Jessica Lynch had her legs crushed! I can't even imagine the pain. Honey, take every penny the media throws at you!
Editorials across America bitch about her being "rich". Whatever.
I have assiduously avoided blogging about Jessica Lynch, for the same reason I refuse to blog about Elizabeth Smart. I believe the best thing for either of them is to cope in their own ways, without me avidly reading all the gossipy bits of their lives. I'm not going to gossip now, either. Instead, I'm going to get on my soapbox for my favorite pet-peeve... Stupid People!
According to popular news, back in April, Jessica Lynch joined the army for the GI Bill. She wanted to go to college, her family couldn't afford it, and (my guess is) like most underpriveleged familes -they didn't think they were worthy of student loans. It was kind of a family tradition. Join the army, then go to college.
Reporters are pissing and moaning because she got a one million dollar book deal. "Oh, boo hoo! The girl who didn't do anything but survive gets money! It's so unfair! She doesn't deserve it!" They say.
I say, think of Dr. Evil, asking for ONE MILLION dollars. That will buy a very nice house. Or maybe it will be just enough to cover her medical deductibles. She's not going to be remembered a few years from now, she's permanently disabled, why not grab some money while she can? She was 19 years old. She has an average of 50 more years to live with her body. That breaks down to a measly 20 grand a year. I have arthritis in both my knees, and I broke my toe a few years ago. It hurts like hell some days. Jessica Lynch had her legs crushed! I can't even imagine the pain. Honey, take every penny the media throws at you!
Editorials across America bitch about her being "rich". Whatever.
Friday, October 31, 2003
Happy Halloween
My favorite day of the year. I got on the computer, scanned the Yahoo News, and ruined my day.
So don't read this if you'd rather have a war-free day.
-
-
-
-
-
One headline says "Two Iraqi Civilians Killed During Protest" but that's not the real story.
The real story is that after an incident at a marketplace (the headline story) US troops moved into an area full of mosques. People came out. Someone started throwing rocks, and someone else started spraying the crowd with bullets. How would you feel if you were gunned down as you exit the church of your choice?
In related news, "al-Qaida Warns of 'Painful Strike' " . They threatened a wave of attacks in US occupied Muslim countries. " Al-Qaida "is getting ready to stage devastating attacks during the month of Ramadan against Americans that will make young boys' hair turn gray," said the e-mail, whose authenticity could not immediately be verified. It added attacks in Iraq were possible."
Three days later, Iraqis were dropping like flies. They're killing their own people to stir up dissent. Actually, I don't think terrorists have a "people". I don't think they give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Enjoy your Halloween. Enjoy your Samhain. This year's dead will be walking some very crowded streets.
My favorite day of the year. I got on the computer, scanned the Yahoo News, and ruined my day.
So don't read this if you'd rather have a war-free day.
-
-
-
-
-
One headline says "Two Iraqi Civilians Killed During Protest" but that's not the real story.
The real story is that after an incident at a marketplace (the headline story) US troops moved into an area full of mosques. People came out. Someone started throwing rocks, and someone else started spraying the crowd with bullets. How would you feel if you were gunned down as you exit the church of your choice?
In related news, "al-Qaida Warns of 'Painful Strike' " . They threatened a wave of attacks in US occupied Muslim countries. " Al-Qaida "is getting ready to stage devastating attacks during the month of Ramadan against Americans that will make young boys' hair turn gray," said the e-mail, whose authenticity could not immediately be verified. It added attacks in Iraq were possible."
Three days later, Iraqis were dropping like flies. They're killing their own people to stir up dissent. Actually, I don't think terrorists have a "people". I don't think they give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Enjoy your Halloween. Enjoy your Samhain. This year's dead will be walking some very crowded streets.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Tee Hee
RR ranks 4th for "redhead mutation" in Google. :)
In checking the other links for "redhead mutation" I found this, um, thing... I won't link to the site 'cause it has nekkid redheads. But she states:
"Red hair is not another shade of blonde/brown/black which most of the planet possesses. The gene for red hair is recessive. It is a lack of colouring in the hair which allows the red to be seen, like green leaves turning red in autumn as their chlorophyl dissipates. Like blue eyes, two parents must have the recessive gene for it to become dominant in their child. Even then there is only a fifty percent chance of having a redheaded baby.
All Redheads are distantly related to one small gene pool that arose in what is now Ireland. The aboriginal people of Ireland and Scotland were known as the Picts. Being a cloudy place, I'm sure natural selection encouraged the pale skin of redheads because of it's ability to absorb vitamin D from small amounts of sunlight.
A recent scientific paper popularized a new theory about the origins of the redhead gene, known as the ginger gene to scientists. The theory traces the gene's origin back to the Neanderthals. A constant source of teasing from my non-redheaded friends. "
My rant on this: Um, yeah. Red is not a non-color. Non-Color is what you get when a redhead gets older, and the non-color is white. I dunno about the recessive thing, either, although it makes sense. Red hair does not originate from a small gene pool on a cloudy island. Both of my grandparents on my mother's side were brunettes. Black hair, no red highlights, yet they managed to produce 3 red haired children. My bloodline includes (in order of strength) Welsh, Sicilian, Dutch, Irish and Native American. I could get my hair from any of those.
I don't believe serious scientist call the gene that produces melacortin 1 the "ginger gene". and finally, As of yet, science has not been able to prove that there was successful interbreeding between us and neanderthals. I like the idea, I think it would explain a few things, but science can't prove it yet.
*update* There are 8 separate mutations that are linked to red hair in the MCR1 gene. A person with 2 or more of these mutations may have some or all of the "classic" redhead looks. The mutations have been found in about 40% of humans across the board, with the exceptions of "Asians" -who have a slightly lower occurrance of those particular mutations in the MCR1 gene.
RR ranks 4th for "redhead mutation" in Google. :)
In checking the other links for "redhead mutation" I found this, um, thing... I won't link to the site 'cause it has nekkid redheads. But she states:
"Red hair is not another shade of blonde/brown/black which most of the planet possesses. The gene for red hair is recessive. It is a lack of colouring in the hair which allows the red to be seen, like green leaves turning red in autumn as their chlorophyl dissipates. Like blue eyes, two parents must have the recessive gene for it to become dominant in their child. Even then there is only a fifty percent chance of having a redheaded baby.
All Redheads are distantly related to one small gene pool that arose in what is now Ireland. The aboriginal people of Ireland and Scotland were known as the Picts. Being a cloudy place, I'm sure natural selection encouraged the pale skin of redheads because of it's ability to absorb vitamin D from small amounts of sunlight.
A recent scientific paper popularized a new theory about the origins of the redhead gene, known as the ginger gene to scientists. The theory traces the gene's origin back to the Neanderthals. A constant source of teasing from my non-redheaded friends. "
My rant on this: Um, yeah. Red is not a non-color. Non-Color is what you get when a redhead gets older, and the non-color is white. I dunno about the recessive thing, either, although it makes sense. Red hair does not originate from a small gene pool on a cloudy island. Both of my grandparents on my mother's side were brunettes. Black hair, no red highlights, yet they managed to produce 3 red haired children. My bloodline includes (in order of strength) Welsh, Sicilian, Dutch, Irish and Native American. I could get my hair from any of those.
I don't believe serious scientist call the gene that produces melacortin 1 the "ginger gene". and finally, As of yet, science has not been able to prove that there was successful interbreeding between us and neanderthals. I like the idea, I think it would explain a few things, but science can't prove it yet.
*update* There are 8 separate mutations that are linked to red hair in the MCR1 gene. A person with 2 or more of these mutations may have some or all of the "classic" redhead looks. The mutations have been found in about 40% of humans across the board, with the exceptions of "Asians" -who have a slightly lower occurrance of those particular mutations in the MCR1 gene.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Proof that a high IQ doesn't mean you can think of everything
I can't believe I didn't think of this ever. I mean really! I checked out a blog titled The Smallest Minority, thinking in my vain way that it would be about redheads. I was wrong, but no matter. The author is all for gun rights. The side blog says, "INVITATION: If you have never shot a firearm, regardless of your position on the right to arms, and if you live near or visit the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, I invite you to go shooting for a day. I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets, safety equipment, range fees and instruction.
All you have to do is show up.
2 Takers To Date"
This catches my interest, so I read on...
There's a nice rant about Democrats being just as fundamentalist as Republicans. He's quoting others, and now I'm quoting him. I'm part of a cycle! Anyway, within the post is a bit about affirmative action. Before I quote his quoting, I'm going to rant myself. I think affirmative action is a bad idea. I think it perpetuates a bad situation. Growing up in a poor white trash neighborhood taught me nothing about "other races". It only taught me the neighborhood-standard way to treat "them" in public. It's not pretty, and I'm not proud of it. Way back when Roots was on TV, I apologized to a black girl that I'd been playing with. I told her I was sorry for what my ancestors had done to her ancestors. My dad pulled me out of the pool and spanked me so hard I hurt for days. No exaggeration. I don't remember the pain as well as I remember him yelling, "We never apologize to black people!" each time he hit me. He made me repeat it back to him until I could say it without crying.
I'm a Taurus, and a redhead. I'm very stubborn, but I'm not stupid. I repeated his words, and each time I said them I hated him more. I silently vowed I'd find that girl the next time we went to the pool and become her best friend, just to spite him. I'd apologize as often as I wanted to. I'd just make sure he wasn't around to hear me.
Of course, dad took off before I could find her again, so the idea was moot. Probably a good thing. Even an 8 year old shouldn't make "friends" for revenge.
OK, got way off subject there. I meant to say I learned a lot from sesame street. That most awesome of PBS shows was filled with children playing together. Children in wondrous variety. Sesame Street did not segregate, and only began discussing race after I was too old to watch. They never mentioned differences in "race" I never saw 3 white kids and one black kid when they sang "One of These Things Is Not Like The Others". There was no distinction.
Hence, I see no distinction. I have my prejudices. Damn right I do! I pre-judge people who walk in the middle of the street, like the sidewalk is not good enough for them. I pre-judge people who dress like a stereotypical anything. From gang-bangers to Madonna wannabes, I mentally belittle them all. Once again, I'm not proud of it.
And, in affirmative action I see prejudice. Plain and simple. To me, affirmative action says "white people can't help but be prejudiced, and non-white people can't help but be victims". It pisses me off! How dare our government treat anyone like helpless victims!
Affirmative action is not right action. And it's what we've got right now. I don't think things should go back to where they were 50 years ago, but I do think that if we're going to take 50 years to "fix" something, there's a better way. Affirmative action builds resentment, creates division and suppresses free thought.
You can take away my soapbox, I won't be needing it for a bit. If you've read this far, here's what started the whole thing. I can't believe I never thought of this... "(Democrats believe)...Blacks and Hispanics, no matter how well off, simply can't keep up with white students; they need help. Note that the logical alternative-- basing affirmative action on poverty-- is scoffed at."
Beautiful!
I can't believe I didn't think of this ever. I mean really! I checked out a blog titled The Smallest Minority, thinking in my vain way that it would be about redheads. I was wrong, but no matter. The author is all for gun rights. The side blog says, "INVITATION: If you have never shot a firearm, regardless of your position on the right to arms, and if you live near or visit the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, I invite you to go shooting for a day. I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets, safety equipment, range fees and instruction.
All you have to do is show up.
2 Takers To Date"
This catches my interest, so I read on...
There's a nice rant about Democrats being just as fundamentalist as Republicans. He's quoting others, and now I'm quoting him. I'm part of a cycle! Anyway, within the post is a bit about affirmative action. Before I quote his quoting, I'm going to rant myself. I think affirmative action is a bad idea. I think it perpetuates a bad situation. Growing up in a poor white trash neighborhood taught me nothing about "other races". It only taught me the neighborhood-standard way to treat "them" in public. It's not pretty, and I'm not proud of it. Way back when Roots was on TV, I apologized to a black girl that I'd been playing with. I told her I was sorry for what my ancestors had done to her ancestors. My dad pulled me out of the pool and spanked me so hard I hurt for days. No exaggeration. I don't remember the pain as well as I remember him yelling, "We never apologize to black people!" each time he hit me. He made me repeat it back to him until I could say it without crying.
I'm a Taurus, and a redhead. I'm very stubborn, but I'm not stupid. I repeated his words, and each time I said them I hated him more. I silently vowed I'd find that girl the next time we went to the pool and become her best friend, just to spite him. I'd apologize as often as I wanted to. I'd just make sure he wasn't around to hear me.
Of course, dad took off before I could find her again, so the idea was moot. Probably a good thing. Even an 8 year old shouldn't make "friends" for revenge.
OK, got way off subject there. I meant to say I learned a lot from sesame street. That most awesome of PBS shows was filled with children playing together. Children in wondrous variety. Sesame Street did not segregate, and only began discussing race after I was too old to watch. They never mentioned differences in "race" I never saw 3 white kids and one black kid when they sang "One of These Things Is Not Like The Others". There was no distinction.
Hence, I see no distinction. I have my prejudices. Damn right I do! I pre-judge people who walk in the middle of the street, like the sidewalk is not good enough for them. I pre-judge people who dress like a stereotypical anything. From gang-bangers to Madonna wannabes, I mentally belittle them all. Once again, I'm not proud of it.
And, in affirmative action I see prejudice. Plain and simple. To me, affirmative action says "white people can't help but be prejudiced, and non-white people can't help but be victims". It pisses me off! How dare our government treat anyone like helpless victims!
Affirmative action is not right action. And it's what we've got right now. I don't think things should go back to where they were 50 years ago, but I do think that if we're going to take 50 years to "fix" something, there's a better way. Affirmative action builds resentment, creates division and suppresses free thought.
You can take away my soapbox, I won't be needing it for a bit. If you've read this far, here's what started the whole thing. I can't believe I never thought of this... "(Democrats believe)...Blacks and Hispanics, no matter how well off, simply can't keep up with white students; they need help. Note that the logical alternative-- basing affirmative action on poverty-- is scoffed at."
Beautiful!
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Ok. This, I just have to rant about... Town Hall accessibility project underway.
Shutesbury, Mass. has adopted a fragrance-free policy for their public areas. I'd love to see their poor police officers trying to arrest someone for smelling too good. The link has a long FAQ about fragrance-free issues, the last one being:
Q: Why do we have to bother with being fragrance free?
A: Fragrance free is a civil rights issue. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guarantees disabled persons access to all public services and programs. This includes public meetings, events, and services such as education and library programs. Your cooperation with Shutesbury's fragrance free policy is the most practical and least expensive way to provide access at this time. Suggestions, questions or comments about accessibility in Shutesbury are welcome. Please contact Town Administrator David Ames, Shutesbury's ADA Coordinator at 259-1214, townadmin@shutesbury.org, or Ziporah Hildebrandt, Chair, ADA Committee at 259-1874, zhildebrandt@hampshire.edu.
Really? A civil rights issue? What about the rights of those who now must shower with baking-soda, wear freshly-laundered-with-nothing-but-water clothing from head to toe, including a hat to cover the residual scents from shampoo, just to enter city hall and pay their taxes? There's also a bit about fragrance-free Mondays at the library. I commend their efforts... and have you ever been in a library? It's full of scents! The smell of age and paper and ink and glue and skin oils permeates the place. (and I think it smells great) How can you get rid of all those fragrances? I assert that no amount of air filtration will do the trick.
Now, look. I think it sucks that some people are so sensitive to chemicals, that they get sick from being around them. I really do. My mother in law is like that. She doesn't shove her disability under everyone's nose, and make them wrong for not living their lives in a way that would make it easier on her. She takes her allergy meds, does her best to eat wholistically (which makes a huge difference in her sensitivity levels), and budgets her body and her time for when she must be in public. She doesn't think herself a second-class citizen. She doesn't scream for every tree in her path to be cut down because it might make her sick. She chooses instead to appreciate the beauty of the world around her, and live with her disability in peace.
Shutesbury, Mass. has adopted a fragrance-free policy for their public areas. I'd love to see their poor police officers trying to arrest someone for smelling too good. The link has a long FAQ about fragrance-free issues, the last one being:
Q: Why do we have to bother with being fragrance free?
A: Fragrance free is a civil rights issue. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guarantees disabled persons access to all public services and programs. This includes public meetings, events, and services such as education and library programs. Your cooperation with Shutesbury's fragrance free policy is the most practical and least expensive way to provide access at this time. Suggestions, questions or comments about accessibility in Shutesbury are welcome. Please contact Town Administrator David Ames, Shutesbury's ADA Coordinator at 259-1214, townadmin@shutesbury.org, or Ziporah Hildebrandt, Chair, ADA Committee at 259-1874, zhildebrandt@hampshire.edu.
Really? A civil rights issue? What about the rights of those who now must shower with baking-soda, wear freshly-laundered-with-nothing-but-water clothing from head to toe, including a hat to cover the residual scents from shampoo, just to enter city hall and pay their taxes? There's also a bit about fragrance-free Mondays at the library. I commend their efforts... and have you ever been in a library? It's full of scents! The smell of age and paper and ink and glue and skin oils permeates the place. (and I think it smells great) How can you get rid of all those fragrances? I assert that no amount of air filtration will do the trick.
Now, look. I think it sucks that some people are so sensitive to chemicals, that they get sick from being around them. I really do. My mother in law is like that. She doesn't shove her disability under everyone's nose, and make them wrong for not living their lives in a way that would make it easier on her. She takes her allergy meds, does her best to eat wholistically (which makes a huge difference in her sensitivity levels), and budgets her body and her time for when she must be in public. She doesn't think herself a second-class citizen. She doesn't scream for every tree in her path to be cut down because it might make her sick. She chooses instead to appreciate the beauty of the world around her, and live with her disability in peace.
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Tonight I was in a towering, redhead-class rage.
L goes back to school tomorrow, so tonight we were packing his bookbag and setting out his school uniform. Guess what? There were NO school shorts hanging in his closet. There were NO belts hanging on the rack. I was pissed! I've spent the last month finding his school clothes under the bed or stuffed in a corner of his closet buried under his toys, and I've washed them all. There should have been 4 pair of shorts with belts hanging neatly where I had placed them. Not one frigging pair! Grrrrr.
I thought, maybe... perhaps I had somehow imagined hanging them up, so I checked all his drawers. Nope. Nada. Then I went to the laundry basket in our room. The one full of clean clothes because no one in this house but me knows how to put away laundry. I sat on the bed, running my fingers through my hair, trying to get a grip on my temper. There before me was 3 day old clean laundry, neatly matched socks on top, carefully folded shirts and shorts lovingly split in two piles. Patiently waiting, as only laundry can, for someone to put them in their place.
I wanted to fling the entire basket across the room, but I pulled my hair instead. Hubby came into the room and slid onto the bed next to me, trying to look charming, and I wanted to bite his face off. I gritted my teeth for a moment and calmly said, "Hon, would you do me a favor and open the sock drawer?" I was thinking this would get him off the bed and out of the danger zone. Nah, he slid on his belly toward the dresser and opened the wrong drawer. As he was stretched out, half hanging off the bed, I saw several good places to whack him with my elbow. I didn't, however. I love my hubby-man, I don't want to hurt him, and I know what happens when I let my temper run the show. He opened the proper drawer next, and I started flinging socks into it. Hubby-Man got up, all affronted, like I was acting childish and stalked off to the living room.
When I was younger, I would have burst out with, "Oh! Thank you so FUCKING much for helping me find those shorts! No no, that's fine! Why don't you call all your friends and tell them how I'm such a fucking bitch for throwing socks instead of breaking something?" And such like that. I gave up the classic redhead temper when L was born. You can't lovingly raise a child and have a temper. It just doesn't work.
I went through the whole pile of laundry (once I had taken care of the pesky socks) and found not a single pair of shorts. I then went into my son's room and masterfully did NOT destroy his closet. I did find one, singular, pair of school shorts. They had gotten pulled off the hangar and buried under some board games. I also found 5 belts, underwear, a pair of shorts he doesn't like anymore and a (very) dirty gym shirt.
I don't have the foggiest idea where any of this stuff came from. 6 weeks ago we thoroughly cleaned his room. Everything was pulled out of the closet so I could vaccuum it. Everything was then neatly put back in the closet. Grrr! !!! How the hell does a gym shirt from last spring wind up stuffed in a toybox in the closet?
No wonder he never plays with those toys, the smell... ok, I'm not even going there. Anyone with a 12 year old boy understands, and the rest don't need me to share.
Anyway, tonight I almost let myself lose my temper. I'm glad I didn't because it would have scared the ones I love. I really would have appreciated some support in the search, though. Thanks for nothing, guys.
L goes back to school tomorrow, so tonight we were packing his bookbag and setting out his school uniform. Guess what? There were NO school shorts hanging in his closet. There were NO belts hanging on the rack. I was pissed! I've spent the last month finding his school clothes under the bed or stuffed in a corner of his closet buried under his toys, and I've washed them all. There should have been 4 pair of shorts with belts hanging neatly where I had placed them. Not one frigging pair! Grrrrr.
I thought, maybe... perhaps I had somehow imagined hanging them up, so I checked all his drawers. Nope. Nada. Then I went to the laundry basket in our room. The one full of clean clothes because no one in this house but me knows how to put away laundry. I sat on the bed, running my fingers through my hair, trying to get a grip on my temper. There before me was 3 day old clean laundry, neatly matched socks on top, carefully folded shirts and shorts lovingly split in two piles. Patiently waiting, as only laundry can, for someone to put them in their place.
I wanted to fling the entire basket across the room, but I pulled my hair instead. Hubby came into the room and slid onto the bed next to me, trying to look charming, and I wanted to bite his face off. I gritted my teeth for a moment and calmly said, "Hon, would you do me a favor and open the sock drawer?" I was thinking this would get him off the bed and out of the danger zone. Nah, he slid on his belly toward the dresser and opened the wrong drawer. As he was stretched out, half hanging off the bed, I saw several good places to whack him with my elbow. I didn't, however. I love my hubby-man, I don't want to hurt him, and I know what happens when I let my temper run the show. He opened the proper drawer next, and I started flinging socks into it. Hubby-Man got up, all affronted, like I was acting childish and stalked off to the living room.
When I was younger, I would have burst out with, "Oh! Thank you so FUCKING much for helping me find those shorts! No no, that's fine! Why don't you call all your friends and tell them how I'm such a fucking bitch for throwing socks instead of breaking something?" And such like that. I gave up the classic redhead temper when L was born. You can't lovingly raise a child and have a temper. It just doesn't work.
I went through the whole pile of laundry (once I had taken care of the pesky socks) and found not a single pair of shorts. I then went into my son's room and masterfully did NOT destroy his closet. I did find one, singular, pair of school shorts. They had gotten pulled off the hangar and buried under some board games. I also found 5 belts, underwear, a pair of shorts he doesn't like anymore and a (very) dirty gym shirt.
I don't have the foggiest idea where any of this stuff came from. 6 weeks ago we thoroughly cleaned his room. Everything was pulled out of the closet so I could vaccuum it. Everything was then neatly put back in the closet. Grrr! !!! How the hell does a gym shirt from last spring wind up stuffed in a toybox in the closet?
No wonder he never plays with those toys, the smell... ok, I'm not even going there. Anyone with a 12 year old boy understands, and the rest don't need me to share.
Anyway, tonight I almost let myself lose my temper. I'm glad I didn't because it would have scared the ones I love. I really would have appreciated some support in the search, though. Thanks for nothing, guys.
Sunday, August 03, 2003
I've added some new links. And I found a ring of redhead blogs. This is not as nifty as it sounds, tho, because they count dyed redheads. Now, I don't have any real problem with people who choose to dye their hair red... of course they all want to look like me! However there is a significant difference between a bottled red head and a natural red head. A natural redhead has lived with day glo hair all her life. We have suffered through endless repititions of "carrot top" and "red" from the moment we've been able to understand a spoken language. We have been assaulted by well meaning old ladies who have to stop us on the street to tell us they once had hair just that color.
When you're 5 years old, you don't want some white-haired old geezer scaring the heck out of you by letting you know you'll look like her some day.
We have had our hair pulled, we've been laughed at, called names and stared at. We come through this childhood of torture and make it to adolescence to find that we draw a kind of attention that we want. Usually. Suddenly we are seen as attractive. That alone is very hard to cope with. Our peers have pointed out our ugliness through our entire childhood, then over the space of a month we become seen as "gorgeous". Most of us don't believe it. We keep waiting for the laughter to start. Oh, ha ha, fooled you! Had you thinking someone liked you for a minute there! How funny! But the laughter doesn't come. Pleasant though it is, it kinda shakes your world. There's no security in the unexpected.
Oh, yes, and then there's the joy of having a total stranger ask you if you pubic hair is red too. Not to mention having people reach out and touch your hair while you're standing in line for something. What makes these fools think it's ok to touch my hair? I can understand a child wanting to touch this rarest of colors, but an adult? Puh-lease!
Through these trials we have earned our hair. By the time we're adults, we own it proudly. But to get there, we had to endure a kind of prejudice that a caucasion brunette or blonde will never understand. When you walk out your front door, you are a redhead. There's no hiding it, except during winter, if your coat has a hood. We, as redheads, stand out in a crowd and we always will.
Y'know what? I do resent bottled redheads. They haven't earned it, they haven't owned it, they put it on for a while and change it when they get tired of the particular kind of attention a redhead draws. They don't deserve it.
(my ire does not apply to red highlights, only to people who go totally red but still get to have a tan. s'not fair)
When you're 5 years old, you don't want some white-haired old geezer scaring the heck out of you by letting you know you'll look like her some day.
We have had our hair pulled, we've been laughed at, called names and stared at. We come through this childhood of torture and make it to adolescence to find that we draw a kind of attention that we want. Usually. Suddenly we are seen as attractive. That alone is very hard to cope with. Our peers have pointed out our ugliness through our entire childhood, then over the space of a month we become seen as "gorgeous". Most of us don't believe it. We keep waiting for the laughter to start. Oh, ha ha, fooled you! Had you thinking someone liked you for a minute there! How funny! But the laughter doesn't come. Pleasant though it is, it kinda shakes your world. There's no security in the unexpected.
Oh, yes, and then there's the joy of having a total stranger ask you if you pubic hair is red too. Not to mention having people reach out and touch your hair while you're standing in line for something. What makes these fools think it's ok to touch my hair? I can understand a child wanting to touch this rarest of colors, but an adult? Puh-lease!
Through these trials we have earned our hair. By the time we're adults, we own it proudly. But to get there, we had to endure a kind of prejudice that a caucasion brunette or blonde will never understand. When you walk out your front door, you are a redhead. There's no hiding it, except during winter, if your coat has a hood. We, as redheads, stand out in a crowd and we always will.
Y'know what? I do resent bottled redheads. They haven't earned it, they haven't owned it, they put it on for a while and change it when they get tired of the particular kind of attention a redhead draws. They don't deserve it.
(my ire does not apply to red highlights, only to people who go totally red but still get to have a tan. s'not fair)
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
I was listening to NPR tonight, and they were talking about same-sex marriages. They had a conservative voicing his opinions, while they took a more liberal side. OK, so here's the thing... I believe in equal rights. I don't see why people in a committed relationship shouldn't have all the benefits (and sucky bits) of marriage. I know there have been points in my life where I'd have been out the door, except I was married. I made a promise, a judge made it legal, and our families witnessed the whole thing. That kinda gives me an incentive to work harder than I otherwise would have.
The conservative guy opined that homosexuals generally don't have committed relationships, as if they are somehow incapable of going long-term. I say bullshit. When have homosexuals been given the opportunity to legally marry? In this country... hmm... never? He also claimed that children need both a male and a female parent. He felt children being raised by only one sex are cheated, and won't be as well equipped for their own relationships. I think I missed out on some things by not having a dad around. I think that had to do with not having much in the way of role models. My mom went to work, and my sister and I were latch key kids. I think if my mom had a partner of any sex it would have made a difference, because then I would have seen how adults in a committed long-term relationship behaved. I would have seen that it's ok to hold hands, or snuggle, or argue. I would have seen what people talk about over dinner. Hell, I would have seen just how good it is to make dinner for your spouse.
I don't have anything against polygamy, either. I think 2 is a good number for raising children, because the more adults you throw into it, the more conflict can arise. But I'm sure there are ways to work it out, if you're really committed to it.
Obviously, the NPR thing brought out my rant-box. I love NPR. Last week they were talking about HGH and short children. I'm 5'4" and my hubby is about 5'7". It kinda bugs me that I could subject our son to HGH injections for a while, and add 3 or more inches to his potential height. Can you imagine the difference 3 inches can make? We're talking better pay, popularity and a larger selection of partners, not to mention the ability to reach the top shelf without a stool.
And I won't do it.
Am I a bad mother for not making my kid get shots for a few years? I'm denying him a better fit in society. Aren't parents supposed to make any sacrifice to give their children the best life possible? I don't believe in tampering like that. Surgery to close a fontanel, absolutely. Trying to make him taller? Absolutely not! Lets see how many inches healthy food, lots of excercise and plenty of love give him. I don't want him to be short, but that's for my comfort, not his.
I love watching him blossom into a teenager, and I don't want to mess with that by pumping him full of something grown in a laboratory. I don't know what the long-term effects are, do you? I think I'll let nature take it's course, and I think he'll be fine.
Besides, my dad was 6'4", so you never know. :)
The conservative guy opined that homosexuals generally don't have committed relationships, as if they are somehow incapable of going long-term. I say bullshit. When have homosexuals been given the opportunity to legally marry? In this country... hmm... never? He also claimed that children need both a male and a female parent. He felt children being raised by only one sex are cheated, and won't be as well equipped for their own relationships. I think I missed out on some things by not having a dad around. I think that had to do with not having much in the way of role models. My mom went to work, and my sister and I were latch key kids. I think if my mom had a partner of any sex it would have made a difference, because then I would have seen how adults in a committed long-term relationship behaved. I would have seen that it's ok to hold hands, or snuggle, or argue. I would have seen what people talk about over dinner. Hell, I would have seen just how good it is to make dinner for your spouse.
I don't have anything against polygamy, either. I think 2 is a good number for raising children, because the more adults you throw into it, the more conflict can arise. But I'm sure there are ways to work it out, if you're really committed to it.
Obviously, the NPR thing brought out my rant-box. I love NPR. Last week they were talking about HGH and short children. I'm 5'4" and my hubby is about 5'7". It kinda bugs me that I could subject our son to HGH injections for a while, and add 3 or more inches to his potential height. Can you imagine the difference 3 inches can make? We're talking better pay, popularity and a larger selection of partners, not to mention the ability to reach the top shelf without a stool.
And I won't do it.
Am I a bad mother for not making my kid get shots for a few years? I'm denying him a better fit in society. Aren't parents supposed to make any sacrifice to give their children the best life possible? I don't believe in tampering like that. Surgery to close a fontanel, absolutely. Trying to make him taller? Absolutely not! Lets see how many inches healthy food, lots of excercise and plenty of love give him. I don't want him to be short, but that's for my comfort, not his.
I love watching him blossom into a teenager, and I don't want to mess with that by pumping him full of something grown in a laboratory. I don't know what the long-term effects are, do you? I think I'll let nature take it's course, and I think he'll be fine.
Besides, my dad was 6'4", so you never know. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
