|
||||||||||||
| 20.07.09 | Monday | |||||||||||
And yet even then you may not recognize her. Not until your eyes meet and you witness that glint of resentment. At that point you know her. You remember her. Perhaps it was middle school, or before. The thick glasses, the braces. The baby fat ten years past baby. She awkwardly holds books to her chest while you and your friends walk past her, unaware. Of course, it was you. Or someone cut from the same arrogant chauvinism as you. Someone with the same interlocking anatomy who only noticed her once she had bloomed. Once ugly, always ugly. She may marry the prince, but she'll never forgive him. |
||||||||||||
| 30.05.09 | Saturday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 01.02.09 | Sunday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 15.11.08 | Saturday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 22.10.08 | Wednesday | |||||||||||
( Super-long political poll ) |
||||||||||||
| 20.10.08 | Monday | |||||||||||
The other day, This, as many of you know, is one of my pet topics. I can’t stand nice guys. And, to be clear, I’m not talking about people who are genuinely nice; I’m talking about people who need to be perceived as nice. Men who, due to shyness, insecurity, or some misplaced ideology (think: masculine guilt) cower behind safe opinions, don’t stand-up for themselves and go out of their way to behave how they think people want them to behave. Spineless men who, inevitably, descend to either self-righteousness judgment, a victim mentality or both. These are the scumbags who think pretending to be a girl’s friend gives them some sort of priority ranking in her dating life – and then get mopey when she dates a “bad boy” (who is really just someone who is confident, assertive and willing to make the first move). If you’re reading this and it sounds at all familiar: grow a dick. Seriously.
( Savage Love ). ( Supporting Evidence ) |
||||||||||||
| 03.09.08 | Wednesday | |||||||||||
But, really: shame on the Republicans for resorting to such base bigotry in their political campaigns. This is old news, though. No one cares about Obama's cock anymore. Our minds are far too occupied with what Sarah Palin might be like in bed. In fact, since McCain's announcement of his running mate, the few remarks I've heard about Sarah Palin's politics have been completely eclipsed by the impressive amount of content pertaining to the attractiveness of her and her family. Every feminist fear of what Clinton's campaign would inevitably deteriorate into has been realized in response to the Palin's nomination. The fascinating part is that this hasn't spawned from the mouths of right-wing radicals like Rush Limbaugh, but from my own circle of left-liberal friends. But, of course, Sarah Palin gave up her right to being evaluated independent of her gender as soon as she chose to support the rights of unborn babies. In fact, since the pro-life movement is an overt attempt of the patriarchy to keep women in a subservient position, can Sarah Palin really even qualify as a female? But, of course, none of this really matters anyway - why bother evaluating her politics when we know she slept her way to the top anyway? |
||||||||||||
| 12.04.08 | Saturday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 13.10.07 | Saturday | |||||||||||
Current Friend-Of Count: 322.
|
||||||||||||
| 11.08.07 | Saturday | |||||||||||
but as a girl, i'm really used to this. i expect it. but i always wonder what, as a guy posting photos of women, you think about comments like this, and what it makes you think about the other people who share your gender. thoughts? ps - someone should tell that guy that beautiful has a U. Which is why I'm officially announcing my decision to become a |
||||||||||||
| 04.02.07 | Sunday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 08.06.06 | Thursday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 25.05.06 | Thursday | |||||||||||
That's the funny thing about Katie. Most girls I've dated would have flipped the guy off and then gone off on a rant about the sexual objectification of women, but she can get hit on by the least desirable elements of society (like the toothless guy in Mexico) and still be flattered. Of course, by contrast, I think half the time when women bitch about a guy hitting on them they're just using the opportunity to draw attention to the attention they're getting. Of some relevance, Katie noted today that she felt terribly rejected when I didn't try to put my dick in her on our first date. It's not that she would have put out, but given her interpretation of my alleged reputation she assumed that it was a reflection on her (which is ironic as I never fuck a girl on the first date). Katie is pretty succinct in her analysis of this psychology. She wants to print a low cut shirt with the words "look at my brains" printed across the neckline. |
||||||||||||
| 22.05.06 | Monday | |||||||||||
Thanks for your insightful investigation about selling sex online. It really bothers me that Craigslist doesn’t take responsibility for the content other people post on their site. I’m sure Craig has gotten filthy rich off people selling prostitution via his free web service. And the audacity to expect the community to monitor his site for him! Based on your article, you may be interested in covering a similar situation that has fallen underneath the legal radar for years. In my neighborhood (out in Bothell) there is a municipal park with a public bulletin board in it (nothing fancy like Craigslist, just an old fashioned cork board). Similar to Craigslist, though, it is unmonitored by the owners - my very own city government! The other day I walked past it and saw a girl advertising "baby-sitting" services. Is she over eighteen? Do her parents know she’s doing this? Is she reporting her income to the IRS? More importantly, what else might she be selling? It appalls me that my tax dollars are going to support this type of negligence. I expect depravity and the corruption of youth from the Internet. I mean, it’s the same forum that brought us pornography and MySpace. I expect government to hold itself to a higher level of public responsibility, though. I’d love to see you cover this in a follow-up investigation. Sincerely, Jeremy Caney A concerned citizen |
||||||||||||
| 01.05.06 | Monday | |||||||||||
What I have yet to see is an argument representing the views of the protesters. If you're reading this and you've attended one of these protests I'd love to hear your side of the argument. |
||||||||||||
| 25.04.06 | Tuesday | |||||||||||
Poll #717092 Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 42 Are you, as Howard Dean (Chairman of the Democratic National Convention) has proposed, willing to embrace pro-life Democrats?
View Answers No. It violates the ideological principles of the party. No. It violates my personal values which I am unwilling to compromise on. Yes. It is a necessary pragmatic move to win the vote against the Republicans. Yes. In fact, I would consider myself a pro-life Democrat. N/A. I don't vote for or support the U.S. Democrat party or their ideals. Feel free to discuss. |
||||||||||||
| 11.04.06 | Tuesday | |||||||||||
The week that followed, my LiveJournal friends list was chock full of eulogies, pictures of the victims and discussions of memorial services, funerals, etc. People shared stories of the friends they lost. What initially started out as a news story was transformed into a tragic event as the names of the victims were given life via first-hand testimonies by people I know and respect. That brought the story home. As such, I can understand why even people who didn't know the victims were impacted by the event. I can understand why people cried, became reclusive or even posted introspective entries as a means of dealing with the implications and aftermath of an event they could identify with even if they weren't directly connected to it. What made me sick, though, was the realization that a number of the people posting in remembrance of their "close friend's" deaths didn't actually know the victims any more than I did - perhaps a brief meeting or introduction, chance encounters at random parties. In a couple instances it seemed like people were playing up their ties to the deceased in order to gather sympathy, attention or some connection to the media spotlight. Don't get me wrong - as mentioned above you don't have to know the people to feel connected to these events, just as you didn't have to know the victims in 9-11 to feel the impact. Embellishing or exaggerating ties in order to leach off the tragedy as a means of compensating for unrelated emotional insecurities, however, is downright pathetic. This isn't targeted at anyone individually. I'm not making any personal judgments nor is this some passive-agressive attack; where and when appropriate I've confronted people on this directly. I don't want to get into a debate with anyone over how well they knew so-and-so. That's not the point. This is simply a reflection of a phenomenon that I found disturbing. It bothered me in much the same way that it bothered me when corporations started putting up billboards after September 11th with patriotic slogans followed by their corporate logo. It felt cheap, insincere and insulting to the people who actually suffered. |
||||||||||||
| 13.03.06 | Monday | |||||||||||
I essentially agree with every one of
second thought: they should just offer two classes and let the students choose rather than assigning them by sex. third thought: the cynic in me thinks that even if they let the students choose, the classes would still acquire an association with gender, like shop and home-ec used to be. sigh. |
||||||||||||
| 03.03.06 | Friday | |||||||||||
The one explanation that I've been told that makes some sense is that it's safe. You can flirt with a married guy and it's just practice; there's a ready-made excuse to reject him (should it be necessary) and he's less likely to be clingy. This is pretty much identical to the classic reason why women like gay men, which I suspect is a very similar dynamic and leads into my own interpretation... My personal theory on this has to do with confidence and validation. I think that confidence is sexy and I think there is a certain confidence afforded by attachment; this is contrasted to a desperate single who will fuck just about anything left in the bar after last call. Likewise, if a guy who doesn't need sex or attention because it is waiting for him at home is interested in you then obviously you are a step above the rest; in a certain competitive spirit, it is more validating. It's the same reason why power is attractive; it's more exclusive. Really, though, this is speculation. I'm not a girl. And conversely, I've been told that most men are simply oblivious to attachment; they will pursue a girl no more and no less than if she were single not because they (don't) respect commitment but because they are not paying attention to obvious cues (like, say, a wedding ring). That said, what do you think? And, as usual, I'm not looking for obvious ideological textbook answers. Further, just because you're an exception doesn't mean this isn't a trend. And obviously I'm not talking about the lecherous old forty year old who sits in the corner of the bar leering at the hot twenty-somethings that are completely out of his league. |
||||||||||||
| 20.02.06 | Monday | |||||||||||
So, instead, I'm allowing her to first cross out three terms of her choice, excluding the word "not" (although I retain the right to a one-time veto). |
||||||||||||
| 01.02.06 | Wednesday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 26.01.06 | Thursday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 22.01.06 | Sunday | |||||||||||
Now, regardless of your interest, what if buying those t-shirts meant you really were supporting those organizations - not just in image, but also with a $12USD contribution? That's precisely what a Danish company is doing (despite Danish law that could put supporters of "terrorist" organizations in jail for ten years). [Source; thanks to In some ways, this raises similar questions raised in my post regarding the Christian boycott of Microsoft. On one hand, using the dollar to "vote" for causes that you find valuable is the essence of capitalism. On the other hand, as with the Che Guevara t-shirts, something like this could easily be fueled by apathy, fashion fad or a desire to be viewed as independent -- as opposed to a genuine support for the political agendas of these organizations. Likewise, while the definition of terrorist is arguable (remember: the U.S. revolutionary soldiers were often seen as the equivelent of terrorists by England) it's also true that many of these organizations are (regardless of their ideologies) no more than organized crime; others represent very real social interests and ideals. It's often hard to tell what their ultimate agenda (or final operating practices) will be until they are in power. There are plenty of cases (such as Yugoslavia or Rwanda) where the stated ideals took a back seat to state sponsored genocide (for instance). Thoughts? |
||||||||||||
| 19.01.06 | Thursday | |||||||||||
On one hand, I think it's wonderful that consumers are evaluating the ethics of a company and making purchase decisions accordingly - that is the responsibility of an informed electorate in a capitalist society. If people did the same thing regarding unfair business practices, child labor, poor production quality/design, etc then we would need less government intervention and would be creating an incentive for businesses to uphold ethics consistent with these value systems. On the other side, we've all seen how the introduction of social issues into politics has polarized the nation and allows presidents like George Bush to be elected based largely on their social platform as opposed to their qualification as a leader or their stance on, say, the economy and foreign affairs. In this regard, social issues have become a smokescreen behind which important issues are buried and support is rallied.
The idea of people choosing products purely based on religious affiliation and opinion over social issues creates a precident that I find frightening. I can't imagine most of my friends buying products from companies that openly deny employment to homosexuals; likewise I can't imagine the Christian or extreme social conservatives buying products from companies that openly support homosexuals. The idea of company's being pressured to weigh in on this issue further polarizes the nation and pushes politicians and corporations away from their primary responsibilities. Of course, the other issue behind this is companies using their financial influence to dictate political decisions and, as the article points out, social policy. That isn't much different than the church or any other special interest lobbying for their view to be universally applied via a political channel. I may personally agree with the view in this case, but it's a dangerous precident (albeit, really, one that has been established by both corporations and churches some time ago). |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 18.01.06 | Wednesday | |||||||||||
Anyway, after a while this woman calls and says what (IMHO) every self-aware American (if not human) ought to say (paraphrased): "After thinking hard about this question, I have to admit that yes, I am a racist; I hold biases towards minorities and while I may not act on them I can't pretend they aren't there. If, for instance, I see an African American in a nice car I'm immediately aware of that it's not normal." She then goes onto say that by nature we notice breaches from patterns and implies that it's a pattern for there to be a correlation between race and income (for instance; which, of course, we all know to be true). Kudos to her, right? I mean, until people become aware of their own biases, no matter how politically incorrect, how are we supposed to face them? Anyway, the radio host (and I'm not sure what show this was) completely misses the point and, apparently, chastises her with baiting questions like "so, if you were an employer, you wouldn't hire someone simply because they were black?". Because, you know, all racism is that overt, right? This country is going to hell in a hand-basket but, you know, it's not because of me -- it's because of those {Southerners, Republicans, Rural-folk, Corporations, etc, etc, etc}. After a while the ignorance and broad generalizations of these statements starts to sound pretty comparable to "this area used to be nice, until the Mexicans moved in". Speaking of Mexicans: In California, the Home Depots have institutionalized day labor by offering training and providing referral services to known illegal Mexicans. The California State Attorney General has come out in support of this concept, acknowledging that the state will not press charges against illegal immigrants. On one hand citizens are protesting; on the other, of course, they're hiring them to install their cabinets and carpeting and decks. I sure wish we had this program up here; it's much easier than having to proposition the crowds that pool downtown every morning looking for day work. |
||||||||||||
| 01.01.06 | Sunday | |||||||||||
Today, we were supposed to drive to Base Saint Louis. According to a few people we talked to, New Orleans received news coverage due to how big of a city it was, but Bay Saint Louis was where the real damage was. We got a late start, though, and weren't sure we wanted to take the two hour round trip back to Mississippi and so decided to check out the Ninth Ward first. Apparently, the Ninth Ward is where much of the flooding damage was the worst (as far as New Orleans is concerned); as such we were expecting water damage but not significant wind damage or structural impact. Driving toward the Ninth Ward, we stopped and took a dozen or so photos of beautiful old houses with boarded up windows, piles of garbage out front and water marks on the side. As we entered the Ninth Ward, we found more damage: collapsed decks, roofs without shingles, garbage all over the street. The area was completely empty of human life outside of the occasional army vehicle or police car. It was pretty humbling to see how a neighborhood could be transformed into a ghost town overnight. As we approached the bank where the levy broke, however, I realized that the previous hundred photos I'd taken didn't even come close to representing or capturing the damage. Even after that, the hundred or so photos I took of the real damage don't really do it justice. After the thirtieth splintered house or the fifteenth upside down car you stop taking photos; it's the same image, the same story. What the photos don't capture, though, is the scale. After a while Katie and I just drove down the streets, mile after mile, unable to reconcile what we saw with what we knew it once to be. In many ways, I found the initial impressions more difficult to witness: when you see a house with a broken window and a hole in the roof you can relate; when you stand in front of a horizon full of broken two-by-fours, bricks and twisted metal, though, it just feels like a movie -- the set for some post-apocalyptic thriller. It reminds me of Stalin's quote regarding tragedies vs. statistics. I remember hearing on NPR a couple months ago about teams going in to rescue animals. The report made me angry, to an extent; with so many humans dead, injured or displaced it seemed like animals should be the last of the worries; not to be completely heartless, but from a pragmatic perspective we had better use for volunteer labor in the aftermath of the storm. Driving through the streets of the Ninth Ward, however, I came to respect those efforts. When you see the damage, when you think of how hard it would be to come "home" to find everything you own completely demolished, it would mean so much to know that your dog or cat, at least, is alive and well. I still don't know if the weight of what we saw today has really sunk in. It's just too hard to personalize it. Initially, I felt a bit guilty going in with my camera; I knew that I was essentially just gawking, sort of a train-wreck fascination. After spending a day amongst the ruins, though, I realized that you can't fully exploit that sort of situation; the very act of witnessing it changes your perspective and demands a level of sympathy I wouldn't have thought myself capable of. The whole thing is just awful. |
||||||||||||
| 18.12.05 | Sunday | |||||||||||
My motivation for watching the series is two-fold. First off, I'm watching it for entertainment value. Second, I am curious what foundation, if any, the documentary presents for challenging evolution (it is, afterall, simply a theory). I've attempted to approach it with an open mind, although clearly I'm also critically evaluating it. ( More... ) |
||||||||||||
| 01.12.05 | Thursday | |||||||||||
The topic that sparked my rant was Victrola's press release (which influenced write-ups in a number of national papers, including the New York Times, I believe) regarding their decision to cut wireless internet on weekends. Instead of just acknowledging that during peak times (like weekends) the service cuts into their profit potential, they rationalized it as an effort to foster community by encouraging people to get out from behind their laptops and socialize. Ultimately, this was probably a smart move on their part. but it epitomizes what I often think of as a consumerist mindset that feels that the number one responsibility of businesses is to serve society and that the secondary interest is to make a profit. The first and foremost goal of business is to make a profit just as the first and foremost goal of most people who work is to make a profit. At the core, I can't blame Victrola. I've worked in marketing, I've written press releases; I'm well aware of why spin marketing works. The whole goal is to position selfishly driven decisions as investments into your consumer. And sometimes this makes sense because consumers, like businesses, are self-driven. No one is going to buy a product that has a label exclaiming "Now with 30% less product so we can afford bigger yachts!", but if you position it as "Now with an ergonomic design that makes it easier to hold" it ties into individual's interests. What bothers me is when this is taken to such an extreme that corporations are being completely false and, worse, consumers are buying it. I'm sure no one honestly believes it, of course; we're too cyncical about corporate motives. But if the corporation were honest about their objectives they'd be boycotted. I deal with the same thing in business. Seasoned clients (higher up management and medium-sized-business owners) usually understand business at an objective level. They will negotiate but they're always aware that I need to make a profit. Not only that but many understand that the more profit I make the better quality product they will likely received; that there needs to be an incentive. This is what makes corporate sales fun; it's all about finding that balance between what they are willing and capable of paying while still making a profit for my firm. With lower level, younger or less experienced managers, however, they have a touch of this consumerist mentality; there is almost this unspoken expectation that I am there to cater to and serve their needs. The kiss of death with these clients is to acknowledge in any way that you are making a profit or that you might have selfish interests that aren't completely aligned with theirs. There is this naive egocentricism to it fueled by the flawed philosophy that "the customer comes first" (which is like saying that any person should put the needs of another above their own; unrealistic and ultimately unsustainable). Those that know me know that I'm not idealistic enough to expect this to change. I understand, culturally, why people are this way. I understand why corporations respond to it. I understand the opposite extremes (where big businesses snowball consumer interests with monopolistic practices with no acknowledgement or respect for the long term consequences). Still, I find it downright insulting when I open my email to see things like an advertisement from The Body Shop for the Until there is a cure AIDS awareness bracelet. For $25 you can show your support for AIDs. The email tells the consumer that the Body Shop is a progressive company that supports socially responsible interests such as AIDs prevention, awareness and support. What the email (and product details) fail to mention is that this is just a product; no percentage of the product is going to support AIDs research. Although, trust me, if it were then you can be sure you'd know about it; everytime I go to the Body Shop they are sure to tell me how wonderful of a business they are because they gave money to XYZ women's charity. Of course, as mentioned, corporations are selfish. So perhaps there is benefit in humoring them by acting impressed by these trivial grants; it provides an incentive for them to continue them. And, ultimately, I don't care WHY people give money (I fully expect it to be selfishly driven) as long as they give it; charity or any socially responsible cause isn't in the position to look a gift horse in the mouth. That isn't going to stop me from getting grumpy, though, and excercizing my consumer rights (by not buying products or by writing bitchy rants like this) when corporations try to snowball me with the gimmic of compassion over self-interest. |
||||||||||||
| 13.11.05 | Sunday | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Top | < previous 30 entries |