The Case of the Phantom Trolling Gall Bladder

"So... you're saying that you used to be thirty pounds... heavier."

A counselor is judged on their ability to regulate their own emotions and reactions. If everything that happens in your client's life sends you into the sort of hysterics that they're in, you're not helping. If you're always laughing along with them, you're not staying on topic. And if your patient is looking to get a rise out of you and you take the bait, you can expect more of that garbage in the future. You have to train yourself to be able to take anything that comes out of their mouths and respond in a way that is best for that client, while still being true to yourself. Sometimes, this means hearing them out when it is literally impossible for you to care less, and usually, I'm good at keeping myself well-regulated.

"Oh, yeah! After my gall bladder got infected I was just sick and leaking out every hole in my body. Couldn't eat anything more than crackers and Gatorade. I lost a lot of weight."
"But, you..."
"Mmm?"


...Usually.

"Oh, nothing. It's just that you're already three inches shorter and at least fifty pounds heavier than your profile stated, and I just drove fifty miles down to this damn city to meet up with you. Now you tell me that you're still this big after you lost the ability to eat fatty, greasy foods- and you're not even really a red head?"


At least, that's what I said in my mind. What actually came out was this:

"Nothing. I forgot." And I looked back at the TV while she ate whatever it was she was eating. Damn my inability to be intentionally rude.

---
Now then! Just what the hell am I talking about, and why am I being a hypocrite about bigger ladies? Fear not, dear reader, there's a reason for my apparent flip-flop. First, allow me to explain what I'm talking about.

A buddy of mine recently met someone on a dating website. He will not shut up about her. While I'm happy for him, it did get me thinking about internet dating as a whole. And while it can go very right, it can also go very, very wrong. So, while he continues foaming at the mouth about his aforementioned strumpet, I decided to write about some of the dates I've had that resulted from online encounters.
Now, let me defend myself. I stated in a previous blog that there is no need to be ashamed of your form if you're naturally a bigger girl (the same would hold true for dudes I suppose); you just have to know yourself, take care of yourself, and rock what you've got. I said there was a STARK difference between a bigger girl with some bodacious curves and someone who would just get eaten by the pack of velociraptors first. The girl I was stuck on a date with was not only poster child for the latter, she'd outright lied about it by posting pictures from years ago that depicted her as a far thinner (read: actually attractive) redhead. But she didn't exactly make up for it in conversation either.
---

"Look at those two guys running!" She said, as we were stopped at the light coming back from our meal.
"Mmm," I agreed, happy to be focusing on anything except my date, "The one guy is totally dusting his buddy." It was true; I assume they were together because it looked like they were wearing similar team-themed shirts, but the thinner guy was half a block farther than his clearly-winded companion.


"At least he's trying, though," she said, and I nodded.
"Yeah. Better to be practicing than to say 'aw fuck it'."
"Yeah. I never run, actually."
"No?" I ask, my eyes veritably rolling out of my head.
"Nope!" she said cheerfully, and grabbed her breasts to give them a good squeeze. "It's these things right here."


Had she really just...? "You don't say," I said, even though she clearly had.
"Oh yeah!" She giggled and accelerated from our now-green stoplight. "An extra fifteen pounds just floppin' around up here. Some people ask me if I give myself a black eye with 'em. But nope! I just don't run."


---
Now, if you're Tucker Max, you might know a funnier way to respond to this than I did. If you're Richard Simmons, you might know a way to turn the conversation into a morale-boosting kick in the pants to get physical. And if you're this guy... well, if you're that guy, you're ridiculously photogenic and you probably don't need OKCupid to get a date. But I digress.
Who talks about that sort of thing on a first date when the other person is clearly not interested? Who talks about that even if they are? Are we goddamned barbarians? You've got to keep it classy, everyone. There's always going to be a degree of awkwardness on a blind date, but you're putting your best foot forward.

The Avengers and Why We're Living In the Future

So, I just got home from watching The Avengers. And first of all, if you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and go see it. Whether or not you're a fan of superhero movies, you will like this film. Without making this a post about the specifics of why it is awesome, there is a reason it is making as much money as it is. So, go see it. I'll wait.

...

How'd you like the movie? Awesome, right? Sweet. Let's get into why we're living in the future.

I make this argument a lot- usually when some new technology comes out and everyone is fawning over it. I say this most often when people make changes to their cell phones via WiFi, and the example that I use most often is a story about the zoo. A friend of mine and I were at the zoo one day, and we wanted a picture of a tiger, but the big cat was lounging too far away for our cell phones to really get a good shot. No problem, says I, and I quickly pull up my app store and grab a free camera zoom app. Within sixty seconds, the camera on my phone can now zoom close enough to get a decent picture- not just enlarging a pre-existing small picture, mind you, it actually zooms. I accomplished this -this fundamental alteration to the nature of my phone- without plugging in to a computer, for free, in less time than it took for me to type this paragraph.

So, what does this have to do with The Avengers?

In the movies previous to this one, especially Thor, the idea is proposed that some of the "magical" aspects of the various superheroes (again, mostly Thor), are actually super-advanced science. This theme of science that borderlines on the arcane is repeated again and again throughout the Marvel universe: Tony Stark can build a fuel source that provides more energy from a generator the size of a baseball than a conventional coal plant could ever hope to output; Bruce Banner turns himself into a nigh-invulnerable, unstoppable force of anger and rage; Captain America becomes the ultimate soldier at the peak of human physiological development; Scarlet Johansson is hot. All miracles of super-science.


"Don't forget about Hawkeye, Dan!"


For better or worse, the real world doesn't have Tony Stark or Bruce Banner running around to solve all our problems. But that doesn't mean we aren't cracking into the realms of super-science, ourselves. Take, for example, the ITER- or the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Slated for a commercial debut of somewhere between 2030-2050, a fusion (as opposed to fission, big difference!) power plant such as this would revolutionize the way we think of energy. Or, if power plants ain't your thing, consider a helmet that the Army is reportedly developing that could read your brain's activity and compose messages from it- essentially, a telepathy helmet. Or, hey, apparently James Cameron feels like blowing up asteroids to mine their sweet, sweet metallic-rich cores.
This is all besides the fact that while I was typing this, I downloaded a new music album to my phone while I Yelped where I'm going to get dinner from, while video-chatting to my parents.

If we can just... not blow up the planet for the next 50 years or so, I firmly believe that we're going to be staring down the barrel of a glorious super-science future.

Obama Out of the Closet for Gay Marriage

So, earlier today, President Obama said he supports gay marriage. Simply put, these are my thoughts.

First of all: this was politically motivated. Coming on the heels of North Carolina’s state constitutional ban of gay marriage, Obama wanted to shore up some support from his base- support that has been lackluster by many accounts. I believe that he made the determination (correctly so) that a lot of the people that would hate him for supporting gay marriage were also people that weren’t going to vote for him anyway… but that a lot of the people that would appreciate his support of gay marriage were people that might be less likely to vote or donate if he didn’t support it. “My views are evolving”, my ass; he waited for the right time to drop this bomb, and saw an opportunity here.

Second, he was not boxed in by Joe Biden. Uncle Joe might have his “Big Effin’ Deal” moments, as well as a horrendously awkward introduction of another Head of State, but he’s not going to paint his boss into a corner on an issue this big. He was the man on point for this issue. I’ve no doubt that he honestly believes what he said about being comfortable with gay marriage, I just believe that his job was to channel that belief into a pragmatic political strategy, stick his neck out and gauge the response. Since there wasn’t enough vitriol spat at him, the plan for Obama to voice his support after the NC vote went forward.

Third, things are going to get ugly. And I mean UGLY. This is one of the biggest battle lines in American politics, and it gets people pissed. Those who support gay marriage have long been without a big-name champion; now they have one, and as far as champions go, you don’t get any bigger name than the President. With presumptive-nominee Mitt Romney still coming out against gay marriage, people have their figureheads to rally around. Expect woefully inaccurate attack ads from both sides in all 50 states. Expect a firestorm.

Fourth: this is, all in all, a good thing. If you’re against same-sex marriage… then, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong. Allow me to support my position with some handy bullet points, now with 15% fewer calories.

The “research” that says it’s terrible is wrong, wrong, and wrong some more. The idea that kids do better in two-parent homes is correct- but it doesn’t matter which sex the parents are. They just need good parents.

The idea that marriage is something that needs to be defended (by straight people) is ridiculous when nationally, just about half of marriages end in divorce… and is doubly absurd when the states that resist gay marriage the hardest are also the states with the highest individual divorce rates, highest rates of teenaged pregnancies (and the higher rates of teenaged marriage... and divorce). That’s some high and mighty instiution you’re defending, there! (Get off your self-righteous horse, Southern States.)

The idea that it’s against the Bible or God’s Will for the nation or something- tough cookies. There’s that whole separation of church and state deal. (First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It means the government can't pass a law giving preference to any one religion or it's opinions. Not even yours. So essentially, whatever it is you interpret God's opinion to be on gay marriage, it doesn't matter; the issue has to be handled based on its mortal, non-religious merits.)

And lastly, people sure don’t want Big Government getting involved in their lives… until they do. You can’t have it both ways, kids. Either tell the government to GTFO as a whole, and let each state decide… or, have the government come in and accept the results on a national level. But you might want to have Uncle Sam make a ruling on it quickly, because as time goes on, you might not like the results.

Obama’s Failed Economic--- Waaaiiit a Minute!

Mitt Romney has shut up about this issue specifically in recent weeks, and wisely so, though he still bashes the stimulus as a whole. The bailout of the American auto industry was at best an incredibly risky maneuver, and if it hadn’t have worked even a little bit, you can believe that conservatives would have crucified the President on this one. The fact that even the spin machines have gone silent about it, though, shows pretty clearly just how successful it was. Let’s break this down by company.

• Ford: If you’re a George R.R. Martin fan, you could go so far as to call this automaker Dorn; they are the only of the Big Three to remain Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. For those of you unfamiliar with A Song of Ice and Fire, this means that they are the only of the major American automakers that were able to survive the economic crisis without a government bailout. Their brand is down across the world but it’s rising in the States, enough so to offset the other losses. They earned just over 20 billion in 2011, cutting their debt from the past year by about 6 billion dollars and eliminating a tax allowance they’d been given to help them out back in 2006. (Why is a special tax reduction not considered a bailout? Not sure.)
• Chrysler: Uncle Sam shelled out 12.5 billion dollars to keep Chrysler afloat, and of that money, 11.2 billion had been repaid as of July 2011. We’re still out 1.3 billion, but that’s because the automaker actually did too well. Apparently, the government expected them to take until 2017 to pay everything back, and so they set up an interest schedule to match that expectation. Because Chrysler paid the people back too soon, they saved themselves interest payments later on. They just went on to quadruple their quarterly profits over last year’s quarter, putting up a whopping $437 million dollars in the bank- their best quarter in over a decade. They’re on track to post 1.5 billion dollars in profit over the course of the fiscal year, which will be up from 183 million last year. For those of you following along at home, that’s about 8.2 times what they made last year. That’s kind of a big deal. If it means that Chrysler is doing that well, especially considering that during times of $4.00+ gasoline its most popular model is a fucking truck.
• General Motors: GM appears to have had the slowest recovery of the Three. (Their information is also hardest to find). Their increase in stock prices has helped evaporate another 2 billion of the government’s bailout losses, but apparently they’d have to double their worth from this point to completely clear what the American people are out.

The politics of money are always tricky, because you can’t have two side-by-side economies to study in which one gets the bailout and the other one doesn’t. Because of this, economic policy might be one of the most spin-prone areas in the national discussion, as one side can say “The recovery would have been twice as bad without the bailout!” while the other one screams “It would have been twice as good without it!”. Both provide legitimate-sounding statistics from both biased and impartial-sounding sources (if they cite their sources at all, but that’s another rant).