tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36772805209489949892024-02-06T20:23:06.253-08:00Black is the New PinkBombing the Blogosphere like Marten ReedThe Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-61696579325833106542013-01-31T10:52:00.000-08:002013-01-31T10:52:38.263-08:00Biodome...was a shitty movie.<br />
<br />
No really, it was. But lately I've been doing a lot of thinking about enclosed ecosystems as a potential cure for certain problems we face today. Hear me out on this, it might take a little while to loop around and come back home.<br />
<br />
In his book <em>Green Metropolis</em>, David Owen suggests that one of the greatest environmentalist bastions ever created is, in fact, the "big city". Of course, big cities typically look dirty when compared to the pristine lawns of suburbia and the open skies of the country, but consider what both of those "cleaner" places require.<br />
<ol>
<li>Because of their vast horizontal scale, it takes time to get anywhere worth going. And when it takes time to get somewhere, what do people use? Cars. </li>
<ol>
<li>This is exaccerbated by the fact that in suburbia, most people have cars. Many people have multiple cars, and mass transit might not be an option.</li>
</ol>
<li>With horizontal space comes things that we like to do to that space. For instance: build a big house, have a big lawn, etc. </li>
<ol>
<li>Odds are, we don't use all the space in our house. Speaking personally, my apartment is a "mere" 800 square feet, and I don't use all of the space. I have a second freaking bedroom I never go into, except to iron my shirts and bemoan my "green room" idea. (But that's another story).</li>
<li>If we <em>do</em> buy a house/apartment bigger than we need, guess what we typically do? <em>Fill it up with stuff!</em> All sorts of cool shit we didn't know we wanted until we saw it- and included with this <em>stuff</em> is the environmental cost of production (for both the product and its packaging, because plastic apparently has to be <em>fucking bulletproof</em> these days) and the cost of transporting it to market.</li>
<li>If you have a lawn, guess what you probably use? Fertilizer! Weed killer! Gas-powered lawn mowers! Now multiply that by however many millions of suburban lawns there are.</li>
</ol>
<li>And of course, if we want to use that horizontal space to build our homes in, we have to clear whatever was there beforehand. This might mean draining a swamp, cutting down trees, etc.</li>
<ol>
<li>And remember- individual, free-standing houses have to be individually heated and cooled. That costs money and energy.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
But in a city? Space is limited. You very well might not own a car, because parking in a city is a bitch. Mass transit becomes an option again, because a) traffic is still terrible even <em>if</em> a lot of folks don't have cars, and b) there are enough people living in a small enough space to economically justify running a fleet of busses- and their destinations are close enough to walk to, once they disembark. You can't go buy tons of random shit because you won't have anywhere to put it. You probably don't even <em>have</em> a lawn, and if you do, it's probably a small patch of crabgrass by the stoop. And because cities can be a vertical entity rather than a horizontal one, there's less clearing of land- <em>plus, </em>apartments are heated as a block, so keeping your place warm requires less energy, since your neighbors' apartments act as insulation.<br />
<br />
So what does all this city-slicker environmentalism have to do with enclosed ecosystems?<br />
<br />
Well, one of the unavoidable things we need the wide-open spaces of the country for is food production. To produce enough food for everyone*, you need the sort of acreage that you see in the midwest.<br />
Or- do you?<br />
What I've been wondering is whether or not we could start supplimenting our diets with food grown in enclosed areas in the cities. <br />
<br />
You'd start by selecting a set of plants and animals that play well together. Simplistically, think of it like this- start with "The people want fish", so, we put fish in an artificial river. Some of these fish are harvested, others are left to mature, and still others are used as fertilizer for a collection of plants. Some of these plants filter the water, and some of them act as food for our fish. Rinse, repeat.<br />
<br />
Clearly, the implimentation is far more complex, but this is what I've been thinking about. Obviously we couldn't replace all of our intake in this manner- you simply can't feed 300,000,000+ people by farming vertically- but think of the benefits. <br />
<br />
People in a city could come and see exactly where their food is coming from. The food would be as fresh as it gets, and because it's from an enclosed system, we wouldn't need any nasty pesticides or what have you. You wouldn't have to worry about frost or flooding. Because the plants and animals would be selected in such a way that there is both a market demand for them AND a synergy between them, you could save a fortune on expensive filtering systems. And I'd bet there's a way to subsidize these places, city by city, such that the money it costs to maintain the joint is more than offset by the amount of money you'd save in medical costs stemming from shitty nutrition down the road.<br />
You could sell the food right downstairs, or in a farmer's market wherever. You could rent plots of land to people who want to raise these crops or these animals. Have schools come in, tour the place, and let people reconnect with their food sources. And shit, toss some wind turbines and solar pannels on the roof to make it all as green as possible.<br />
<br />
You'd even save money not having to transport this food over the river and through the woods. Lower food costs mean people can spend money elsewhere.<br />
<br />
And again, this is all dreaming. But I can't get the thought out of my head that there may be a market here.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-8006934656012992502013-01-16T18:18:00.001-08:002013-01-16T18:18:10.439-08:00Sing Me a Song, You're the PianomanI've always wanted to be a musician.<br />
There, I said it. I've been singing since I was a little kid, and thankfully, I got a decent set of low pipes from Dad and the ear to use them from Mom. I've gone to school and focused on my studies, obviously, but the one thing I've wanted to do more than anything else is get up in front of people and belt out a tune. (Hopefully these people are listening by choice, but I am not above taking auditory hostages).<br />
<br />
That said, I've spent the better part of the last decade dicking around. <i>Oh, I'm not talented enough on the guitar. Oh, I don't have a band. Oh, I can't because of this or that or the other--</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">SHUT UP!</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
I came to the realization a year ago that <i>none of those excuses matter</i>. I resolved to have ten songs written and finalized by this past New Years Eve- I decided on 10 as my target number at some point along the way.<br />
As of January 1st, I had 3.<br />
To be fair, some of this delay was because I was learning my recording software. But also to be fair, I screwed off between February and October of last year. <i>But no more.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Inspired by <a href="http://www.falconesse.com/">these</a> <a href="http://hillarymonahan.com/">people</a>, who've collaborated to write a beginner's guide to getting a book published, I decided one of the things I could write about on this blog o' mine would be the process of getting music published, as learned through trial and error. We'll see how this goes- but first, it'll be progress updates on the writing.<br />
That said!<br />
Currently, I have four songs of mine on my phone. Three of them are being re-mixed, since the old computer I recorded them on was old and feeble and had to have this monstrous, noisy fan to even run Notepad, and so some of my music has this really obnoxious <i>wrrrrrrrrrrrrrr</i> going on in the background, like Newt Gingrich died and reincarnated as an Nvidia cooling system, waxing poetic about how he wants to build a base on the moon to escape the capitalism-killing evils of dust bunnies.<br />
<br />
My new target is to have all 10 songs done by April 1st (no joke). Not counting the abovementioned 4, I have 3 that are mostly written (but I'm unsure if they're good enough to use) and 4 which are still just a few lines long.<br />
<br />
And just to keep a running tab...<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><u>Oathbreaker</u>- Waiting to be re-recorded</li>
<li><u>Human/Nature</u>- Waiting to be re-recorded</li>
<li><u>Trouble</u>- Currently (re)-recording</li>
<li><u>Darcy</u>- Finished</li>
</ul>
The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-78968506163646864592013-01-10T10:34:00.000-08:002013-01-10T10:34:03.115-08:00Truth and FactLewis Black has this one bit about peas.<br />
<br />
<br />
He starts out by saying that the reason people can’t trust government is because there’s multiple sets of facts; the Democrats have one set, and the Republicans have another. This makes discussion impossible, as before either side can begin to debate what to do about a problem, they start calling each other liars because their facts don’t match.
<br />
<br />
He goes on to say that the last bastion of truth is an elementary school cafeteria, where- if you find the menu to say that there will be meatloaf and peas- then you’d <em>better</em> believe you’re going to get meatloaf and fucking peas.<br />
<br />
I agree with his sentiment, I think he just got a word wrong. It isn’t that political parties (and increasingly, the people that make up their base) have different <em>facts</em>, its that they have different <em>truths</em>. Small change, big difference. But as we learned from Indiana Jones, archaeology is the search for fact, not truth; and if its truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.<br />
<br />
If a child has a nightmare and tells me he’s scared because there’s a monster in his closest, he is telling me the truth. But he is (probably) not telling me the facts. The truth is his perception. The fact is the reality of things.<br />
<br />
Thus it is with Congress.<br />
<br />
When Mitch McConnell tells America that it is a spending problem that is dragging the country down, I have no doubt he is telling me his truth. Sure, he’s influenced by his particular harem of lobbyists and donors, but if he didn’t believe what he says on some level, I think he’d have found a different set of people to fund him- people who hash more naturally with his core ideals. Similarly, when Harry Reid says it’s a revenue problem that we have, he is again telling us his truth. But are they telling us the facts?<br />
<em>Shit</em> no! Facts get people booted out of office. Politicians don’t get elected on facts. <br />
<br />
“What about Ron Paul? He speaks facts! You forgot Ron Paul!”<br />
<br />
No I didn’t. Ron Paul is consistent in his message, and I would trust him more than most politicians, but I don’t think he has any firmer grasp of the facts than anyone else. Dude wants to abolish how many Departments of the federal government, and has the gall to say nothing bad will come of it? Like nothing bad could come from eliminating national standards set by the Department of Education? No. He speaks his truth, but he does not speak fact. <br />
<br />
So why is this the case?<br />
<br />
In a hyper-polarized climate such as the one America currently finds itself in, to get noticed, you have to overcome your background noise. This means that people who’re even more absurd than the current stable of frothing-at-the-mouth political zealots will get elevated to a podium from which they can be heard; this is aided by the current process of redistricting, which allows a party to cut a district into an absurd shape (called “Gerrymandering”) which only includes people most likely to vote one way or another. This process eliminates any need to move toward the middle, since each district is overwhelmingly red or blue, and breeds partisanship.<br />
<br />
And in that climate, fact is sobering. <br />
If current politics (and all of its “truth”) is a raging kegger, facts are the cops that show up to break up the fun. Why force your electorate, which is engaged and energized and throwing money at you, to stop calling President Obama an anticolonialist Kenyan Muslim antichrist? Why ask your party base to stop demonizing Big Oil/Agra/Pharma as shadowy 99%er hating plutocrats who secretly want to turn America into a brand-name coporatocracy? Putting the brakes on that kind of talk reduces voter enthusiasm, kills donations, and makes the <em>OTHER SIDE</em> more likely to win. And we can’t have that, now can we?<br />
<br />
So why am I soap-boxing about this distinction? For a take-away whose brevity is matched only by the preceding paragraphs’ long-windedness: If you want to really be of service to your country in its political endeavors, you have to embrace the typically dry and boring world of facts to establish a common basis from which you can negotiate and compromise with people whose truths are radically different than yours.<br />
<br />
(Also because I’m trying to get in the habit of writing more on principle. But whichever explanation makes me seem cooler is the one you can tell your friends about).The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-31398227751581553072013-01-08T07:03:00.000-08:002013-01-08T07:03:58.937-08:00Happiness is a Four Letter WordRecently I did some thinking, and I came to the conclusion that I am not happy.<br />
<br />
I thought long and hard about it, mulling this post over for about a week; cutting this, adding that, starting completely from scratch. I usually just write something and, if it doesn't need any sources, just let it go after the first or second read-through, but this time I couldn't shake the feeling that all previous iterations sounded... whiny. Mostly because I kept asking myself- what have I to be unhappy about?<br />
<br />
I have a job that doesn't pay me a lot, but it pays me enough. Though my friends are by and large very far away from me, I still have friends that care. The same goes for my family, who raised me in an upper-middle class section of a safe town. I have my health, my youth, an advanced education, and through an undeserved confluence of favorable genetic lottery winnings, I am a white male in America.<br />
<br />
What do I have to be unhappy about?<br />
<br />
Not only do I have these boons, but I work with people who have nothing. No family, no real friends, no job or posessions of their own. They're so debilitated by their mental illnesses, which is often an unholy coctail of something like borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, bipolar disorder, various flavors of hallucinations or delusions AND borderline intellectual functioning... that a hospital is the only place that they can function. It's a red-letter week when they get an extra bag of popcorn on Friday because they went 7 days without attacking anyone. <br />
<br />
I would look at my own lack of happiness, and then I would look at the circumstances of my patients, and I would say to my reflection in the mirror, "You think YOU have problems? You have NOTHING of the sort. You know what problems are. Your issues are jokes. Man up and move on."<br />
<br />
But I wasn't any happier.<br />
<br />
At this point, I have to distinguish something- Most days, I wasn't happy... but most days, I was content. Or at least, content enough. As long as I made sure to do things I enjoy, things that make me feel like I'm growing, then I could accept where I was. My situation wasn't ideal, so I had to have that sensation of forward momentum to stay sane.<br />
<br />
But even in staying sane, I wasn't happy.<br />
<br />
However, believe it or not, this is not about my own feelings. I'm using myself as an example, but I'm not writing this to delve into what kept me from being happy. I'm writing this because in my endless re-writes of this post, I started thinking about the nature of happiness, contentedment, and unhappiness. Because as I thought, I came to realize- I might not be <em>happy</em>, but I'm typically not actively <em>unhappy</em>, either. I'm mostly just... "meh".<br />
<br />
So then I wondered, are other people like this? Other folks in my field, in other but similarly low-pay fields? How about richer folks, people who actually qualify as "middle class"? Or how about that fabled "1%"? Does money have anything to do with it? You always hear money doesn't buy happiness (though Daniel Tosh would tell you, it does buy a waverunner, and have you ever seen an unhappy person on a waverunner?)<br />
<br />
So I'm not usually running around gushing about how ecstatic I am, but neither am I playing a solo game of pity me. And I guess that's ok- certainly better than if I was actively bemoaning my fate- but I felt like something was amiss. Wasn't I supposed to be happy? That's what I keep hearing. "Follow your dreams! If you love your work you'll never work a day in your life!" I see these commercials for antidepressants, but the message is not "restore a chemical balance to your dopaminergic pathways", it's "take this pill to BE HAPPY". That sinks in after the millionth or so ad for Zoloft.<br />
<br />
Then I started thinking, what if this whole happiness push is just a marketing campaign?<br />
<br />
And THEN I started thinking- what if I don't actually have to be happy at all?<br />
(At least, not most of the time).<br />
<br />
I realize that's a strange position to take, but consider it. Aside from the lucky few who have jobs that fulfil them on every level (and <em>fuck you</em> if one of you is reading this), how often do you wake up thinking, "Oh boy, time to go to work again"? Put another way, imagine you had to rank how happy your day was, overall, each day for a month. You do this on a scale from 1-10, 1 being "terrible", 5 being "neither overly happy or unhappy", and 10 being "exceedingly happy". What do you think your average score would come out to be?<br />
<br />
I'd bet good money that you'd likely wall between 4 and 6. I'd give you a 68.2% chance of landing there, as a matter of fact- and I'd give you a 95.4% chance of falling between 3 and 7. Those numbers aren't just values I plucked out of thin air; they're the % of the population that'll fall within 1-2 standard deviations of the mean in a normal bell curve. Does that sound like statistical jubberish to you? Look it up. (If a Psych guy can get it, you can to; have no fear).<br />
<br />
The point is, I'd be willing to bet that for most people, most days are unremarkable. Thats kind of what makes them <em>most days</em>. And that's all well and good- I try to take any day that doesn't actively <em>suck donkey balls</em> as a victory- but I started wondering, if most days are mostly "meh" for folks in the grand scheme of things, why do we appear to be so hyper-focused on getting happiness like it's some XBox of Life achievement? "YES, I totally got Rank 3 Happiness! I am AMAZING!"<br />
<br />
Because, even someone with a novice's experience with modern video games knows what comes next.<br />
<br />
"...Fuckall, now I need to earn Rank 4 Happiness."<br />
<br />
So as I sat there, typing out the conclusion of my little monologue, I thought to myself- maybe that random idea that popped into my head was right. Maybe the trick isn't to be happy each and every day. Maybe it isn't even to be happy most days. Maybe the trick is to cross one set of fingers that you'll be happy on <em>some</em> days, and cross the other set that you're unhappy less often than that.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-38075785289023723452012-12-18T07:52:00.001-08:002012-12-18T18:18:00.684-08:00"Fake Nerd Girls"This topic has been coming up a lot recently, so I figure I’d throw my two cents in about it. For those unfamiliar with the phenomenon named in the title, Geekdom has been beset by an insufferable scourge. Yes, dear reader. With the increased popularity of “geeky” cultural niches has come an increased attention from the outside world, and with it has come… the fake nerd girl. <br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
The rant about Fake Geek Girls typically begins by complaining about “Con Girls”. Not girls trying to rob you of your life savings by investing in a Chia Pet ponzi scheme, but girls that attend conventions- typically, girls at conventions dressed up as some character or another. The refrain goes that these girls actually know nothing about whatever franchise they’ve dressed up as, and are only using the Con as a middle-of-the-year, Halloween-esque excuse to dress up in fanciful, yet always slutty, clothing. Why, you might ask? <br />
<div>
</div>
For the attention, the geek would respond!<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
Because according to this particular part of the complaint, Con Girls aren’t actually hot enough to hack it as bona fide Hot Girls on the outside; they’re just banking on the stereotype of geeks being inept with women to buoy their attractiveness up a couple pegs by comparison to girls these guys would “typically” have a shot at. (This is known as being “Con Hot”, and it is not a compliment).<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
Now- I’ll ignore for a moment the fact that the dudes complaining about this probably have no idea how much of a “true fan” Girl X actually is or isn’t, whether or not she’s dressed up. Book, cover, yadda yadda. I want to take a look at where this argument comes from, and then expose it for what it really is.<br />
<div>
</div>
So where does it come from? Different people might have different underlying reasons for their aversion to “fake nerd girls”, be they dressed up or not: some might believe girls are using their bodies just for personal attention (as mentioned above) or professional attention (to sell some product or other); some male geeks might believe that a more attractive girl couldn’t possibly be interested in something so traditionally anathema to sex appeal, and so any interaction with an attractive woman in the context of their niche is more an act of pity on her part (and “<em>I don’t need your goddamned pity</em>!”) than a true display of her interest in the subject material. <br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
I could go on ad nauseum; the potential reasons behind the accusations of someone being a “fake” geek girl are legion, but they all boil down to the same thing. I’ll list three statements, each progressively closer to the root of the issue; keep score at home and see when you pick up on it.<br />
<div>
</div>
<ol>
<li> “These fake geek chicks are terrible! They’re not even into this stuff because they like it, they’re into it for attention. I liked this Con more before they started coming.”</li>
<li>“These people are terrible! They’re not even into this stuff. I liked this more before they started coming.” </li>
<li>“Ugh, this is terrible. Those people aren’t even real fans. This was much cooler before it was popular.”</li>
</ol>
<div>
</div>
That’s right, my fellow geeks. If you’ve claimed that you liked being a geek before your niche of choice became as mainstream, then you’ve moved out of Geektown and into that one town that everyone in America names with equal venom- Hipsterville.<br />
<div>
</div>
Ponder that for a moment. Roll that word around in your head. Turn thee, Geekvolio, and look upon thy Hipster-y death!<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
See, back in the “glory days” I think some of our brothers yearn for- the days of (and here’s my street cred) reading Unearthed Arcana around Gygax’s basement, postulating on what would one day become the THAC0 system or some shit- liking things like comics (sorry, graphic novels) or fantasy card games was decidedly unpopular. But geeks loved them anyway, and would wax poetic about their +3 Dirk of Attentionslaying to anyone with ears and a pulse. That’s what made geeks so geeky. There was no question that professing their love for their niche would get them a first class ticket to a swirly; they professed anyway. And they would try to turn you to the Geek Side too, even if your expression was something akin to a root canal patient’s without anesthesia. I should know. If I had a dollar for every time I used D&D lingo in a middle school English class, trying to sound cool? I could probably pay off my student loans.<br />
<div>
</div>
Point is- that’s what a good geek is supposed to do. He or she is supposed to look at another person and go, “Ears? Check! Pulse? Check! HEY DO YOU HAVE A MOMENT to talk about our Shiny Lord and Savior, Malcolm Reynolds?”<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
(One hopes there’s at least some context to this conversation. Bringing it up as a non sequitur typically sounds about as irritating as someone who can’t stop talking about how much they bench pressed- society tends to call those people guidos, or in the root latin, <em>goddamn fucking tools</em>… but I digress). Point is, a good geek is supposed to be a good spokesperson for their niche, thereby increasing the number of people who dig what they dig, and bettering humanity as a whole.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
These Anti-“Fake Geek Girl” dudes don’t do that. They don’t see Random Girl dressed as Tifa and think, “Y’know, I should go see if she’s played any of the other FF games”. They don’t see the shared interest as a conversation starter. They see her as a threat of some sort, as if there’s some planetary stockpile of Geekiness, and they have to hoard as much of it as they can to survive the coming football season. I suspect that some of it derives from “I liked this hobby as a form of relaxation, but now with hot girls around I can’t relax anymore, so I’ll be a twat and hope they leave.” <br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
…This is almost always followed a few hours if not minutes later with, “God, girls always go for the assholes. Why won't one talk to me?"<br />
<div>
</div>
And of course, some of the Anti-“Fake Geek Girl” Guys (Contest Time: Someone come up with a clever acronym for that) are just Hipsters, pure and simple.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
But fuck them.<br />
<div>
</div>
Because fuck Hipsters.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
As a really quick aside- I firmly believe that anyone who’s super into something is a geek. Video games, cars, food, weight lifting, vintage issues of Cat Fancy- whatever. If you get real tooled up about something to the point where you have to bite your own tongue to keep yourself from gushing about it out of context again, welcome to Geektown, here’s your pocket protector. But nontraditional kinds of geeks- people into cars, sports, and so forth- they’ve had fangirls tag along to their various big-ticket events for decades! When was the last time you heard a car buff start bitching about all the scantily-clad women that Honda brought with them to the last bike show? Or, when was the last time you heard your local armchair quarterback complain that he doesn’t think the Cowboys cheerleaders don’t really appreciate the game?<br />
<div>
</div>
I suppose this is all a ranty and fairly roundabout way of saying <em>shut up and accept the company, man</em>! Whether it’s girls, guys, whoever. <em>The more the merrier</em>. And if you disagree, then…<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
Well, I’ll say it again.<br />
<div>
</div>
<u>Fuck Hipsters</u>.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-63972238749237521832012-11-18T17:07:00.002-08:002012-11-18T21:17:06.826-08:00The X-Box StorySo, in the words of Ron White, "I told you that story so I can tell you this story."<br />
This, my friends, is "that story".<br />
<br />
It was some months ago now that I was playing a hand of cards with my boys. One of them, a gentleman with an infamous reputation for being a terrible cards player for how often he becomes distracted, became (you guessed it!) distracted and immediately slams his cards on the table. His eyes bugging halfway out of his head, he leaned over the table and into my face.<br />
"HEY!" He exclaimed, "Do you have an XBOX?"<br />
<br />
I leaned back so as not to catch another whiff of what he'd had for lunch (meatloaf and green beans, as far as I could guess), and shot a look at the other two patients. They were putting their own cards in order and were paying Patient 1 no attention. I should have followed suit, but being the fool I am, I answered.<br />
"Uh... yeah. Yeah, I have an XBox."<br />
He leaned forward again. How you doin', greenbeans and- a hint of vanilla? "DO YOU PLAY IT?"<br />
<br />
I leaned back again, inadvertently scootching my chair a ways. "...No. Nah, man I don't. I'm too busy."<br />
<br />
That was a bald-faced lie; I was certainly <i>not</i> too busy to play my XBox, I was in fact quite busy saving the universe as Commander Sheppard. But this guy knows his movies and video games, so I didn't even want to risk the potential for a conversation about the finer points of taking a Reaper to the mattresses. (I was also worried that it might branch into a conversation about taking Miranda to the mattresses, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I">know what I mean</a>?)<br />
<br />
Anyhow. Where was I? Oh yes. I'd just told him that I was too busy to play video games.<br />
"I'm too busy," says I.<br />
"CAN I HAVE IT?!"<br />
<br />
I blinked. He... wanted my XBox? My unit is so restrictive they can't even have a calendar on their wall. Not even a poster. They don't even have their own clothes on my unit!<br />
"Um... no. You can't. Play... play your hand."<br />
"I can't have it?"<br />
"No."<br />
"Aw."<br />
<br />
A moment passed, and for a brief, shining second, I thought I could go back to my favorite work pastime; ignoring this person. But alas.<br />
"WHERE D'YOU LIVE?"<br />
<br />
Before I could respond to this, Patient 2 decides to offer me some advice.<br />
"Yoooouuuu bettah not tell him wheah you live," he said sagely, never taking his eyes up from his hand, "Or yooouu wake up one morn', thinkin' you got an Ecks-Bawks but you WONT HAVE SHEEEYIT."<br />
<br />
My cards are now everywhere. I have spit onto the table and probably onto Patients 2 and 3- but if 3 gets hit by my spray, I don't see his reaction; if 2 has been hit, he doesn't care. He ignores my reaction completely.<br />
"Yoooouuuu wake up one morn', thinkin' you got an Ecks-Bawks, but he be PLAYIN' yo' Ecks-Bawks at YO' MOMMA'S HOUSE."<br />
<br />The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-24459516865174166062012-11-11T12:50:00.000-08:002012-11-11T12:50:08.174-08:00Mechanical Horses!So last night I tried to go and watch Skyfall. <b>Un</b>fortunately for my eyeballs, the movie was sold out and I didn't get to watch it. <i>Fortunately </i>for my eyeballs, on my way back to my car I stumbled across... this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzKoicoWTMOnKv_OkNFhKMew7dkyVqj_EBjfVXMpavyVSkei8_eOS0GyipN8seUHNxR7QRMlOkwGAxnRBEoxA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
That's right, bicycle polo. Just a bunch of dudes, rollin' around a dry ice rink, playing a gentlemanly game of <a href="http://bikepololafayette.blogspot.com/">bike polo</a>. Turns out there's a whole league of people that play this state-wide, and apparently a Lafayette team are the defending state champions! There wasn't a huge crowd, as you can see, and my video is only what my phone could take- but I wanted to share it, since it reinforces my belief that you find the coolest things when you're not actively looking for them.<br />
<br />
That's all for today.<br />
<br />
<br />The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-84179774325258108822012-11-09T14:51:00.001-08:002012-11-09T14:52:57.260-08:00I Dream of Gringo<br />
I have a confession to male.<br />
It’s only three days since the election, and I’ve already engaged in my personal self-harming action of choice. No, dear reader, I am not a cutter; I do not binge and purge; I do not engage in fits of manic spending or sexual abandon (except in the case of your mom). No, my demon is a far darker creature, more apt to ignore the immediate gratification of self-mutilation and partake in the soul-crushing long game.<br />
<br />
I’ve started reading about the 2016 election cycle.<br />
<br />
“How can this be?!” You might ask, and you’d be justified in your confusion. After all, we just got done with the whole blasted mess, how can I be so full of hatred for my sanity that I’m already looking up information regarding an event that won’t take place until I’m 30?<br />
Because, my friend, in four years we may have the chance to see a deathblow leveled against a major political party. I’ll do my best to prognosticate about this with as little bias as possible, even though the claim itself may appear biased to begin with. I’m simply exploring a possibility.<br />
<br />
Obama killed it with non-whites. No reason trying to call this anything other than what it was; it was an absolute stomping. I could waste my time trying to explain why this took place, but rather than do that I’d like to extrapolate outwards. Let’s look at Latinos, for example. They’re the fastest-growing population in the country; <a href="http://www.blogger.com/(http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1940/hispanic-united-states-population-growth-2010-census">according to Pew research</a> they accounted for 46% of the nation’s growth between 2000 and 2010- this group jumped from contributing about 35,306,000 people to our population… to 50,478,000. That increase is enormous. Latinos increased their number by almost half over ten years, coming to ~16% of our entire population. By contrast? Us white boys only got together with enough white girls to bring the Gringo vote from 194.5 million to 196.8 million (that’s about half a percent increase). While that’s still a huge head start, the gap is closing by leaps and bounds.<br />
Now consider this. Assuming similar rates of population growth over the next ten and twenty years, we could be looking at an American electorate with a Latino population of 112 million or so, compared to a White population only a few million higher than it currently is.<br />
<br />
Why is this important?<br />
In an electorate that decides its President by a margin of only a few million votes here or there, any one population that is growing faster that the others must be paid special attention to; pretending that the population growth of Latinos isn’t important is political suicide. Similarly equitable to electoral seppuku is taking a hard-right stance on immigration issues, as Mitt Romney did by <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57364444-503544/romney-on-immigration-im-for-self-deportation/">supporting “self-deportation”</a>, which is essentially hoping that illegal immigrants find the atmosphere of the country so unfavorable that they get up and leave on their own. Other conservative standpoints, such as building a wall on “<a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Michele_Bachmann_Immigration.htm">every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border</a>” do the Republican brand no favors with people of Latino heritage. (It’s also a completely untenable construction project, but that’s beside the point).<br />
<br />
All of these issues for conservatives combine into a possibility that if, within the next four years, immigration reform can be attained? The credit could very easily go to President Obama and the Democrats. I’m not going to speculate about the staying power of the DREAM Act (or something like it) if its passed early in Obama’s second term; nor will I speculate about the number of Latinos (or voters in general) this could net the Democrats come 2016. What I can say is that any cursory inspection of the news will reveal how powerful an issue immigration reform is for the Latino community; <a href="http://www.blogger.com/(http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/03/06/latino-voters-overwhelmingly-support-dream-act-path-to-citizenship-poll-shows/">a poll conducted by Latin Insights</a> on behalf of Fox News in March of 2012 revealed 90% support for President Obama’s DREAM Act. Pew Research’s Hispanic Center <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/28/iv-views-of-immigration-policy-2/">found that 91% of Latinos supported DREAM</a>; 84% supported giving in-state tuition to undocumented students.<br />
<br />
TL;DR: This is a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHKq9tt50O8">big fucking deal.</a><br />
<br />
…Which brings me back to my original claim. I went out on a limb and said that we could witness a deathblow to a major American political party, and I stand by that possibility. Republicans currently stand almost entirely on the wrong side of this issue, politically speaking. Never mind who’s actually right or wrong; the fastest growing population in America says immigration reform is a huge deal, and the Republican party couldn’t trip over itself fast enough to tack further and further to the right on the issue. They very well could have saved their election efforts if they hadn’t have alienated this key demographic. If they continue to talk about border-length fences and self-deportation, or -as some have suggested- if they react to their recent loss by deciding they <i><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/republicans-stung-by-loss-begin-debate-over-future.html">haven’t been conservative enough</a></i>, I would think they can expect to continue losing seats in both houses. And that trend, combined with the losses experienced from most other minorities, could spell the deathknell of their party.<br />
<br />
Or the Tea Party 2 could come along and prove me wrong. But only time will tell.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-17712296131821447232012-11-07T10:58:00.001-08:002012-11-07T10:58:04.396-08:00Things I Learned on Election NightIt's finally over.<div>
Election Night has come and gone; the ceaseless campaign machine can grind to a halt and the talking heads can give their vocal chords a rest (aside from <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-election-meltdown-twitter-obama-march-washington-054449245--election.html">a few remaining blowhards</a>). I won't try to hide my elation at the country's collective decisions- but I do want to take a brief moment and talk about what all just happened here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1) <u>President Obama, smug as ever, keeps his job.</u></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://endlesspicdump.com/thumb/obama%20deal%20with%20it.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="219" src="http://endlesspicdump.com/thumb/obama%20deal%20with%20it.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br />I was clearly an Obama supporter. I think he's done a lot of good in the face of an unprecedented amount of conservative obstructionism. A Romney Presidency would have disappointed me, make no mistake. Now- I wasn't one of the "I'm moving to Canada!" liberals that were bemoaning our possible fate, but the worries I had were as follows: If Romney had won, I was afraid that liberals would have become embittered and taken up the mantle of obstructionism, and the whole damn process would have started all over again. With Obama retaining his job, and Democrats gaining ground in both the House and the Senate, I'm <i>hoping</i> that conservative stonewalling will have lost some of its steam. The same ideologues that said their <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc">top priority was to make Obama a one-term President</a> will hopefully see how far that got them, and be more willing to come to the table and make realistic offers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2) <u>People set up a firewall vote about marriage equality and reproductive rights.</u> </div>
<div>
Four out of four states (including my home state, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/looks-like-maryland-is-making-a-historic-choice-on-marriage-equality/2012/11/07/ed73f59c-27d8-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html">Maryland</a>! Woooo!) either supported marriage equality or rejected state constitutional amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The reverses a trend of anti-equality ballots, and could send an interesting message. Also on the list of things that split heavily against Republicans were two big names who came out as being ignorant-at-best and anti-womens'-rights at worst, Todd Akin and Richard Murdock. They're the proud owners of the "legitimate rape" and "God intended rape-borne babies" statements, and voters turned out in droves to tell them where to stuff their opinions. These two factors taken together could signal a warning to surviving conservatives that running on social issues such as these is political suicide- and if that does end up being the takeaway from this election, that could have <i>enormous</i> ramifications in the culture wars.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3) <u>Puerto Rico voted to become a state.</u></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html">No, really.</a> They've apparently voted this down two or three times before, but this time it passed with a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGiEOfo2E7E&feature=g-u-u">61% majority.</a> I know nothing about the pros and cons of accepting another state into the union, but at the moment it's being drowned out by MSNBC's congratulatory orgy and FoxNews' sob-fest, so I figured it needed mentioning.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what comes now?</div>
<div>
Well, there's that whole automatic tax-increase and spending-cut thing that comes up this winter that needs dealing with; we've still got beef with Syria and we're still at or around 8% unemployment. There's no shortage of things that need work. But, what I plan to do personally is write to my state's national House and Senate members, be they Democrats or Republicans, and tell them to <i>work together. </i>I will tell them that I'm mailing their counterparts across the aisle, saying the same thing. Because now that this whole battle is over and done with, we have too much to do to keep saying "Well, <i>he</i> suggested it, so in the interest of increasing our potential wins in two or four years, I'm voting against it". The hyper-partisanship needs to cool.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-73728745293960113032012-06-05T18:23:00.002-07:002012-06-05T18:24:17.652-07:00"A 50/50 race, it doesn't get much closer than this."No, Wolf Blitzer, it doesn't get ANY closer than that. 50/50 is as close as it gets.<br />
Allow me to put aside my eye-rolling at Mr. Blitzer's filler speech and look at what he's talking about.<br />
<br />
Predictably, he's talking about the Wisconsin Recall. For those of you who don't know, here's the long and short of it: The Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, made waves by balancing the state budget at the cost of Union power. This angered many people, who organized and decided to try and recall him. <i>That</i> angered many <i>other</i> people, who organized and decided to try and save his job. Today was the recall election, and the polls just closed. Unsurprisingly, the exit polling stands at a dead heat.<br />
<br />
The born-and-bred liberal in me wants to cheer for this attempt, especially after some sources say that Republicans have outspent Democrats 10:1.<br />
(I'm too tired for citations tonight, so this whole post is hearsay and opinion.)<br />
But the aspiring moderate in me says, this dude might have been able to bring his state out of the red. In an economic recovery as fragile as ours, isn't that an amazing thing?<br />
<br />
<br />
Its a confusing back-and-forth, at best. Pros and Cons for simplicity.<br />
<br />
<u>Pro-Walker</u><br />
On the one hand, dude looks like he managed to balance his state's budget. This is a great thing for a state to do, and it comes at a time when other states (and private households alike) should spend more time balancing <i>their</i> budgets. His state is now reported to enjoy a surplus, which means everyone that works for the government will get paid on time; public works projects can be funded, and taxes don't have to increase. That leaves more money in the hands of the workers, public or<i> </i>private. Further, Unions have gotten <i>way </i>out of hand with their rules on Tenure; if a Union worker sucks balls, but has Tenure, firing them is a legal nightmare. That wastes money and produces a lower-quality product.<br />
<u><br /></u><br />
<u>Anti-Walker</u><br />
On the other hand, gutting the Unions could lead to weaker-paying jobs, since Unions help raise workers' salaries through the power of collective bargaining. Removing the Unions' ability to demand dues (Walker made such dues voluntary, rather than mandatory for Union membership like they have been historically) takes away the ability of these groups to remain operational on the scale that they have been. This reduces the odds they can rally their troops to get what they want; so, if a factory wants to lower wages to save money, there's less chance of a strike. Lower wages means less consumer spending, which kills industry in the long run. Also, without any serious challenge to big business, business-friendly (and consumer/environment-unfriendly) laws are more likely to be championed in the halls of legislature, lowering the quality of life.<br />
<br />
And these are just the most simplistic arguments I could come up with off the top of my head.<br />
Point being? Don't fall into the trap of "I'm a Liberal/Conservative, so I'm anti/pro-Walker". I promise you, with an issue this complex, dumbing it down to that sort of a party-line vote is exactly the sort of partisanship the nation doesn't need.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-12064857142998095942012-06-03T19:39:00.002-07:002012-06-03T19:40:56.851-07:00Rest is for the Dead: Atlantic City Edition<u><i>May 31, 2012</i></u><br />
<b>5:25-</b> After a hard day of un-crazy-ing the crazies, I get into my car. I am heading back East for an extended weekend of family and friends; two nights in Philadelphia and Atlantic City, two days at home with my folks. As it has been six months since my last trip, I am feeling well overdue for such a vacation. So, with a smile on my face I start driving down to Indianapolis.<br />
<br />
<b>6:10- </b>It has occurred to me that I might have fucked up my packing. Investigating my suitcase on the side of the road, I discover that I have packed two suits, but no dress shirt; a bathing suit, but no sandals; tee shirts, but no shorts or jeans. I have also forgotten my iPhone charger, and I have exactly zero condoms (Hey, it always pays to be prepared). This does not bode well.<br />
<br />
<b>6:41-</b> I fly through security like I'm some kind of young white male or something, and I decide that I'm hungry enough for a burger. I grab a seat at Champps and order. Flight leaving at 7:10? No problem!<br />
<br />
<b>6:44- </b>This might be a problem.<br />
<br />
<b>6:55-</b> I have essentially swallowed my burger whole, but my waiter (who is now aware of just how strapped for time I am) is being intentionally slow bringing me my change. After the gate calls for "all passengers on the flight to Baltimore" a second time, I realize I cannot wait any longer, and I abandon my $20 on a $9 burger. I got to eat exactly two fries. If, by some unfathomable coincidence, you are reading this and you know the waiter I'm talking about, <i>kick him in the goddamn balls</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>7:23- </b>No sooner are our wheels off the ground than the baby behind me begins screaming as if she'd just been forced to pay $20 on a $9 burger. But as eardrum-burstingly loud as she is, I can't decide if the more annoying sound is the baby herself, or her father talking to her in a baby voice. "Daaaaaaddy's patting!", he says in a coochy-coochy-coo falsetto, burping her as best he can, "Mooooommy's patting! But we <i>neeeeeed moooooore power for BLAAAAAASTOOFFFFFFF!"</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<b>7:39-</b> The baby has been knocked unconscious by her father's voice, some unknown medication, or possibly by my sheer force of will. Assuming it's the third, I begin writing out an appropriate cover letter to the Green Lantern Corps. Do you think you start such an application with "Dear Sirs" or "To Whom it May Concern?"<br />
<br />
<b>7:58-</b> I find myself in an unenviable position. The speed at which I ate my burger, combined with the pressure changes at 30,000 feet, and the soda I just pounded have caused a chain reaction in my stomach similar to Mount Vesuvius. There is a belch bubbling up in me from the depths of my very soul... and I am sitting next to one of the most attractive women I've ever actually seen on a Southwest flight. I'm talking like, this burp could actually destabilize the fuselage of the airplane, and I have to hold it for another... half hour? Forty minutes? This is not good.<br />
<br />
<b>8:13-</b> Nope, I am no longer able to hold back. This beast is making itself known to the world.<br />
<br />
<b>8:14-</b> I let out a belch of such force that people in the back of the plane think we've been hit by a surface to air missile. This, in turn, wakes the baby- but this time, Daddy doesn't have any quiet words of comfort to reconcile what I just committed upon innocent bystanders.<br />
<br />
<b>9:30-</b> I have, in fact, landed safely and made it home. Mom brings home dinner, but I take a moment to visit where they buried my cat about a month ago. She was very old, and fortunately didn't go through much pain, but I still feel guilty for not being there for her. So I take a knee and say my proper goodbyes.<br />
<br />
<b>9:40-</b> The Rents and I spend some quality time ranting about politics and why Ron Paul is an idiot.<br />
<br />
<b>12:00-</b> After determining that Ron Paul is, in fact, still an idiot, I retire. The real show begins tomorrow.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-19074427633130751792012-05-29T14:31:00.001-07:002012-05-29T14:31:32.090-07:00The Case of the Phantom Trolling Gall Bladder<i>"So... you're saying that you used to be thirty pounds... heavier."</i><br />
<br />
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 <i>anything</i> 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 <i>literally impossible</i> for you to care less, and usually, I'm good at keeping myself well-regulated.<br />
<br />
<i>"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."</i><br />
<i>"But, you..."</i><br />
<i>"Mmm?"</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
...Usually.<br />
<br />
<i>"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?"</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
At least, that's what I said in my mind. What actually came out was this:<br />
<br />
<i>"Nothing. I forgot."</i> And I looked back at the TV while she ate whatever it was she was eating. Damn my inability to be intentionally rude.<br />
<br />
---<br />
Now then! Just what the hell am I talking about, and why am I being a <a href="http://www.pasadenazorro.blogspot.com/2012/04/modesty-is-for-people-who-suck_11.html">hypocrite about bigger ladies</a>? Fear not, dear reader, there's a reason for my apparent flip-flop. First, allow me to explain what I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
A buddy of mine recently met someone on a dating website. He <i>will not</i> 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 <i>wrong</i>. 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.<br />
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 <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8SCBYFbbnJNIu0OjrAw9pLCCidaaQjodo1BOTeltFqm7UKmSX1seatwX7zP3WeAWGHARPhS8GcNd2KKvic-zTId35WiMntFF2zG7jIJlSn4grUgFRen-eM86KeE9k_34Ou7Cpotc9pNg/s1600/_DSC7797a.jpg">some bodacious curves</a> and someone who would just get <a href="http://www.bannedinhollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fat-scooter-227x300.jpg">eaten by the pack of velociraptors first</a>. 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.<br />
---<br />
<br />
<i>"Look at those two guys running!" She said, as we were stopped at the light coming back from our meal.</i><br />
<i>"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.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>"At least he's trying, though," she said, and I nodded.</i><br />
<i>"Yeah. Better to be practicing than to say 'aw fuck it'."</i><br />
<i>"Yeah. I never run, actually."</i><br />
<i>"No?" I ask, my eyes veritably rolling out of my head.</i><br />
<i>"Nope!" she said cheerfully, and grabbed her breasts to give them a good squeeze. "It's these things right here."</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Had she really just...? "You don't say," I said, even though she clearly had.</i><br />
<i>"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."</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
---<br />
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 <a href="http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17j9juklufyuujpg/medium.jpg">this guy</a>... well, if you're that guy, you're ridiculously photogenic and you probably don't need OKCupid to get a date. But I digress.<br />
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 <i>are</i>? Are we goddamned barbarians? You've got to keep it <i>classy</i>, everyone. There's always going to be a degree of awkwardness on a blind date, but you're putting your best foot forward.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-65744452845128857772012-05-20T16:25:00.001-07:002012-05-20T16:26:59.516-07:00The Avengers and Why We're Living In the FutureSo, I just got home from watching <i>The Avengers</i>. 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.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
How'd you like the movie? Awesome, right? Sweet. Let's get into why we're living in the future.<br />
<br />
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 <i>actually zooms. </i>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.<br />
<br />
So, what does this have to do with <i>The Avengers</i>?<br />
<br />
In the movies previous to this one, especially <i>Thor</i>, 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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OJqPJRjHkE">hot</a>. All miracles of super-science.<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">"Don't forget about Hawkeye, Dan!"</span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span><br />
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 <a href="http://www.iter.org/">International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor</a>. Slated for a commercial debut of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Response_to_criticism">somewhere between 2030-2050</a>, a fusion (as opposed to <i>fission</i>, 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 <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/13/thought-helmet.html">telepathy helmet</a>. Or, hey, apparently James Cameron <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577356190967904210.html">feels like blowing up asteroids</a> to mine their sweet, sweet metallic-rich cores.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
If we can just... <i>not blow up the planet</i> 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.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-1019346579169171802012-05-09T18:26:00.002-07:002012-05-09T18:27:38.370-07:00Obama Out of the Closet for Gay Marriage<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, earlier today, President Obama said he supports gay marriage. Simply put, these are my thoughts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">First of all: this was politically motivated. Coming on the heels of <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76081.html">North Carolina’s state constitutional ban of gay marriage</a>, 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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Second, he was not boxed in by Joe Biden. Uncle Joe might have his “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHKq9tt50O8">Big Effin’ Deal</a>” moments, as well as a <i><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/joe-biden-lubrication-joke_n_1369800.html">horrendously awkward introduction of another Head of State</a></i>, 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, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-08/gay-marriage-obama-biden-duncan/54818150/1?csp=34news">stick his neck out</a> 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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">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 <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-reaffirms-opposition-gay-marriage/story?id=16314461#.T6sOeusoB5Y">still coming out against gay marriage</a>, people have their figureheads to rally around. Expect woefully inaccurate attack ads from both sides in all 50 states. Expect a firestorm.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The “research” that says it’s terrible is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine">wrong</a>, <a href="http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids">wrong</a>, and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm">wrong some more</a>. The idea that kids do better in two-parent homes is correct- but it <a href="http://news.discovery.com/human/parents-gender-children.html">doesn’t matter which sex the parents are</a>. They just need good parents.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The idea that marriage is something that needs to be defended (by straight people) is ridiculous when nationally, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/united-states-divorce-rat_n_935938.html">just about half of marriages end in divorce</a>… and is doubly absurd when the states that resist gay marriage the hardest are also the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/marriage/story/2011-08-25/Marriage-divorce-rates-higher-in-the-South-lower-in-Northeast/50126268/1">states with the highest individual divorce rates</a>, <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6006a6.htm?s_cid=mm6006a6_e%0d%0a">highest rates of teenaged pregnancies</a> (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/fashion/04marriage.html?adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1336611794-AVJBnKn4ExQfimZU4j/gnw">and the higher rates of teenaged marriage... and divorce</a>). That’s some high and mighty instiution you’re defending, there! (Get off your self-righteous horse, Southern States.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The idea that it’s against the Bible or God’s Will for the nation or something- tough cookies. There’s that whole <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1">separation of church and state deal</a>. (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.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">And lastly, people sure don’t want Big Government getting involved in their lives… <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment">until they do</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-05-09/Obama-same-sex-marriage/54865732/1">as time goes on</a>, <a href="http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=881">you might not like the results</a>.</span></div>
<br />The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-87427758281117816892012-05-04T16:12:00.002-07:002012-05-04T16:13:13.591-07:00Obama’s Failed Economic--- Waaaiiit a Minute!<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>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.)</li>
<li>Chrysler: Uncle Sam shelled out 12.5 billion dollars to keep Chrysler afloat, and of that money, 11.2 billion <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm">had been repaid as of July 2011</a>. 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<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm"> best quarter in over a decade</a>. 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 <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chrysler-march-sales-jump-34-192245793.html">fucking truck</a>.</li>
<li>General Motors: GM appears to have had the slowest recovery of the Three. (Their information is also hardest to find). Their <a href="http://blogs.automotive.com/treasury-dept-says-gm-auto-bailout-losses-less-than-expected-89385.html">increase in stock prices</a> 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.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
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).The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-76770211439734916252012-04-24T20:54:00.000-07:002012-04-24T20:54:57.264-07:00Nina Easton, Mayor of Wrongville<br />
It’s scheduling week here at the hospital; the twice-yearly week long exercise of figuring out which classes go where on the master schedule of my wing. We were fortunate in that the planning itself only took a day, but now we have the rest of the week to finish paperwork, write new course descriptions, and so forth. For me, this doesn’t take too long, and so I was left enough time at lunch today to check out what was going on around the internet. And that is when I found <a href="http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/?hpt=hp_c1">this op-ed</a>.<br />
<br />
First of all, let’s ignore the fact that the author, Nina Easton, is a conservative. I’m not a big fan of the “They disagree with me, so they must be wrong” mindset that has infected my country in years past, and so I try to combat it whenever possible. For instance- if she’s worked for Fortune, the LA Times and the Boston Globe, she’s probably at least fairly on top of her game. So don’t brush her off just because she happens to be a conservative talking about the virtues of “The 1%”.<br />
<br />
Nope, we’re going to assume for the sake of this post that Ms. Easton is a purely non-biased reporter, speaking her mind without a political agenda behind her.<br />
<br />
And we’re going to assume that she’s unbiased because if we don’t, and we believe that she’s just a conservative mouthpiece, then her writing is immediately as invalid as Glenn Beck’s or Keith Olberman’s.<br />
<br />
And we’re going to assume that she’s unbiased, because even if we do, she is still <i>completely wrong</i>.<br />
<br />
Ms. Easton’s article is based on the same tired assumption that a lot of conservatives have been making, and that is that the furor surrounding the One Percent is based on jealousy. She bases her fifth paragraph on the notion that people who’re mad at the mega-rich want their money stripped from them and moved into their own community, like they want President Obama to swing in like some governmental Robin Hood to give the poor their due.<br />
<br />
But I don’t think that’s what this anger Easton complains of is about. People want larger salaries of their own, but I don’t think they want someone else’s money. This isn’t about being angry at someone <i>because </i>they’re successful, it’s about being mad at someone <i>because they became successful at the expense of their workers</i>. CEOs that continue to take enormous bonuses immediately after laying off some percentage of their labor force. Finance moguls who profit by cheating their clients and then escape any significant punishment. These seem to be what the “99%ers” are really upset about.<br />
<br />
“But there are communists at the Occupy rallies that want all the rich to hand over all their money!” Yes, and there are Secessionists at NRA rallies that still talk about preparing for the inevitable war between the government and their local “militia”. Spare me your generalizations about the Occupy Communists and I’ll spare you my vitriol for your Rambo Wannabes. There are crazies at every rally.<br />
<br />
But I digress. I’ll counterpoint my own argument: CEOs taking huge salaries and bonuses.<br />
<br />
Global finance is<i> fucking complicated</i>. I’m personally of the opinion that monetary sums in the neighborhood of the trillions-of-dollars-mark is actually imaginary, but some people are smart enough to actually finagle this possibly-imaginary system to produce real-world results. People that can do that do deserve big salaries, because if they don’t get paid, yeah, they’re gonna go find someone who’ll shell out the cheddar to please them.<br />
<br />
But. Just because John Q. Employee doesn’t understand how the price of grain in India affects the rubber trade in South America, that doesn’t mean that he deserves to get the axe so his boss-of-bosses can get another couple thousand on their bonus check. When this happens to one person, or in one company, its unfortunate… but the now-jobless employees could just go get jobs elsewhere. When this happens on a national scale and becomes the status quo, however, people become embittered on a national scale, and<i> that bitterness becomes the status quo</i>. Don’t act so goddamn surprised that people are up in arms over the super-rich when it seems like every CEO is doing this.<br />
<br />
Earlier on than this, she states in her third paragraph that “The 1% club stands accused, accurately, of more than doubling its share of the nation's income since 1980. By 2007 it controlled nearly 24% of total income, the second highest in history, after 1929. (In 2009 its share dropped to 17%, <i><u>suggesting that recessions aren't necessarily kind to the rich</u></i>.)”<br />
<br />
This is not an argument I would make if I were trying to draw support to my point of view. The richest 1%’s collective bargaining power dropped from <b>ONE QUARTER OF ALL AMERICAN WEALTH</b> to just a paltry SEVENTEEN PERCENT? <b>Boo </b>fucking <b>hoo</b>. If I were her editor I would have deleted this paragraph from her entry so hard the computer would have exploded. I would have then taken the ashes and <i>thrown them into the goddamn sea,</i> just so nobody would ever read what Nina Easton almost perpetrated on my point of view.<br />
<br />
Easton states in her fourth paragraph that “Railing about the 1% club has become shorthand for expressing outrage not only over growing income disparity but also about the state of the nation's working class.” I would agree with that as a one-off statement, but since it isn’t a one-off statement, it can only be viewed as the most accurate thing Nina Easton has accidentally said all day.<br />
<br />
She notes in her sixth paragraph that <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/markets/wall_street_bonuses/index.htm">Wall Street bonuses have dropped</a> “18,000, or 13%, to $121,150. It is the second lowest average in the last eight years, topping only the $100,850 of 2008. This estimate tracks cash payments and doesn't include stock options or other forms of deferred compensation that haven't been realized.” Again, this is not something I would say out loud if I were trying to assuage the malice directed at the One Percent. A bonus of $100,000 is still nearly four times what I make as a salary, after taxes, and I sure as shit don’t get stock options.<br />
Again, my job is different than a Wall Street suit’s, but as long as we’re comparing, I’d like to see him swing by my unit and handle some of our boys. Just sayin’.<br />
<br />
She does make some good points; she states that there <u>are</u> some legitimate reasons why the One Percent are making so much freaking money these days, such as technological advances that allow companies to globalize in ways that simply were not possible even twenty years ago. (<i>Her </i>comparison is to a performer in the 1600s. I'm not sure why.)<br />
She also cites the fact that womens’ salaries are rising, and she states that if you take a random well-paid One Percenter male, odds are he has an equally educated female counterpart in house as well. With her salary on the up and up, she claims that it’s only natural for the rich to become richer without any devious dealings going on- and on the face value of that factor, at least, she could be right.<br />
<br />
But unfortunately, while she’s right in isolated pockets, she’s wrong on the foundation of her article. Like so many others, she falls into the trap of thinking that this “populist rage” is based on jealousy, and not out of our observation of how warped the system is in favor of the rich. She touts the belief that the rich are faulted for their success, and fails to even acknowledge -no, <i>outright denies</i>- that the rich have become as successful as they are in large part by exploiting their workers and clients. That’s where this “populist rage” is coming from (which, I’ll add, wasn’t generating a <i>peep </i>of protest from conservatives when the Tea Party was the new thing, but that’s another rant). I’m not trying to defend Occupy as a movement, as it is <a href="http://www.pasadenazorro.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-adulthood.html">largely a worthless endeavor these days</a>, but the underlying sentiment?<br />
<i>That isn't going <u>anywhere</u></i>.<br />The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-86187503808442483222012-04-11T17:36:00.001-07:002012-05-29T20:22:50.132-07:00Modesty Is For People Who Suck (Some Links NSFW)<div>
"Modesty Is For People Who Suck" is a line that I came up with a couple years ago. I find it funny that I’m the one spreading it around work, and it’s a bit of a joke to me- but in other ways, it isn’t. I decided to write about its underlying components of confidence versus conceit today, through an examination of the portrayal of womens’ sexuality by the media.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don’t think I’d be causing anyone to double-take if I informed you that a lot of fashion outlets tend to base their ideal of beauty around a slender figure. Runway models have been stereotyped as under-eaters, bulimics or <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/most-models-meet-criteria-for-anorexia-size-6-is-plus-size-magazine/">anorexics</a> for years- often with a fair amount of truth behind it. If you look at any female-targeted weight loss plan, many of the “after” pictures have women that have gone down to a size 2, if not a size 0.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fact that there even IS a “<a href="http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/pa34713_175x175.jpg">size </a><a href="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00442/news-graphics-2007-_442744a.jpg">zero</a>” is ridiculous in my mind. Zero implies a lack of value; a complete absence of whatever it is you’re measuring. Even the most emaciated waistline still has some size to it, and therefore, it cannot be zero. Claiming the size of a dress as such is baffling to me- claiming that you’d aspire to be that size, or the implication that you should be that size, is even stranger. Your waistline should be <a href="http://stuffsforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/blog_alexandra_shulman_size_zero.jpg">non-existent</a>? Give me a break.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, I’m getting off topic. My point is this: Confidence has a lot to do with how someone looks. That’s not going to change any time soon. But, it also has a lot to do with how you perceive yourself to look. Change your perception, and even if you don’t shed a single pound, you can believe that you look better. This, in turn, can make you carry yourself better (after all, if you think you’re hot shit, why wouldn’t you? You’re hot shit, after all)- and when you carry yourself like you’re worth a million dollars, other people are more likely to treat you better. At the very least they’re typically less likely to mess with you, because someone who is self-confident is less likely to put up with heinous bullshit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Enter the small but growing plus-sized movement. This is a movement you might have seen here and there; <a href="http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/2009/10/supermodels-who-arent-superthin#slide=1">Glamour</a> had a cover a while back with a bunch of “plus” sized models without Photoshopping, or you might have stumbled onto the <a href="http://curveappeal.tumblr.com/">Curve Appeal Tumblr</a>, or any other venue that extols the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS469US469&q=Erica+Elfwrencrona&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=FSaGT4roF8STtwf2odzTBw&biw=1680&bih=925&sei=IiaGT-rKLoXKgQfM9Oy_Bw#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS469US469&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=IiaGT8niNoqegwfO1LmuBw&ved=0CEEQvwUoAQ&q=Erika+Elfwencrona&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c4e89b23115b60b4&biw=1680&bih=925">bigger girls</a>. These are good things, in my opinion, because they instill confidence in a group of people whose confidence is more likely to be somewhat eroded from the constant assault on their forms that the media hits them with.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It instills confidence- but not conceit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There’s a big difference. Confidence is knowing who you are. Confidence is knowing your path and walking it, demanding equality when it is due, and doing your thing with swagger even when the haters go and hate. Conceit, on the other hand, makes you believe that you are better than everyone else, and it makes you believe that you deserve special treatment.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The “plus size is awesome” movement doesn’t go around telling girls that they’re better than skinny girls- which is what a lot of fashion outlets have been telling their readers, albeit in reverse; that skinny is better than big. The plus-size movement has been telling girls that they are at their best when they look like they ought to, not when they try to mash their bodies into a shape eight sizes too small. Is there a difference between being a <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8SCBYFbbnJNIu0OjrAw9pLCCidaaQjodo1BOTeltFqm7UKmSX1seatwX7zP3WeAWGHARPhS8GcNd2KKvic-zTId35WiMntFF2zG7jIJlSn4grUgFRen-eM86KeE9k_34Ou7Cpotc9pNg/s1600/_DSC7797a.jpg">big, curvy girl</a> and being legitimately <a href="http://www.bannedinhollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fat-scooter-227x300.jpg">unhealthy in your size</a>? Of course, and people need to be real with themselves; if you’re lazy and eat like shit, or if you have a glandular problem (or whatever else), you need to take extra care of yourself. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We’re talking about confidence, which could be summed up by the line, “A little swagger is a good thing”. A buddy of mine used to say that. “Modesty is for people who suck” represents conceit, though I say it jokingly (usually). So keep your swagger, people, be you male or female, size 0 (ugh) or size 10.</div>The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-76635885935228126642012-04-07T20:37:00.003-07:002012-04-07T20:43:36.844-07:00Why Queen Elizabeth Hates Holidays<p class="MsoNormal"><u>11:20am</u>- I wake up after a fun night on the town with a buddy of mine. After asking my plants how they slept, I move them back onto my balcony and wish them a good day.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>11:28am</u>- The bamboo and the oregano are arguing again, so I move them to opposite sides of the balcony. Personally I think the oregano started it but I don't want to take sides.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>12:45pm</u>- I lose a couple rounds of video games to mouth breathing 13 year olds. I disagree with their assessments of my sexuality and of my mother. I review the merits of introducing my mouse to the inner workings of my monitor. I decide against this- barely.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>1:40pm</u>- I begin writing this account. By now it is occurring to me just how little there will be for me to do today, as tomorrow is Easter and therefore nobody will be around to hit the town tonight. This disappoints me, and so I begin filling the day with things such as balancing my finances, laundry, and eating breakfast.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>1:42pm</u>- I have finished balancing my finances, my laundry, and my breakfast. This does not bode well.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>2:02pm</u>- My situation has deteriorated to the point where I am considering playing Warcraft.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>2:03pm</u>- I play Warcraft.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>2:04pm</u>- I remember why I stopped playing Warcraft for 3 months.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>2:59pm</u>- After being tricked into joining a Tough Mudder team, I get an email stating that team practice is today. An opportunity to embarrass myself in front of my team? Count me in!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>4:02pm</u>- I finish saving my terrible friends from their own blind fumblings through WoW, and grab a bit of lunch. I start imagining all the things that a Mudder team practice will include. Given the fact that my team is both comprised mostly of beautiful women, and our team is (apparently) going to compete in the Least Clothed costume contest, I'm confident that today's dry run will include an acceptable lack of modesty.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>4:11pm</u>- I receive a text from our team leader that practice is actually canceled due to everyone bailing- because of Easter. My dislike for family holidays grows.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>4:21pm</u>- After my team leader tells me what I already know (that nobody is around to hang out with, but <i>Happy Easter!</i>), I decide to go for a run. I tell the potted hanging fern to make sure that the plants on the deck don't get into it again, and I hit the bricks.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>5:39pm</u>- I return to find the basil pot knocked over. Its undamaged, but I have my suspicions. I move it inside and start trolling the internet.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>5:47pm</u>- Success! One of my lines comes back with a fish. A friend of mine is heading out tonight. I might not have to forsake human interaction this weekend after all!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>7:23pm</u>- A second friend of mine claims interest in causing trouble. Given their two natures, I begin considering how worth it a charge of Criminal Mischief would be on my record. I decide that this would be very worth it, and I celebrate with a quick round of Civ 5.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>8:00pm</u>- I, Queen Elizabeth, have given the Danish Empire the business. They, meanwhile, are decidedly <i>out</i> of business .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>9:00pm</u>- I get dinner and a shower. Can't be running around town like a raggamuffin, after all.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>10:50pm</u>- I have now watched Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I have reassessed my earlier position; the two robots who can't read <i>might</i> be racist after all. What I have not done, oddly enough, is met up with either of my two friends. This strikes me as odd because after both specifically told me they were going out, they decided on a "radio silence" approach to the conversation. I begin to suspect that they have either been killed by Decepticons, or that they <i>are</i> Decepticons. Both of these possibilities seem plausible, and I begin barricading my apartment for the inevitable siege.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>11:35pm</u>- I have now triumphed over my foes as Akali, the Fist of Shadow, and all of League of Legends trembles before my name. Still no word from the Decepticons; they probably saw my game as observers and were like "FUCK we ain't messing with THAT guy, did you see how he gave those pixels the business? It's like he's Queen Elizabeth or something!"</p><p class="MsoNormal"><u>11:38pm</u>- I have given up and changed back into my gym shorts for the rest of the evening, deciding to at least finish that bottle of white wine that isn't going to get drank any other day of the week. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><u>11:39pm</u>- In the spirit of Easter, I first fill my glass with water. "And now for my NEXT trick!" I announce to my apartment (which is empty, other than the Transformers movie (which is on again for some reason) and my plants), "Ka-CHOW!". I then empty the water and re-fill it with the wine, declaring that I am the Savior reborn. My plants, which have seen this trick before, are not impressed. Oh well.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Happy Easter.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-46476333506965448542012-04-04T17:51:00.002-07:002012-04-04T17:57:22.392-07:00News Flash: Old White Man Yearns for Victorian Sexuality; Film at 11:00.<div style="font-style: normal; ">I recently read <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/opinion/bennett-modern-women/index.html?hpt=hp_c2">this </a>article on CNN, and I felt that I should respond. For anyone who doesn’t make the jump, the author, William Bennett, states that a “hookup culture” hasn’t resulted in happiness and that the place to find real fulfillment is in marriage. He goes on to say that “deviant” sexual acts such as bondage debase both men and women, and that such things are not what the feminist movement of past decades was fighting for. He makes the point that novels such as “50 Shades of Grey”<span style="font-size: 100%; ">and similar TV programs support the subjugation of women, and he finds it odd that during a time when such an uproar is going on about the “war on women”, that so many women would be buying the book so fast the stores can hardly keep in on the shelves.</span></div><div style="font-style: normal; "> </div><div style="font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div>Bennett’s first and most obvious mistake is that the women that take part in this sort of relationship <i>don’t like it</i>.</div><div style="font-style: normal; ">Now, allow me to get the necessary PC disclaimer out of the way: We’re not talking about domestic or sexual abuse. We’re talking about relationships between two law-abiding, consenting adults.</div><div style="font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-style: normal; ">That being said, he’s making the assumption that the women involved in relationships with such sexual activities as a “room… full of chains, clamps, whips, canes, flogs and cuffs” are there against their will. He relates once again the story of the female protagonist of 50 Shades, bemoaning how she turns from an innocent girl to a “sexual submissive” for some corporate suit-type guy. He completely ignores the possibility that the girl enjoys feeling dominated specifically within the context of that exact sexual encounter. I’ve never read the book, but considering he’s generalizing from the book to American culture at large, I don’t need to know the whole plot in order to say this: It’s possible, that with the girl acting as a representative for all women in America, that she leaves the “Red Room of Pain” and goes on to kick ass the next day at work. Maybe she’s a high-powered exec too. Maybe she’s a cop or an EMT, or some take-no-prisoners politician who goes to the mats for her constituents. She could be an amazing teacher pursuing a career in the administration of schools, a small-business owner who just recently expanded, or a Marine.</div><div><span style="font-style: normal; ">My point is, Bennett assumes that her desire to be submissive and dominated</span><i> in the bedroom with this particular guy</i> (this might not (and probably isn’t) with all guys, either) means that she’s got some desire to be submissive and dominated <i>outside</i> the bedroom. And that just might not be the case.</div><div style="font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-style: normal; "> </div><div style="font-style: normal; "> Second of all, and this is almost as bad as the first point: He seems to be making the assumption that the only people who like to be dominated are women.</div><div style="font-style: normal; ">I invite anyone who believes that previous statement to take a casual jaunt around the video-hosting website of your choice and do a search on BDSM. How many of the people being worked over are male? A fair number of them? That could be because some people like being hit with a whip. Some of them are female, and some of them are male. Some people like hot wax, being tied up, or being stepped on with heels. Everybody has a kink- men included.</div><div style="font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-style: normal; "> </div><div style="font-style: normal; ">So, those are the first two assumptions that he makes, but they are not the worst. In my opinion, the worst assumption that he makes is the third one- that “hookup culture” is not only bad for women, but bad for society as a whole.</div><div style="font-style: normal; "><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577299391480959420.html">The very article he quotes</a> when grimly warning us that “women are no happier than they were in the 1970s” says, and I quote,</div><div style="font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-style: normal; "><blockquote>…How bad are the heartaches, anyway? According to New York University researcher Paula England, the war stories about the hookup culture are greatly exaggerated. The average college student has about one hookup a year, and most people end up in a long-term relationship at some point in college. Beyond college, women are much less vulnerable to assault than they have ever been, according to a 2011 White House report, largely because they have more power to leave bad relationships.</blockquote></div><div style="font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div><span style="font-style: normal; ">This is, to put it simply, not an issue of what is damaging to American society; it is an issue of what is damaging to Bennett’s </span><i>perception </i>of American society. He’s not the only one with such views, I’m sure, but for him to come out and say that he believes we should take more of a lesson from Victorian England (and when I think of healthy sexual expression, <i>that’s </i>the time period I think about) is so absurd it’s laughable.</div><div style="font-style: normal; "> </div><div style="font-style: normal; ">He does, of course, stick in his obligatory jab at the LGBTQ community by stating that the deepest sexual satisfaction comes from traditional marriage, and slips a literary eye-roll in there by mockingly calling the term “derisive”.</div><div style="font-style: normal; "> </div><div style="font-style: normal; ">In closing, the one thought I was left with after reading this article is, “MAN that dude needs to get laid.”</div>The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-77989104719958135152012-03-22T19:18:00.004-07:002012-03-22T19:48:47.835-07:00Fistfights and Spades<span style="font-style: normal; ">"You'll wake up, thinkin' you have an XBox, but you won't have</span><i> shee-yit.</i>"<div>So begins another hand of Spades at my job, as a patient informs me not to trust the patient sitting across from him. He continues to enlighten me that the second patient is a no-good snake in the grass, and the second patient responds by telling him in no uncertain terms that it is <i>his</i> belief that the first patient's genitals are of questionable size and effectiveness. Once again, I find myself telling both of these gentlemen to kindly shut their faces and play the game. Once again, I have averted the apocalypse- though I'm already preparing myself to do it again, as I'm fairly certain the first patient is cheating.</div><div>I'm even more certain that the second patient is on to his tricks. Three minutes later, my suspicions are verified, and I calm them down again.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a fairly calm night at my hospital. There've been a lot of easy nights recently; we haven't had to break up any big fights and nobody's tried to sever their fingers in a door jam. The staff and I are thankful for this lull, even though we're always half-cocked for the other shoe to drop. That comes with the territory of working at a state psychiatric hospital- you have to establish a good rapport with your clients while always being ready to dodge a punch or an errant flying chair.</div><div>People have asked me how someone can work in an environment such as this. I get the feeling that they view psychiatric hospitals as so</div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHuA7usDBCtz8679ZgBkWc5FKsjYJOaVAmRrvyJc0YPzigfgxwqUs3laTgZxBVlZPNTCdfO-YD_2y8Azt4zMYunJ7ieGFyrL37A_DFZUbO5LiGqGd-Enuc42cXYxBSKfKo-TyuO9ZcM535/s320/arkham_asylum.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722914507078478610" style="text-align: center;float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 224px; " /><div>mething akin to, well... this:</div><div><br /></div><div>I understand their trepidation. It is not an exaggeration that the guys I work with are quite literally too violent for other hospitals and/or too crazy for prison (though more often than not, they're just a bunch of lambs... at least, for us). But equally concerning to my companions is how I manage to deal with all their emotional baggage. And there is <i>a lot of baggage </i>to deal with; without a doubt, the men in my hospital have some of the worst life stories I've ever heard. So how do I keep from playing bellhop, and taking all their baggage home with me?</div><div><br /></div><div>The answer is my litmus test for whether someone should pursue a career in mental health. There isn't anything I do to keep their issues out of my personal life; I just naturally and automatically compartmentalize work and home. I can intellectually think about their cases while I'm hanging out around the house (not that I would, but I could) without it ever effecting me. And that's not because I have any awesome command of self-discipline... I just don't give a shit about patient drama, once I leave the hospital parking lot.</div><div><br /></div><div>Its rare for someone to start out with that capacity, especially in my field; I remember quite clearly feeling compelled to hit the bars in grad school specifically to dull the pain of what I'd heard that day in my internship. I was frequently joined by my classmates. But, you could tell the people who were "supposed" to be in the field from those who were not by who kept hitting the bar to forget after the first month or so. Those who were cut out for the field adapted, and their skin hardened on its own. Those who didn't adapt usually dropped out of school.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, I post this not as a beating of my own drum, but as a roundabout answer to the question of "How do you deal with all that pain?".</div><div><br /></div><div>You deal with it the way an umbrella deals with the rain. You get rained on a lot but you let it roll off of you.</div><div>And you learn to play a <i>lot</i> of Spades.</div>The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-21005694955519526792012-03-11T19:24:00.004-07:002012-03-11T19:58:25.676-07:00Running Tests on Seashells<span><span style="font-size: 100%;">I finished Mass Effect 3, yesterday. If you haven't played this, don't read on. Here lie spoilers.</span></span><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><span style="font-style: normal; ">I've played both Mass Effect titles previous to this one, and I did so knowing that my choices would effect my game play later down the line. Even way back when the original came out, I saved the Rachni Queen so that she could come thundering back and kick some Reaper ass for me. I reprogramed the Geth dissidents because they seemed like a misunderstood bunch, because the Quarians seems kinda shifty in their explanations regarding the Geth, and because Legion is just a monstrous badass. I turned down Miranda, Tali, Liara and Jack so that Sheppard would get back together with Ashley; I was in this game for the</span><i> long haul</i>, and I played this way expecting to be rewarded. I expected that, as a result of my long-term planning, I'd be able to kick the Reapers up and down this galaxy and right back to whatever shithole they were sleeping in.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-style: normal; ">And then...</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-style: normal; ">Mass Effect 3 happened, and I see that all my work was essentially for nothing.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-style: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">But y'know, it isn't even so much that the three endings of ME3 were garbage in and of themselves by virtue of how wholly unsatisfying they all were- its that they didn't even do the player the benefit of <i>making basic sense</i>.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">Allow me to explain.</div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">This entire time, the point of the Mass Effect series has been a sci-fi, contemporary American spin on a more traditional Lovecraftian theme; that there are forces beyond our control, that we are utterly powerless against, and that fighting them will do us no good. Enter Sheppard, this personification of willpower, chance, and a </span></span><i style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">sheer refusal to die</i><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">. He alone threatens to upend a galactic cycle that has gone on </span>uninterrupted<span style="font-size: 100%;"> for millions of years; somehow, out of all the myriad races and individuals that came before him, he (or she) alone has that special something that makes the impossible, possible. He is the antithesis of everything the Reapers stand for; where they are inexorable order, he is improbable chaos. Where they are crushing despair, he is impossible hope. Where they seed distrust and suspicion, he brings cooperation and unity. <i>That's</i> the Sheppard we've been playing, be (s)he Paragon or Renegade. <i>That's</i> what the message of the Mass Effect story has been- as we see our own world becoming seemingly darker and darker, just as the ME universe sees theirs, there are people who absolutely refuse to give in to odds that should have ground them to dust years ago. And, that it is these people that we should aspire to emulate.</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">It's a powerful narrative, to be sure. And while it is in the form of a video game, remember that non-traditional forms of media such as games and graphic novels have really stepped up their storytelling in recent years. Sure, pretty pictures and being able to pilot tanks helps sell copies of the comic or game, but a lot more energy is devoted into the storyline of games, these days. And Mass Effect's story was one of the best in the business.</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">So. Here we have that level of immersion, that quality of setting and storytelling. Here, we finally had Sheppard poised to make the galaxy safe once again for Mom, Baseball, and Apple Pie. We'd sunk another 30-40 hours searching every star system, collecting every last ounce of war material. We had every fleet and all our old surviving friends signed on. We shot the shit out of the Reapers orbiting Earth, we made it through the ruins of London and into the Citadel, and...!</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">...The game's plot suddenly 180's and makes becomes all about whether or not organic and synthetic life can life together?</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Uh...</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">...</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">What?</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Never mind that the three endings were garbage, each one just a different-hued version of the others. Never mind that there isn't any explanation about what the hell happens immediately afterwards to the galaxy at large- such as, how do the various races deal with the fact that they're trapped in Earth orbit with <i>no Mass Relays to get them home</i>? Or just where in God's name <i>did </i>Joker crash-land the Normandy?</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Never mind any of that- those issues are their own cans of bullshit.</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">The biggest failing of the Mass Effect franchise was that its ending missed the point of the game. It took the theme of despair versus hope and changed it into inter-species relations. It changed philosophy into politics. </span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">And they didn't even show us a worth-a-damn picture of Tali's face.</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">The <i>fuck.</i></span></span></div>The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-79417065260854522862011-11-05T14:17:00.000-07:002011-11-05T14:34:57.255-07:00Occupy AdulthoodI made an attempt recently to try and stir up conversation on the <a href="http://occupywallst.org/forum/">Occupy Wall Street Forums</a>. I'd been encouraged by the explosive growth of the Occupy movement, and believed that it could be the starting point for a new liberal groundswell. Coming from a highly leftist house such as mine, I relished the idea of something that could push spineless Democrats out of Congress and replace them with true liberals- people who could, and would, compromise in good faith, but who'd also stand their ground and kick some ass when need be.<br />I approached the forum cautiously, and after a few days of observing where the plethora of threads usually went, I decided to cast my line into the water. My call was for campaign finance reform; in my opinion, change could start in the streets but it would eventually have to move into the halls of power, and we'd need to have complete accountability (see also: transparency) of our lawmakers to ensure they were working for us and not secretly playing us for some unknown multinational conglomerate. I assumed that such a cause would be lauded, and that eventually the movement as a whole would start turning in that direction (not because of <span style="font-weight: bold;">my</span> posting, mind you, just as a natural change of direction).<br /><br />What I encountered, however, was hostility.<br /><br />First I was told that Occupy was proud to have no representatives or speakers. Then I was told that there never <span style="font-style: italic;">would</span> be any leaders of the movement, because everything was consensus-driven; all decisions made by Occupy would only take place if 100% of the people present at any General Assembly (Occupy's daily decision-making meeting, open to the public) agreed to undertake that course of action. And lastly, I was informed that because the power of the 1% is illegitimate, that any demands made to that 1% (be they lawmakers, corporation CEOs, mayors, etc) would legitimize their power... and therefore, Occupy would simply deny that they exist as power-holders at all. The movement would remain one that would shed light in darkness, and nothing more.<br />This refusal to take on legislative action seemed to hold true regardless of how the issue was phrased. "Demands" would not be made, "solutions" would not be offered, "ideas" would not be put forward. Occupy would continue to protest in cacophony, but seemed resolute in its collective decision not to move beyond that.<br /><br />This is about when I decided that the movement was far too happy to remain in its childhood and adolescence, and I left, lest I get caught up in trolling wars.<br />The movement <span style="font-style: italic;">has</span> to issue demands. It <span style="font-style: italic;">has</span> to pick leaders. They keep claiming that they are some kind of "third option" to the typical houses of influence, and that those who disagree simply cannot fathom what Occupy is accomplishing... and to that I agree. I can't fathom it. People are sitting around, banging drums, blocking up traffic and now, mixing it up with police. A few politicians are attempting to co-op the movement, but that comes with the risk that Occupy will only ever be represented by outsiders. If the movement doesn't sanction spokespeople itself, other people will start speaking for them, and part of their message will be lost in translation.<br /><br />It truly appears to me as if the protesters are just content to sit around and cause a ruckus, but never move beyond that. Why? I can't say for sure, but it smacks of the fact that politics are <span style="font-style: italic;">boring.</span> What's cooler to say- "I protested in the streets today", or "I engaged in six hours of debate about the legalities of Super PACs in the statehouse"? Politics is slow. The process requires compromise. It is not glamorous. And yet, it is entirely necessary. Because for all of Occupy's claims that they are a third option to the usual parties and processes, such claims cannot be true. There are only two ways to bring about national change- lawfully or unlawfully. There are only two ways to stage a protest- peacefully or violently. There is no middle ground in this. My worry is, the longer Occupy throws its adolescent temper tantrum <span style="font-style: italic;">without also undertaking legislative reforms</span>, the more chance there is for more <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-03/police-fire-tear-gas-as-occupy-oakland-protesters-close-port.html">Occupy Oakland incidents</a> to take place. The longer Occupy acts like childish thugs, and refuses to take the careful, measured action of an adult, the more chance there is for it to stop being (mostly) peaceful, and start getting really ugly.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-22787808627516462712011-10-18T19:52:00.001-07:002011-10-18T20:32:44.494-07:00CNN's Western States DebateCNN hosted a Republican Presidential nominee debate tonight. I'm trying to watch as many of these as I can, which is enough of a challenge (there's something like 10 of the damn things left- I didn't watch that many when they featured candidates I liked!), but taking detailed and unbiased notes is harder still. Regardless, I'll do what I can. For simplicity's sake, I'll try to break this down by candidate, but not all candidates spoke on every issue, and I missed some of it towards the end.<br /><br />Undaunted, we continue! Remember that this is a summary, half for my own benefit, so I can write up an over-arching response later on.<br /><br /><u>Rick Santorum</u><br /><ul><li>On Cain's 9-9-9 plan, raised the issue that this plan will cost as much for a single man as it will for a family; he said this is bad because he wants to encourage people to have families, but Cain's idea would be like taxing people for having children.</li></ul><br /><br /><u>Newt Gingrich</u><br /><ul><li>On Taxes: Said that people need to slow down with all this talk about repealing this tax or that tax immediately; tax reform needs to be cautious and measured to ensure its done right.</li><li>On the Environment: Claimed that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, might be the best place to consolidate nuclear waste, but that he wasn't personally a scientist, so he couldn't say for sure. He went on to say that we should listen to the scientific community very carefully when they recommend where to put this waste... stopped short of saying that Nevada should be required to handle it, but said that having America's nuclear waste spread out in little piles around the country is immensely dangerous and that it should be consolidated <span style="font-style: italic;">some</span>where.</li><li>On Spending Cuts: Said that Defense shouldn't be arbitrarily cut by a committee that has no idea what's worthwhile and what's not.</li></ul><br /><br /><br /><u>Michelle Bachmann<br /></u><ul><li>On Taxes: Claimed Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would actually cost far more than he let on, because of what she called an "Added Value Tax"; essentially, the 9% tax would hit a product every time it moved along a chain of production (example: 9% on raw iron ore, 9% again on its refined product, another 9% federal tax when someone bought the purified iron and worked it... etc).</li><li>On Obama: Claimed that Barack Obama's aunt and uncle are illegal aliens in this country.</li><li>On Foreign Aid: Said that Israel should be exempt from any cost-cutting spree that we hit foreign aid with, because they're our closest allies in the region.</li><li>On Immigration: Wants to build a "double-wide" fence across the border.</li></ul><br /><u>Herman Cain<br /></u><ul><li>On Taxes: Defended his <a href="http://www.hermancain.com/999plan">9-9-9 Plan</a>. Again. And again.</li><li>On Health Care: Mentioned <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/text">HR3400</a>.</li><li>On Occupy Wall Street: Believes the protesters want a handout; doesn't understand why they're not protesting at the White House.</li></ul><br /><u>Ron Paul</u><br /><ul><li>On OWS: Challenged Cain's assumption that the protesters want a handout; claimed their anger stems from a lack of prosecution of the people who gamed the system.</li><li>On Foreign Aid: Supported cutting all foreign aid.</li><li>On Spending: Supported cutting from everywhere, Defense included. Claimed that keeping the military so well-funded supports Imperialism, which actually makes us less safe due to the ill will it creates.</li><li>On Taxes: ...Seriously? When has Ron Paul ever liked taxes?</li></ul><br /><u>Rick Perry</u><br /><ul><li>On Immigration: Claimed that you <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> build a fence, if you wanted to, but that it'd take forever to do and cost billions. Supported instead a fence in some areas, Predator drones in the sky for reconnaissance, and military boots on the ground as the primary defense against incursions.</li><li>On Health Care: Responded to Romney's claim that "there are more uninsured children in Texas" by saying it's because illegal aliens surge into the state, and that the Federal government hasn't done its job in keeping them out. Also slammed Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts, calling it the basis for "Obamacare" and that it only worked because of massive Federal backing during the Bush administration.<br /></li><li>On the Environment: Said the Yucca Mountain issue was a 10th Amendment (State's rights) issue.</li></ul><br /><u>Mitt Romney</u><br /><ul><li>On Health Care: Defended his Mass. plan as a state taking care of that state's own issues, and said it should never have been forced on the rest of the country. Bashed Perry for having more uninsured kids in Texas than... any other state? I can't remember. Point is, "too many uninsured kids to be proud of your state's health care record".</li><li>On Immigration: Supported a combination of fences, Predator drones, military personnel, an "e-Varify" system to ensure that employers know their workers aren't illegal, and "turning off the magnets" that draw illegal aliens to the country (removing tuition for illegal immigrants, punishing companies that employ them, etc). Blasted Perry for the percentile increase in illegal aliens in the recent past as compared to California and Florida; said those states' levels had plateaued, while Texas' had increased by 60(?) percent.</li><li>On Religion: Claimed that the religiously-based moral character of a candidate is paramount, but that any religion could provide such character; bashed Perry and pastors that have spoken at his events for claiming outright or implying that Christianity would be the only acceptable religion for a President.</li></ul>Again, this post is more for me to get my ideas in one place, and to summarize things for anyone who might read this. I'll dissect what went down in a later post.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-23089736034788103172011-10-11T18:38:00.000-07:002011-10-11T19:01:08.598-07:00Can I Get an OCC-U-PYI went to an Occupy D.C. protest this past Friday. It was an interesting experience- I hadn't done any protesting since President Bush's inauguration, and I was only a teenager then. We posed for some pictures (that arial shot of people making a giant "99%" with their bodies? I'm in that. Left-hand side of the second 9. ^^), marched to the US Chamber of Commerce, marched a little more and then headed back to the square we were occupying. I left around the time someone got on stage and started singing about all the great communists he'd known... wasn't really my scene anymore, at that point, but I think it was good that I went.<br /><br />Anyhow, a lot of talk has been going on about just what the Occupy movement is. So, to find out, I've started poking around their <a href="http://occupywallst.org/forum/">message board</a> to see just what's up. It move pretty fast, so I'd be surprised if any of my original topics generate much in the way of a response yet, but just reading the boards provides a glimpse into the evolution of this group. Amid a lot of the "This movement is terrible!" and "Capitalism is evil!" posts, one of the topics I've seen a couple times is this:<br />"Occupy needs to work with the Tea Party".<br /><br />I hope I start hearing that more and more often.The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3677280520948994989.post-53190874615108208102011-10-03T18:08:00.001-07:002011-10-03T18:08:59.454-07:00More ForthcomingFound this; will be looking into it when I stop frothing.<br /><br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/bloomberg-investigation-alleges-koch-subsidiaries-paid-bribes-sold-190408559.html">Koch Industries Sold to Iran</a>The Mismatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537601032824282741noreply@blogger.com0