Watch this dumbass try to rob this guy and come up short. I wish that shit had happened when I got robbed.

(Watch Closely)

Just finished filing my taxes for the year. I must admit the new forms sure do make it easier.

This is probably a computer edited photo or some high school kids playing a prank but either way I'm posting it.

NEW LIVING WILL 
 
I, __________________________, being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means.

Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of pinhead politicians who couldn't pass ninth grade biology if their lives depended on it, or some doctors interested in simply running up the medical bills.

If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to ask for at least one of the following:

Okay, so I had another - the wierdest dream ever last night. It started with Robin Williams and I walking down a cobblestone street somewhere in Europe. I was an older gentleman and I was a bit crazy. My hair was doing that white, fly-away-wizard type thing. Thing is, I was riding some sort of ball through the air. It was my thing. I had been practicing forever. Then, in front of a restaurant I finally got it. Needless to say Robin was delighted for me.

Well, then we went inside the restaurant and, somehow, I became his young daughter. He doted on me and we had this understanding because I was still me but I was a little girl. Therefore I was devilishly clever for a young girl, and I used it to my full advantage. Then, as we walked through this fancy restaurant, I was suddenly me again, but still Robin's daughter. Anyway, he was sardonically commenting on the food. He was talking about the lack of variety. "Oh, and you can go and get yourself a sausage with a side of... sausage!" I looked around and indeed, there were pans full of wursts on about every available surface. During this time looking around, I was imposed upon by some skinny, young, blond-headed boy. Those of you who know me know that this is the "type" I despise. They just make my skin crawl. Anyway, he was all over me - "in love" and so I fended him off.

We were then out in front of the only gas station in my hometown. Then the army pulled up. They came in these long trucks and were hauling some kind of scaffolding/silo type things. The first group that got into the station had one guy of their group unload by himself. He did so with very little trouble, even though these things were about 30 feet tall. The other groups pulling up had to have more people help when they unloaded theirs. Then, one fell and one guy caught it and put it gently down. "Wow, he's almost as strong as Bateman." Bateman, I wondered, and assumed that either there was a different Bateman or that they knew my brother. I walked among them and announced "Yup, Batemans are generally pretty tough." No one heard me.

Then I was at home. I woke up at about four o' clock and I thought I was awake for real. I was wondering whether I should just get up when someone walked up the stairs. Suddenly I realized that I lived with four other men and a women. I sat and talked with the straight fellow, who had come up the stairs. He, as I, was unclothed (I sleep in the nude). Anyway, we chatted for a bit and then someone else entered the room, also naked - but this was a boy I met about three months ago and had no interest in whatsoever. He sat on the bed and joined the conversation. Next, my nude (I don't really know what to call him - he'd be my arch-enemy if he were worth the time) "person-I-value-least-in-this-world" walked in and also sat on the bed. At this point, I realized that there was someone next to me under the covers. I had woken earlier that night and found him there, but was too asleep to really noticed and had fallen back asleep... It was the horrid skinny blond kid! I was utterly repulsed. "You do not enter my bed unless I invite you to my bed!" I told him, as sternly as one can tell these types of things. He gave me a look like "geez" and crawled out - also naked. I then had a conversation with the woman in the house, who was shirtless for some reason.

Anyway, this wasn't a sex dream, it was just wierd. Everyone was naked. The Robin Williams part was the best though. Somehowe I managed to be related to him in just about every way possible in one dream. Kudos to me!

For the last few weeks I've been reading the blog of one of our site members, Naoko Bloomtree. Naoko and I don't agree on most major issues but I enjoy his point of view. The other day he blogged about an incident that occurred on MSNBC's Imus in the Morning program that involved host Don Imus and Hardball's Chris Matthews making crude jokes about the movie Brokeback Mountain that caused GLAAD to call for an apology from MSNBC, Imus, and Matthews. It is my belief that while the humor was indeed crude that Imus and Matthews are not in fact homophobic and that GLAAD was making much ado about nothing. Naoko disagreed and a fantastic debate ensued. The following is the original post with all the comments back and forth. My comments are labeled maddhatt with his labeled progblog. What really surprised me is how much I ended up agreeing with him on though I do still hold my original belief. Enjoy! 1/30/2006 - Chris Matthews and Don Imus Like Telling Fag Jokes

Last week on Don Imus' show, Matthews and Imus were making jokes about the movie Brokeback Mountain. Calling it instead things like "Bareback Mounting" and "Fudgepack Mountain."    There has been no apology from Matthews or MSNBC on the matter. MSNBC just said it was unfortunate that it aired. Yes, that's it, just "unfortunate" for all the people who not only get enough homophobic crap in their lives day to day but to get it on news programs they are watching as well and from people who are oblivious to the concept of news with objectivity. Matthews is absurdly conservative and it is sad that in this era we have news anchors bias' making up their news programs, especially since they are selling themselves more than the actual news they should be concerned with reporting on and going this far is one of the worst ways of going too far with your ignorant bias.   There is a boycott starting up against Matthews and MSNBC. To find out more visit http://www.openlettertochrismatthews.blogspot.com/   And GLAAD has responded to it as well. http://www.glaad.org/action/alerts_detail.php?id=3854&PHPSESSID=388b7549f492a06c0ebd791a34ea634c   You can also see a video clip and the transcript to the junior high, homophobic idiots at http://www.glaad.org/

1/30/2006 - A few points...

Posted by maddhatt

I wouldn't classify Chris Matthews as a true conservative. I see him as more of a moderate Democrat with conservative values that stem from his Catholic upbringing. As for Imus I've been a fan for over 10 years and he does indeed make gay jokes but he has also defended gays in the past on his shows and had gay authors like Harvard Professor Peter J. Gomes on as guests and promoted their books. I've been reading your blog for a while now and feel it is one of the best ones that we have here at JBM and I'm saying that not only as the founder of this site but someone who is black, Republican, Pro-Life, and conservative. Our positions are totally opposite on most issues but that's why I started this site. I want as many opposing views as possible and I love the effort you put into this blog. A lot of straight guys just don't understand the gay lifestyle or at the very least find it funny and despite what agenda driven groups like GLAAD say I don't believe that makes you homophobic. I've heard several black jokes from my white friends over the years but I didn't turn around and say that they were racists. I have friends that are openly gay and they've told black jokes and I've told them gay jokes and we just laughed and went out to dinner. We've also discussed gay marriage something I was totally against at first but I seem to be leaning more towards the marriage for all side. I'm just saying that I don't believe that either Matthews or Imus is homophobic just because they joked about gays or Brokeback Mountain. That movie is ripe for parody.

1/30/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

Chris Matthews can be considered conservative because of where he stands on particular issues and whether it's generally considered a position that conservatives generally hold. The line between liberal and conservative is not exactly concrete and is always changing but being homophobic is something that is generally on the conservative side until that changes eventually. Not that liberals are not homophobic though. And saying it's a result of his Catholic upbringing is kind of vapid. I was brought up Catholic, so have many others. And homophobia is not something that is generally taught within Catholicism. And letting jokes towards gays slide because he's defended gays for whatever reasons or had people who are gay on his show doesn't mean much. With this kind of rationale, I suppose Hugo Chavez is not Anti-United States because he does business with us or has some American friends. And perhaps Hitler should not be tagged as an anti-semite because he was related to some people who practiced Judaism. And people can have varying degrees of homophobia or racism, just because there is some small area that they are not homophobic or racist, doesn't mean you can totally wipe the slate clean as if they are not at all. And it is homophobic to make negative comments about gays, for no reason other than because they are gay. People who usually make negative comments like that, do so because there is enough contempt on their part to do so. I am waiting for a movie about two heterosexual couples getting together and to hear Chris Matthews make jokes about them. And when he does, will it just be about the sexual aspects of heterosexuality? Almost all negative homosexual remarks are based only on the sexual aspects, leaving out the 90% of what the rest of gay relationships are about and why? Because homosexuality is not the norm, so it is to be ridiculed by people and all they see is the "physical stuff" happening between someone who has a penis or vagina, with another person who has the same sex organ as them. And in recent years there has been a lot of interest in getting rid of racism and homophobia and showing it as a negative thing, which it is. But what you get from that are people who are racist or homophobic, not wanting to believe they are because there is so much negativity about it and them not wanting to be viewed in such a negative light. And the best way to not believe you are racist or homophobic, is to compare themselves with someone who is even more racist or homophobic. My brother believes he's not racist. Never mind that he believes that people of color are inherently lazy, that they don't like to work, that they prefer to be poor and have no interest in going higher up the economic ladder, that they like to get free money from the government, that most are in gangs, on drugs, or only like hip-hop, basically that they have particular qualities just because of the amount of pigment in their skin. But it's not like he's stringing people up on trees or joining the KKK, so he's not racist. And even moreso, he has a "black friend," so he can't be racist, at least he keeps saying he's not racist while he is constantly bringing up "black people." He can't go ten minutes without doing so and that's odd since he doesn't really know any in the first place. His "black friend" is an aquaintance to some degree from where he works and that's the only person of color he knows. And I'm surprised you read this blog so much, I would think you would find it kind of crap-ish or want to poke some holes in some things since I'm sure there are some. And it would be a good thing to hear them since there could be things I hadn't considered. Not to mention that I find it annoying only talking about politics with people who agree with you, lol. You don't really have to back up most of your views since they agree with you and people let things slide since they see you as in the same "club" or whatever. And that stuff just contributes more to people not having to back things up and getting more into hollow rhetoric.

1/31/2006 - Time for Round 2...

Posted by maddhatt

First I want to make something clear. I never said that being raised Catholic makes you homophobic. What I am saying is that at least in Chris Matthew's case he has stated on several occasions that on the things that he is conservative about like marriage and family that it goes back to his Catholic upbringing. I believe that religion at least in small doses teaches us morality and core values in general. In large doses you get idiots like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who I believe spread too much unfounded fear about gays and lesbians. I believe in the traditional family but I also believe in tolerating views and lifestyles that are different from my own. I mention Peter Gomes's appearance on Imus because when he promoted the book; The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, Imus simply interviewed him and never mentioned his sexuality which sparked some debate after Gomes left the studio. Some felt that it was odd that a Imus never mentioned that a religious book was written by a man who is not only gay but teaches Theology at Harvard. Imus said that Gomes's sexuality was irrelevant to the book itself where his producer Bernard McGuirk who is also Catholic felt that Gomes might be rewriting the Bible and promoting the gay agenda. I've seen Gomes on a few shows and I personally feel that he picks and chooses which passages of the Bible to teach and sugar coats things he disagrees with which is why I don't trust him and many other religious figures for that matter. Your examples of Chavez and especially Hitler are way over the top to the point of being outrageous. It would be like me saying that if a gay man jumped in a tub of water holding a toaster and was electrocuted that God punished him for being gay. It would be absurd to make such a statement. I felt you made some other smart valid points but that part was ridiculous. Chavez is anti-U.S. but pro U.S. dollars I see no contradiction there as I too have done business with people that I loathe because it benefited me to do so. And Hitler? Where can I begin on this one? Various historians and the like have stated that Hitler was either a closeted homosexual a Jew or both, neither has been proved definitively. I think that I can however prove that Hitler was not anti-semitic. You see Jews eat food and I have seen several pictures of Hitler taken at various dinners and social functions. It can be assumed based on the fact that Hitler didn't die of starvation that he ate at at least some of those functions. If Hitler was truly anti-semitic he would have forsaken food and starved to death for fear of being seen as Jewish. Sorry to be a smart ass but the Hitler thing drove me insane. It is not homophobic to make statements that could be deemed anti-gay. Homophobia is just that, a phobia or fear of gays. I don't have one and I don't believe Chris Matthews or Don Imus do either. And how can you say "It is homophobic to make negative comments about gays, for no reason other than because they are gay."? The whole point of Brokeback Mountain is it's homosexual relationship and it's being promoted that way just like the "surprise ending" of The Crying Game. That's the very reason some idiot asked Bush if he had seen the film. He knew the President hadn't seen it if for no other reason than his reliance on Christian conservatives in our base. The President cannot admit to having seen this movie and not draw heat from conservative Republicans, but the left ran this soundbite on every cable network and radio program in an attempt to promote their agenda and embarrass the President. What were Chris and Imus supposed to talk about? The fact that Heath Ledger broke up with Naomi Watts and hooked up with Michelle Williams for some on the set boot knocking which resulted in her getting knocked up and having a baby? Well...yeah lets talk about that, but it has nothing to do with what's on the screen. It drives me nuts that I grew up with Archie Bunker and The Jeffersons and that neither one of those shows would make it on the air today because everybody is just too sensitive. I hear GLAAD is also upset with the people over at American Idol because of it's depiction of some of the shows gay contestants. I'm sorry but if you show up in makeup dressed like a chick people are going to goof on you and even worse if you can't sing a note in tune you can't burst into tears and call the judges homophobic for not picking you. People throw words like racist and homophobe around way too loosely for my taste. I read your blog for the same reason I read other member blogs. I'm attempting to build a diverse network of active bloggers and I always try to at least pay attention to the member blogs that help achieve that goal, which you are doing. I've been to so many other blog sites and you never know whose running the damn thing and I don't want to do that. Based on what I've read you and I don't agree on the big issues but I'm very excited that you're here and hope you keep doing what you do and I will pop in on occasion when the mood strikes me. I also agree with you that it is good to get differing opinions on things, otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.

1/31/2006 - This is too easy!

Posted by maddhatt

Did you actually read what I wrote? I ask because you take parts of what I say instead of taking in the whole statement and then respond to the part. My whole section on Hitler was ridiculous. I suggested he couldn't be anti-semitic simply because he and Jews in general eat food and your response was "To say Hitler was not anti-semitic is grossly ignorant."? Of course Hitler was an anti-semite. What 3 year old doesn't know that? Maybe I should have said that Hitler wasn't anti-semitic because both he and Jews both breath air or wear clothes or some other ridiculous argument so that you would know that I was being facetious. I say Don Imus is not homophobic because I have several times over the last decade heard him say that discriminating against gays is wrong. If I hate gays I wouldn't invite gay guests on my show and tell my audience to buy this guys book or tell people that mistreating people who are gay is wrong. One thing I failed to ask before, do you actually listen to Imus's program or did you just hear this one soundbite and label him a homophobe? That's a fair question because if you don't listen to the program on a regular basis and just get riled up because of the schtick you're always going to find something to be offended by. There is a character called Antwan from the Bronx that they do on the show that makes fun of black people. The character has gotten people to label Imus a racist. I don't get bent out of shape because he invites people on that goof on him too. I've learned to judge people more for their actions than by than a few bad words here or there. Richard Pryor often did jokes about white people and a few jokes about gays too so I guess that makes him a racist and a homophobe and since he was a personal hero of mine and I enjoyed his work I guess that makes me one too. And that is not a narrow view of the meaning of Homophobia. Homophobia is a fear of gays. Believing that gays should not be treated like equals or that it's okay to ridicule them is the effect of that fear, cause and effect. Cause - Racist believe that they are of the superior race. Effect - They go out of their way to discriminate against those other races. They teach their kids to hate, they make sure other racial groups can't get jobs or join their social clubs or deny their bank loans or worse. If you eliminate the cause the effect will eventually cease as well. The media does have a liberal bias. Of course Fox covered the Bush soundbite, it was news! But you dodged my original point that the reporter only asked the question because he knew that if Bush admitted to seeing the film it would cause problems for him and the liberals knew it too. You can't be that blind. I used agenda because GLAAD does indeed have an agenda as does the ACLU, the NAACP, and NOW for that matter and their agenda blinds them sometimes and GLAAD is wrong in this case. I was watching Imus live that morning but lets take a look at the transcript courtesy of our good friends at GLAAD: DON IMUS: Have you lost weight? CHRIS MATTHEWS: I was at — I was at 240 and gaining a couple years ago, and I've been working down. I was checking, I said — I got down to 215 after I ran the other day. So I'm somewhere in the teens still. IMUS: Look pretty good. MATTHEWS: I'm trying to get down to 200. IMUS: Look pretty good. I mean, I'm not working toward a "Brokeback Mountain" situation here. MATTHEWS: [laughs] IMUS: I'm just saying that — I remarked to Charles, I said, "He looks pretty good to me." MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've been reading your comments. I don't think you're working in that direction. [laughs] IMUS: [laughs] Well, I'm trying, so... Al Gore... MATTHEWS: [laughs] Have you seen it yet? Have you gone to see it yet? I've seen everything else but that, I guess. IMUS: No, I haven't seen it. Why would I want to see that? MATTHEWS: I don't know. I've no opinion on that. I haven't seen it either, so... IMUS: So, they, um...I don't know. It was out when I was in New Mexico, and, um it doesn't resonate with the cow — with the real cowboys who I know, so... MATTHEWS: Yeah. IMUS: But then, maybe there's stuff going on there on the ranch that I don't know about. Not on my ranch, but you know what I'm saying. MATTHEWS: Well, the wonderful Michael Savage, who's on 570 in D.C., who shares a station with you at least, he said [laughs] — he calls it — what's he call it? "Bareback Mounting." That's his name for the movie, so... [laughs] IMUS: Right. Of course, Bernard calls it "Fudge-pack Mountain," but that's [unintelligible]... MATTHEWS: You know what? I'll bet it wins. It's either that or "Good Night, and Good Luck" who'll win for an Academy Award, I think, this year. I think it's the mood. I think everybody likes the movie who's seen it, so — You'll notice that the Bareback Mounting comment that Matthews used was actually attributed to Michael Savage which he has indeed used a few times. Matthews did luagh at the title but so did I, everything else was said by Imus. Matthews said that he hadn't seen it and that he had no opinion on it and also that he thought it might win an Oscar. Now that's a man who hates gays! You'll also note that the Fudgepack Mountain remark was attributed to Bernard McGuirk the producer of Imus in the Morning. I'll let you in on a little known secret, Antwan from the Bronx is really Bernard. Actually everybody knows it but it's a joke and most people get it.

1/31/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

I did read what you wrote, and i criticized various points that you made, you did the same exact thing of what I wrote, yet you want to view my criticisms as just taking some parts and ignoring the rest. That's what I am doing since there are various flaws that should be mentioned. And some people can be so ignorant that they can believe that Hitler was not anti-semitic. Many people can say things similar to that but really believe it and and you saying he wasn't and giving a reason as to why he was not, did come off as saying that he was not anti-semitic, because you said so. I do no know you, so I can not tell when you are being sarcastic and not being serious. There are people ignorant enough and want to believe the holocaust never happened, people can believe bizarre things and whatever they want, regardless of evidence and facts. Should I believe that you are joking with how you are saying that Matthews did not say something homophobic, because he did? And people can say discrimination is wrong, but not actually live their life as though they believe that. I think people should be judged on their actions, not just by what they say and then do not practice it. Robert Byrd must not be a racist, because he says racism is wrong. And people who have raped someone and then say they did not, must not be rapists. And yes, I listen to Imus sometimes. He can be entertaining here and there. But even if I did not, that does not mean that being made aware of him making a homophobic comment, should not be considered valid if I criticize him for doing such a thing. And I would say that Antwan is a racist character. And I like Richard Pryor, I always considered that Richard Pryor was making fun of racism between people of color and whites. And I don't agree with softening some aspects of homophobia or racism by just saying it's part of the effect, it's a part of the whole, to dissect it like that and divide it up into branches is pointless. But yes, if you get at the root of it and take that out, behaving in a racist or homophobic way will not be there to practice. And Jeremy Parker who asked Bush the question was not a reporter, he was a student. Seems like you are wanting to believe there was a liberal media conspiracy underway when there was not. Something funny happened and there is even more humor to it because of Bush's standing. If the same thing happened to a Democrat, it would have been covered. When Clinton was asked the silly question about whether he wears boxers or briefs, it was all over the news, was there a conservative media conspiracy? No. When Dean made the silly "raaaaar" thing, did the news media all of a sudden change to being conservative and only ran it because of a conservative agenda? And there have been studies on the news media and has been shown that generally it is made up of centrists and some leaning more to conservative with the exception of some being liberal like Air America and some being conservative like Fox news, a large portion of radio with the exception of Air America, and various newspapers around the country, with the exception of some major one's are generally conservative. Then there are various news outlets that can be generally centrist and have a particular journalists who are on the left or the right. I think many people only believe there is a liberal media because if enough conservative opinion makers say so, people will blindly believe that it must be so. And listing organizations that were created for a specific goal is an agenda but to say they are blind because they are working against something that falls under their goal is silly. And of course, listing "agenda" organizations, you only list liberal one's. There is a negative labeling of liberal organizations as having an "agenda," it's naive and just a way to negate them in an exaggerative way, similar to how other terms are used to do such a thing. Like labeling judges that a conservative doesn't agree with, as an "activist judge." Activist is a term usually associated with liberals who are trying to get attention towards something they care about, and since it's usually associated with them, there are people who use the term in a negative way. And yes, nice to show the transcript. It doesn't take away from how they were homophobic. If someone calls someone a nigger and I then say "hey guess what? So and so called someone a nigger" and then start laughing about it, yes that would be racist. Agreeing with it and repeating it does condone and contribute to the ignorant behavior. Just because they did not come up with the names themselves, doesn't take away the degree of homophobia in what they said.

2/1/2006 - You got me!!!

Posted by maddhatt

Isn't google a great thing? You're right Parker is just a student and not a reporter but my point is still valid. Parker has admitted that he asked the question just as a goof and that he himself has not seen Brokeback Mountain and that he probably wouldn't. It was clearly an attempt to embarrass the President. In one interview Parker said "I don’t know if you know this or not, but he's not exactly a huge gay rights guy.", saying that he wanted to ask a controversial question of the President just to see how he would handle it. I feel President Bush did fine but seeing liberal pundits run with it like it was a big "Gotcha!" moment just shows me even more why I am a Republican. And you're right we don't know each other but based on what you have written I at least have given you credit for having a modicum of intelligence. I am now even more dumbfounded that you truly thought my Hitler rant was real but let's take another look at my original Hitler passage: "I think that I can however prove that Hitler was not anti-semitic. You see Jews eat food and I have seen several pictures of Hitler taken at various dinners and social functions. It can be assumed based on the fact that Hitler didn't die of starvation that he ate at at least some of those functions. If Hitler was truly anti-semitic he would have forsaken food and starved to death for fear of being seen as Jewish. Sorry to be a smart ass but the Hitler thing drove me insane." How could you not see that I was being sarcastic there? I even ended it by saying I was being a smart ass. I know some people say that the holocaust didn't happen but I'm not one of them. I even read the passage to a buddy without revealing that I was the person that wrote it, he burst out laughing and said that he could tell it was written in jest. I thought that evoking the name of mein führer was a bit over the top so I decided to respond in kind. You mentioned the name of one of the most diabolical figures of all time when all we were debating was whether or not Matthews and Imus were homophobic. If that's not a bit over the top then I don't know what is. It would be like mentioning Saddam Hussein's brutality in a debate over whether or not Bill Clinton really put that stain on Monica's dress. I'll let Hitler's misdeeds speak for themselves and let Imus and Matthews deeds speak for them. Your mention of the "boxers or briefs" thing is a perfect example of liberal media bias. MTV clearly supported Clinton while pretending to be impartial. He was even called the first President for the MTV generation in a special I saw. The media spun him as young and hip while Bush Sr. was shown as old and weak and the same thing happened again when Clinton ran against Bob Dole. I disected homophobia because you keep describing the effects of homophobia. We have yet to really discuss homophobia. A phobia is a fear. Discrimination against gays is not homophobia but people do discriminate against gays because they are homophobic. If you're gay and feel that your boss is mistreating you because you are gay you would sue for descrimination not for homophobia. The descrimination would of course be caused by homophobia. With Dean liberals turned on him quickly because they still had Kerry to carry the ticket. They had to get rid of him because he scared people after that speech, people who vote and the object was always to defeat Bush, they didn't care who did it. Imus reported the day after the 2004 election that as early as 6 hours before the election results were broadcast in primetime that some of his reporter buddies started calling him and announcing Kerry's landslide victory based on the early exit polls and he mentioned how happy they were to be giving him the news. I'd give anything to have a snapshot of their faces when they found out that the poll numbers had "flip-flopped" and that Bush had been re-elected. "I think people should be judged on their actions, not just by what they say and then do not practice it. Robert Byrd must not be a racist, because he says racism is wrong." I could say the same for Trent Lott or Jesse Helms both of whom I've felt were racists but we both know Byrd's actions were to join the Klan and I'd say that makes him a racist or at the very least a bigot but I would also hope with over half century to reflect on his "youthful error" that he no longer holds those beliefs and realizes that he was wrong. President Truman almost joined the Klan too and ended speaking out on key civil rights issues. People can change over time. As I mentioned before I used to be firmly against gay marriage but my talks with gay friends have forced me to reconsider. "Should I believe that you are joking with how you are saying that Matthews did not say something homophobic, because he did?" Of course not because I say again that he merely repeated Michael Savages remarks and offered no opinion of his own though he did laugh. I truly don't believe he is a homophobe. Ted Turner has often proudly stated his liberal bias and has used CNN to reflect those beliefs. That's why I'm glad Rupert Murdock is kicking his ass on Fox but somehow the Fox bashers are quick to disparage Murdock and ignore Turner and CNN's bias all together. I mention those liberal organizations because I feel that they have at times lost their way and made big deals out of non issues. GLAAD is especially guilty of this. Quick to call someone a homophobe if they say something that they don't like. If a TV show or movie has something in it that they don't like they put the pressure on like a vice and try to get sponsors to pull out or try to get people to boycott the movie. Free speech is never free with them unless you say something that they agree with, and since our views on their tactics are directly opposed no middle ground can ever exist between their views and mine. You said I only mentioned liberal organizations but earlier I mentioned Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, two people who are clearly not liberal and who represent conservative organizations and who are just as full of shit and agenda driven as GLAAD is. I think they mean well but lose their way spreading too much hate and too much divisiveness. GLAAD's style is so aggressive that they turn straight people who would otherwise support their cause against them. I'm just glad that MSNBC wasn't stupid enough to take the bait. I don't know if simply laughing at a racial or gay joke makes you a racist or homophobe, to me it's more about what's in your heart and how you are viewed by your peers. I don't find nigger to be funny but I have found a few "black jokes" funny. I base my overall opinion of the person telling the joke on my history with them. It's ok to make a joke as long as you know that that's all it is. If so and so called someone a nigger and you thought he was correct to do so that would make you a racist.

2/1/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

Yes Parker asked the question as a joke, people can do that as a joke and know that it's a joke question. It's hardly a conspiracy. And with how you view the mainstream media like that is very unobjective. To be so sure and to generalize that many news organizations are liberal seems not correct. It does seem that if a news organization is not conservative leaning, then they are viewed as liberal leaning by some conservatives. And it does seem as a result of people saying it over and over again and people start to believe it when there isn't much evidence showing it. And about you saying you were being a smartass, I thought that was just with bringing up your view about Hitler. People can believe many bizarre things because people can rationalize things any way they want to back something up, regardless of how plausible it is. That's how it seemed with you saying Hitler was not anti-semitic. And about bringing up Hitler and how it's supposedly equivalent to connecting Hussein with being very brutal and Clinton splooging someone's dress isn't accurate. I brought up Hitler who was ignorant in a particular way but that there are some things in his life in which someone could say that it shows he was not ignorant in that way. I see no difference between bringing him up or someone that is more of a nobody, but mentioned him since you are familiar with him. And you were not so opposed to me bringing up Chavez but perhaps in about thirty years after he has been demonized long enough, it will have the same effect and you will be as outraged about that, but at this point you're not. And about homophobia, you are just breaking it up because it makes it convenient to not see things as homophobic. I suppose hanging a person of color is not racist because it can be put in the effect box instead of the racist one. Homophobia is not that different from racism or sexism but with this train of thought, I suppose sexism towards women is a result of men fearing women and racism against people of color is a fear of people of color that whites have. And anything outside of a blatant fear must mean it shouldn't be labeled as such. But there is some truth in there being fear, people do fear and have done so in the past, feared people that they see as inferior as being treated as equals. There is fear that heterosexual marriage will be ruined because homosexuals can marry. And there are many things similar with that with sexism and racism in many areas of our culture. Fear that homosexuality will be viewed as okay and people's children will not see it as wrong or even see nothing wrong with being gay. People fear homosexuals "recruiting" on college campuses. People constantly use the term "slippery slope" with these things because they fear that they will be part of the norm and they do not want that, they do fear it. And GLAAD does not go after just anything, trying to ruin something, if it falls under the category of homophobia then they will do so. People are conditioned into being homophobic just like with being racist or sexist and a big part of the conditioning in our culture is with how our environments are filled with this kind of ignorance, people constantly saying homophobic things, people seeing nothing wrong with it and propelling it even more so because it is condoned and contributed to. People are bothered by homophobia in their environments, on their tv's, in their workplaces, having it in these places contributes to homophobia and GLAAD is working to rid our culture of homophobia. And to see it as people not carring if Dean lost the bid for the presidency because there was another one lined up is hardly accurate. If Kerry had done something just as stupid, the same thing that happened to Dean, would have happened to him most likely. People made fun of Kucinich, was it because they were afraid he was going to get the nomination? No, and to say that Dean was to be dropped because he scared people with that is not true in any way, people were not afraid of him, they were laughing at him. It was obviously a lame attempt at rallying his supporters and people saw it as that. There was more to be scared of with Dean that he actually performed abortions, that could hardly go over well with some of the people the Democrats were trying to win over. And Dean was mostly hype. He marketed himself very well to only a small portion of the population but marketed it as though he was a serious contender which he was not. People like to view his scream as a major reason for his loss, not acknowledging that he made that scream after losing that state by wide margins. Dean was able to make himself seem bigger with the anti-war crowd and on the internet, but the anti-war thing and the internet are not major contributors to getting the large populace behind them, as we can see in hindsight. You can also see this in how you can go to particular websites and check the polls for particular things. Back then you could visit a petitioning site and check the polls for who people wanted to be the Democratic presidential candidate and Kucinich had such a large majority of the votes, that it must seem like a shoe in for him. The same with a poll being asked about gay marriage. Depending on where you go, it seems as if there is an actual shot at winning in that area. Also, Dean had way more backing than Kerry. Dean was viewed as bringing more life into the party, attracting younger voters, he had Gore backing him and a few other major Democrats. I remember a teacher bringing in an issue of some magazine that was published a couple months ahead of the particular monthly date written on it in which they speculated how things would turn out, mentioning how Dean would win in the first state primary and that by then Kerry would be out of the race. So many people really believed the really good marketing and street teaming of Dean, but it did not have much of an effect really.

2/1/2006 - Great stuff!!!!

Posted by maddhatt

I'll try to be quick on the first part because I love your take on Dean and want to focus on that. As I mentioned before I see no conflict with Chavez hating us and taking our money. A buddy of mine just got back from France and he tells me they hate Americans there too. I mentioned Saddam because with all the mass graves and stuff he's been constantly compared to Hitler. He is after all the Butcher of Baghdad. Whether or not you think Imus and Matthews are homophobic do you really think it is appropriate to to even mention them in the same article as someone like Hitler? I totally understand you were just trying to argue a point of view but shouldn't you have used someone like cousin Ray Ray that gets drunk and shoots his mouth off at the family reunion? And let me get this straight, if you meet the President and have an opportunity to ask him one question you're going to waste the chance by asking a goof question? I think you would ask a smarter question. The President was about 45 minutes away from me today in Nashville. If I had been able to talk to him today I would have asked a real question most likely about Katrina since we have so many hurricane victims here. You act like I'm delusional about my take on the media but how do explain Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Sam Donaldson, Wolf Blitzer, and Jeff Greenfield? I've watched all of these men in various interviews over the years admit to holding more liberal views or admit like Greenfield and Russert to working for liberal candidates when they were younger but that as newsmen they had to "be objective". I'm sure you can throw a few people like Brit Hume in there to refute my claim but trust me he's outnumbered. "I suppose hanging a person of color is not racist because it can be put in the effect box instead of the racist one." The hanging would be the effect the cause would be racism. Another example would be saying Matthew Shepards' murder was not homophobic. He was murdered by people who were homophobic. Homophobia being the cause, murder being the effect. What if the person was lynched by another person of color or Sheppard were murdered by someone who was also gay or the killer was straight but killed him for some other reason like road rage? Exact same act, different motivation. That being said it could be argued that calling someone a nigger or fag is racist or homophobic but the rules change depending on whose doing the name calling. I've heard gay people call each other fag and blacks call each other nigger. My point has always been that it is possible to tell offensive jokes and not be racist or homophobic. By your standard I'm a homophobe and my buddy Steven is a racist just because we've both joked with each other about him being gay or me being black. Stuff like this can't simply be black and white there has to be a grey area. Now let's talk about Dean as I feel the stuff you wrote there is fantastic and very well argued. I am assuming that you've seen the reports on how many people get their daily news from Jay Leno, Letterman, or Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. After the Dean incident these people turned on him like a pack of wolves. Joking that they weren't sure that Dean was the guy who should have his hand on the button. So yes people thought he was silly but they also supported Kerry because he began to look like the safer choice to Dean's loose cannon persona. Dean was clearly the front runner up to that point when he lost in Iowa and gave the screech heard round the world and buried himself. I remember seeing Democratic polls that showed his approval rating started to take a nose dive after the incident and there was also a report from The Atlantic Monthly that claimed Wesley Clark leaked info about Dean that may have ruined his campaign. Either way at the end Gephart was pretty much done all that was left was Edwards, Kerry, and Dean for the Democratic nomination and after the scream even people who were big Dean supporters started to turn on him and back Kerry. Who the fuck is Kucinich? Just kidding I just thought that whole campaign was a train wreck. By the way I'm curious, how did you feel about Nader? I liked him but people tried to make him look like a kook too.

2/2/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

I do not see anything wrong with bringing up Hitler, the way I did. It was not like I was trying to associate them with him as some sort of guilt by association kind of thing. And about meeting the president. I do not know what I would ask him if I had the chance. I do like humor and would possibly ask a smartass kind of question, or I could ask a more serious question like you mentioning bringing up Katrina. I personally prefered of the two questions that people brought up at Bush's get-together that was shown afterwards, the one where the one student asked about cutting money from students going to college. But I also do like George Bush as a person, outside of where he stands on political issues, I love his sense of humor and he does just seem like a fun person. I would probably ask a friendly kind of question, maybe a little humor mixed in or something, I don't know. And I actually loved that Bush did win. Overall, I would prefer that someone else would have won but it was still hilarious just because I could not tolerate all the anybody but Bush garbage and people being sooooooo incredibly sure that he was going to lose and the petty arrogance and crap from many liberals. More than a year of liberals of the really, really, annoying variety being so petty and smug about the whole thing, that the next day it was just hilarious that their person lost because they were just so sure he was going to lose. I remember the next day after election night, my hippy math teacher was actually really depressed about how Bush won and others too I'm sure, it was funny. And not that I think you are delusional about viewing the news media as liberal but it's so expansive and there are so many sectors and things that go into these huge corporations of information that it just seems shoddy to throw such a blanket of liberalism over so much of it. And I still just don't agree with viewing someone doing something like hanging someone because of the color of their skin as not racist and just an effect of racism. While they are in the process of doing it, I would think the whole thing is very racist. If it wasn't racist, they would see it as wrong and just stop it. And if someone killed someone not because of them being gay or because of their shade of skin being a factor in it, then I do not see that as being homophobic or racist. And yes there is a grey area about humor. Definitely a grey area, I do make jokes about these areas sometimes but with me it's always making fun of the ignorance of people who are racist or homophobic. Or a joke as if you are really homophobic or racist but as a joke, still just making fun of it. I can't remember saying one that wasn't making fun of racism or homophobia in some way with either sarcasm or just making fun of people who are like that. Like I could come up with a silly name for the movie Brokeback Mountain but it would be making fun of homophobia. I don't think Imus or Matthews were doing that. They were just being crude in a junior high kind of way and contributing to it in a negative way. About Dean and Kerry, yes Kerry was definitely a safer choice, Kerry has a more status quo kind of appeal and people liked that about him, even more so which I did not like was that he just seemed more presidential with his character. The democrats choose a wide spectrum of candidates to bring everyone together like with Kucinich appealing to very, very liberal people with the hope that even if they did not win, that they will still support them since they are generally in the same ballpark. What they should have done perhaps was get a bunch of candidates that did have differing views and interests but for all of them to be of presidential material like Kerry and some others. It just seemed like that was a major factor in Kerry winning the primaries. And do you mean Kucinich's campaign was a train wreck? If so, yes, he didn't have a chance at all, but what's a bit loopy and something that I did like was that even after he lost he was still campaigning, having little gatherings with people and stuff. Perhaps to make sure they stay within the fold instead of going with third candidates, I don't really know. Kucinich was important for the Democrats to ensure that many people would not go over to the Green party or to just not vote. And about Nader, I liked that Nader ran. People see him as trying to ruin the Democrats party but he is just trying to get issues that he and others are concerned with to be taken up by the Democrats because they want their votes badly, also just to get more exposure for some issues that are not at all. One of the things that bothers me about many Greens and others concerned with these issues is that they don't see it as an advantage to not vote for the Democrat in the hopes that the Democrats will see a percentage that they could get if they tried to take up some of their issues. Nader was basically pleading with them to take up these issues, that they are important and that they would get peoples votes if they did. People see it as bad if like ten percent went to Nader or a third party candidate but next time, perhaps since there is a sizeable percentage concerned with these issues, that they will take up those issues and try to get their vote. It's proven that this is the case with how both major parties soften their views in trying to get undecided centrists. If that percentage was very miniscule, they would not waste their time trying to appeal to them. And with Nader, how he was treated by Democrats with how they were doing such shady things to keep him off the ballot is ridiculously against the most basic principles of democracy that it was very difficult for me to even consider seriously casting my vote for Kerry. Also, there were only two reasons for why I was considering voting for Kerry, for abortion rights and the possible choosing of Supreme Court judges which was linked to that as well, other than those two things, there wasn't much reason to vote for him. And with how people were trying desperately to portray him as kooky was incredibly ignorant and unobjective. It was so incredibly petty and baseless. And what's interesting about Nader is that people view him as extremely far left but he was actually closer to the middle than Kerry according to this one political site that stuck him somewhere on it based on his positions.

2/2/2006 - All good things....

Posted by maddhatt

You're making it very hard to disagree with you. And one thing I'll give is that you're right, it was very juvenile humor but that's what Imus has been known for for most of his career. During the first Gulf War when Howard Stern was just kicking the shit out of Imus he decided to make a change formats and go into more political humor. But he has often noted when people ask him why he doesn't get rid of the jokes all together and try to do a more Rush Limbaugh type of show that he has to do the goofy stuff to get people to listen to all the authors and politicians, otherwise you would have something about as boring as C-SPAN. Imus does it all racism, sexism, religion, homophobia you name it but then he throws John Kerry or Doris Kearns Goodwin in there or tries to raise money for his cancer ranch. I often argue that racism and homophobia are social diseases or that welfare is a drug. By breaking it down to the root you find out some very interesting things about people involved. It's easy to call someone a racist but I always want to know why because I've seen people change by actually talking to them. You are dead on about Nader. The fact is that Democrats still feel he cost Gore the presidency and with all the shit that went down in Florida it's hard not to agree with that. The same thing happened in with Ross Perot in '92 as he did more damage to Bush Sr. than to Clinton. Clinton was smart in '96 when Perot popped up again and let Dole be the bad guy and keep him out of the debates and off most of the state ballots. Nader would never have gotten anything done because he didn't seem to want to play ball and you've got to make a few shady deals to get things done in Washington, I don't care who you are. This has been a great experience and you've definitely kept me on my toes. I'm really glad you're here. I don't agree with all your views but you make a damn good argument. In any case I'll keep reading.

2/2/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

Yes, that's what is funny about people who hate Nader, there is no mention of Perot and they don't feel like it was wrong for him to run. It's been nice discussing this stuff with you too. I like how people with differing views can still just have a good conversation, most of the time it just turns into rhetorical crap thrown around back and forth, lol.

Rum is a very intresting thing.   I love rum, it is better than wine.  Wine leaves you with a happy warm feeling that while your buzzed out of your mind you tend to think that everything is happy go lucky.  I am pretty well intoxicated again.  I keep coming back to the question of how I got here.  The age of 30 approaches and I'm walking barefooted through a three bedroom apartment in Virginia with a woman who has a five year old daughter.  My right ankle snaps like it has always done (could never sneak up on any one with out my shoes on).   Maybe I look into the past too much.  Oh, god do I hate time, not that I can say that time is my major antagonist but it has never been my friend.  Whatever.

I know what your thinking or at least I know what I would be thinking if I was reading my own blog with out knowing me.  I would say shut up you little pansy and get over it.  I would say something like, "That dude really needs to stop feeling sorry for him self and get his act together."  It really makes me think when I step away from my self and look at my life.  Where I am, where I have been, how I got here, and where I am going.  Pain and life are funny things.  When you are in pain it is so fresh and sharp and it is there slapping you in the face.  However later on when you look back you can't remember the pain.  You just barley remember the girl of your dreams dumping you at the ripe age of 17 but later on when you look back you see it with eyes of wisdom and all you remember is her and how much fun you had at the time.  Oh well I promised my self when I decided to write this blog not to get to deep.  I am in a good mood, nothing has gone really wrong in the last week or so.  Just my impending age progression slapping me in the face every day.  Now for the business at hand.  I have a treat for you guys.  I collected some jokes that I am going to share with you all.  Peace.

Phanku

This joke is just corny.

One day, Harry came upon a big, long ladder that stretched into the clouds. He'd walked this way every day and this ladder was never there before. Curious and brave, he began to climb. Eventually, he climbed into the layer of clouds, and saw this rather large, homely woman lying here on a cloud.

She spoke, "Take me now or climb the ladder to success!" Harry figured success had to be better than this, so he continued climbing. He came upon another level of clouds, and found a thinner, cuter woman than before.

She also spoke, "Take me now or climb the ladder to success!" Harry saw that his luck was changing and so continued his climb. On another level of clouds, he found a rather attractive woman with not so bad of a figure.

She stated, "Take me now or climb the ladder to success!" Harry really liked his advantage now! He climbed quickly and deftly, and sure enough, on the next level, he found a gorgeous, lithe, well-endowed woman lying seductively on the cloud.

"Take me now or climb the ladder to success," she huskily whispered. Harry couldn't believe his eyes, but his greed got the best of him. He climbed to the next level, expecting Aphrodite or similar. Suddenly, the ladder ends, and a latch closes behind him. He looks over to see a 400-pound, 6'8" hairy biker-looking guy with tattoos. The biker gets up and walks menacingly toward Harry.

Apprehensively, Harry whispers, "Who are you?" The biker answers, "I'm Cess."

This one is sooo wrong but soo funny.  It's wrong because it is suppose to be an actual letter to some one.

Dear Sir;

I am writing in response to your request for additional information in Block #3 of the accident reporting form. I put "Poor Planning" as the cause of my accident. You asked for a more complete explanation and I trust the following details will be sufficient.

I am a bricklayer by trade. On the day of the accident, I was working alone on the roof of a new six-story building. When I completed my work, I found I had some bricks left over which, when weighed later, were found to weigh 240 lbs. Rather than carry the bricks down by hand, I decided to lower them in a barrel by using a pulley which was attached to the side of the building at the sixth floor.

Securing the rope at ground level, I went up to the roof, swung the barrel out, and loaded the bricks into it. Then I went down and untied the rope, holding it tightly to insure a slow descent of the 240 lbs of bricks. You will note on the accident reporting form that my weight is 135 lbs.

Due to my surprise at being jerked off the ground so suddenly, I lost my presence of mind and forgot to let go of the rope. Needless to say, I proceeded at a rapid rate up the side of the building.

In the vicinity of the third floor, I met the barrel which was now proceeding downward at an equally impressive speed. This explains the fractured skull, minor abrasions, and the broken collarbone, as listed in Section 3, accident reporting form.

Slowed only slightly, I continued my rapid ascent, not stopping until the fingers of my right hand were two knuckles deep into the pulley which I mentioned in Paragraph 2 of this correspondence. Fortunately, by this time I had regained my presence of mind and was able to hold tightly to the rope, in spite of the excruciating pain I was now beginning to experience.

At approximately the same time however, the barrel of bricks hit the ground and the bottom fell out of the barrel. Now devoid of the weight of the bricks, the barrel weighed approximately 50 lbs.

I refer you again to my weight. As you might imagine, I began a rapid descent down the side of the building. In the vicinity of the third floor, I met the barrel coming up. This accounts for the two fractured ankles, broken tooth and severe lacerations of my legs and lower body.

Here my luck began to change slightly. The encounter with the barrel seemed to slow me enough to lessen my injuries when I fell into the pile of bricks and fortunately only three vertebrae were cracked.

I am sorry to report, however, as I lay there on the pile of bricks, in pain, unable to move and watching the empty barrel six stories above me, I again lost my composure and presence of mind and let go of the rope.

I think I stole your good mood - sorry.

After all my moping around I finally sat down and wrote myself a  little schedule. I still have ample freetime, but I have some definite requirements set up for the time that I do have scheduled. This morning I woke up at six and jogged up to school. Or at least tried. It's only about a seven-minute jog, but uphill is uphill even if it don't look it. I then lifted, went to work, skipped my class, and worked on NURBS modeling until noon. Then it was home again for two hours of games and then the dishes and then up to an Allies on Campus meeting. Finally, I'm back up here at work. Day's almost done. It's astonishing how much energy working out gives you. I haven't even been tempted to be in a bad mood today.

Of course, I consciously avoided chatting online. I've decided that I'm actively not dating - a sensational choice because then I don't have to put any pressure on myself to date. I don't have to be nice to people that bore me, I don't have to browse through a thousand profiles that only serve to make me body conscious, and I don't have to chat! It's so strange that our society puts such enormous pressure on dating. You never really realize it until you decide that, hey, you don't like dating - and you know what - you're not going to date. Ever.

Dating is just plain a bad idea. You are immediately forced to spend time with a person that you may or may not like. Then, if you're like me and actively dislike anyone who's trying to get you to like them, most dates end up an absolute waste of time. Much better to like a person before dating them - doubly so with the penchant gay men have for sleeping with each other on the first date. That's also out the window. People can just stuff having sex with me.

Oh - and what I started this blog to say, is that I've discovered a super-constructive way to keep arguements from turning into fights. Well, we all have problems with each other and sometimes we adress those problems. Most often, unfortunately, this happens when we are riled already. When this is the case, we forget that the person causing the problem and the problem itself are two completely separate things. Thus, we attack the person, who we may love, instead of the problem.

This happens on the recieving end too - so often! We're trained to argue by attacking the person rather than the problem so it always sounds like we're attacking the person even when we're not really meaning to. The receptive person has a choice. They can either take the attack for what it is - an attack focused on them because the other person views the problem as a part of who they are - or the receptor of the attack can realize that the problem Isn't Part of Their Identity, and realize that the attacker is only talking like it is. Then, the receptor can either bring this fact to their attacker's attention, or just let it slide and be understanding.

This is what I learned from talking to Kalli that one day a few blogs ago. We accept our mistakes as part of our identity when they're really not - that's why we get defensive when someone adresses them.

Oof. Well, that's all for tonight. I still have about three hours of sitting around to do, but I'd really rather not ramble on forever. Take care ya'll, and Good Night!

I woke up grouchy yesterday. I was facing a day that wasn't appealing and I decided to just be grouchy.

I ignored my gratitude card. I looked at myself in the mirror and said "you just go ahead and be miserable". I made coffee the way I like it (2 extra scoops) and DARED anyone to say anything about it.

I took my coffee back to bed, cursing the bathroom for needing cleaning on the way past. I grumbled an answer to my husband's cautious queery as to my mood. I swear if we had a cat, I'd'a kicked it.

I spent the next hour watching the the brutally edited "Bad Boys" on TV and just being miserable. I even ignored my sister's call because I just didn't wanna talk to her.

I was starting to wonder if my mammoth efforts to stay positive and happy were worth it. This was the first day in ages where I'd been up for 3 hours and didn't give one moment's consideration to everyone else's feelings. It was nice to wallow in my misery.

Wasn't it?

I mean, it's a lot of work to be happy.

Ok, so I had a bit of a headache now that I didn't have when I woke up.

And it was hard not to notice how much deeper the wrinkles on my forehead are when I scowl.

Plus, I just kept forgetting to be grumpy. Caught myself laughing twice and sending good thoughts to a friend that had been struggling with a personal issue.

By the time the second cup of coffee was gone, I was so over being grumpy.

But I should add that the 2nd cup of was brought in by a very friendly husband, clearly worried that the world was ending. Obviously there are some benefits to the ocassional grumpy morning.

As I sat there realizing that I was no longer grouchy, I came to an understanding that it's ok to let myself by grouchy if that seemed like the thing to do. And an even bigger realization that I'm really glad I'm not grouchy a lot.

So I went out to the kitchen, made a fresh (weak) pot of coffee, cleaned the bathroom and called my sister. I faced my day with the understanding that I can do whatever the hell I want, as grumpy as I want.

But that it will give me wrinkles on my forehead.

I hate online dating - there's no better way to come away from a day hating yourself. No one knows how to start a conversation online. "Hey." seems to be the standard - scratch that - "hey" tends to be the standard. And it's understandable! How do you start a conversation with someone when all you know about them is the their 6'3'? Might as well just go as follows.

hey

Hey.

so you're 6'3" then, huh

Yup.

cool

Standard! I hate it. I'd be more likely to continue a conversation with someone who opened with the line "I want to eat your eyeballs for dinner!" At least they seem to have something they want to talk to me about. And of course your comfort zone never lets you start a conversation with anyone - as if you have anything to say other than "hey".

So, no one you want to talk to initiates with you and you don't initiate with them. The few people that do start conversations with you are generally the dregs of the chatroom and you feel obligated to make small talk with them because they made the effort and you know what it's like to make the effort. Still, they all die down after about five sentences, leaving you feeling like you have nothing to offer the world - you can't even hold conversations with "the dregs". So, at the end of five hours spent "chatting" you log off feeling unattractive, stupid, and raped.

This is one of my less interesting blogs, I know, but I feel the need to keep up with ShrinkingWoman. How fair is it that I got to enjoy two(!) new blogs today and she get none?

I am frequently accused of being just too damned cheerful. At least once a week, some stranger on the phone will say "Wow! You sound happy" or some such comment. I typically reply "Well, it was one of the options I had when I got up this morning." I say it like a cheery ditz, but more times than not there is a thoughtful pause or a comment about that attitude on the other end. Mission accomplished.

Why do I make being cheery such a priority? There are a lot of reasons, but here are a few:

1. It makes other people feel better. In sales, making the other person feel good is more important than anything else.

2. I genuinely feel cheery most times; and

3. I do not want to burden others with my problems.

I know it's incredibly dorky, but I try to live by the Golden Rule. And in doing so, find that I simply MUST remain cheerful. I believe that unless I know you personally, there is only one answer to "How are you" and that is "Great, thanks. How are YOU?" (or some such answer), whether I'm asking or being asked.

When I ask Suzy across the counter "Hi, how are you?" I really don't care how she is. And I have walked away way more than once when I received an answer I deem unacceptable. Recently I stood in line for way too long only to have a grumpy teller respond to my greeting with "Don't ask" while she avoided eye contact and checked her watch.

I smiled sweetly, put my business back in my purse and said, loudly enough for all around to hear, "Then perhaps I'll come back when you are up to doing your job. Have a nice day." And I walked away. Why did I do that? Mostly to embarrass her, but in some small way to show her that her behaviour is having a negative impact on people she encounters. And I don't appreciate that.

Being cheerful is not the same as being kind. And while I do make a big effort to be kind, I feel no obligation to cover up my disappointment when another human being does not behave as they should. Particularly when that other person is providing a service that I am paying for and/or for which they are being paid.

Being cheerful works, but when you combine cheeriness with a clear outline of your expections, you will disappointed less frequently. Another experience I can relay:

My son went through a phase of buying decorative swords. He would save his pennies and shell them out for overpriced junk made in China. One store in particular had received over $300 of his money, for product that was most likely marked up 1000%. One of these items literally fell apart when he opened the packaging. I went back to the store, stood beside the "no refunds" sign, put on my most cheerful attitude and explained to the girl what had happened and that we would like to exchange the product for one that wasn't defective. The minimum-wage clerk looked very concerned and explained that they couldn't possibly know that Max didn't break it with rough handling.

Again with a smile, but with a tone that relayed my confidence, I said "Could you please go and ask your Manager if we could exchange this? Explain to her that my little boy has spent a lot of his allowance here, so the only answer I will accept is NO PROBLEM MA'AM."

She was stunned, but I continued to smile adding a little shrug and eyebrow lift. "Go on" I encouraged...

It only took about 2 minutes for her to come back, look me right in the eye and say with her own lovely smile "No problem, ma'am". I thanked her, told her how much we appreciated it and showed it by spending another $50. Win/win.

I will leave you with the brutal truth, as this blog is all about me being honest and ugly...

I am cheerful because it benefits ME. I know when I treat others well, I benefit professionally and personally. It also makes me feel better (fake it until it's real). And maybe, most of all, it allows me to live my life with this superiority I feel when I am able to control my environment better than most.

Have a nice day!

Exercise of the brain is as important as exercise of the muscles. As
we grow older, it's important that we keep mentally alert. The saying;
"If you don't use it, you will lose it" also applies to the brain,
so...



Below is a very private way to gauge your loss or non-loss of
intelligence. So, take the following test presented here and determine
if you are losing it or are still "with it."



The spaces below are so you don't see the answers until you have made
your own.
OK, relax, clear your mind and.... begin.



1. What do you put in a toaster?














Answer: "bread." If you said "toast," then give up now and go do
something else. Try not to hurt yourself.



If you said, "bread," go to Question 2.




2. Say "silk" five times. Now spell "silk." What do cows drink?
















Answer: Cows drink water. If you said "milk," please do not attempt
the next question. Your brain is obviously overstressed and may even
overheat. It may be that you need to content yourself with reading
something more appropriate such as Children's World. If you said
"water" then proceed to question 3.



3. If a red house is made from red bricks and a blue house is made
from blue bricks and a pink house is made from pink bricks and a black
house is made from black bricks, what is a green house made from?


















Answer: Greenhouses are made from glass. If you said "green bricks,"
what the devil are you still doing here reading these questions?????
If you said "glass," then go on to Question 4.



4. It's twenty years ago, and a plane is flying at 20,000 feet over
Germany. (If you will recall, Germany at the time was politically
divided into West Germany and East Germany.)  Anyway, during the
flight, TWO of the engines fail. The pilot, realizing that the last
remaining engine is also failing, decides on a crash landing
procedure. Unfortunately the engine fails before he has time and the
plane fatally crashes smack in the middle of "no man's land" between
East Germany and West Germany. Where would you bury the survivors?
East Germany or West Germany or in "no man's land"?













Answer: You don't, of course, bury survivors. If you said



ANYTHING else, you are a real dunce and you must NEVER try to rescue
anyone from a plane crash. Your efforts would not be appreciated. If
you said, "Don't bury the survivors" then proceed to the next
question.




5. If the hour hand on a clock moves 1/60 of a degree every minute
then how many degrees will the hour hand move in one hour?














Answer: One degree. If you said "360 degrees" or anything other than
"one degree," you are to be congratulated on getting this far, but you
are obviously out of your league. Turn your pencil in and exit the
room. Everyone else proceed to the final question.


6. Without using a calculator - You are driving a bus from London to
Milford Haven in Wales. In London, 17 people get on the bus. In
Reading, six people get off the bus and nine people get on. In
Swindon, two people get off and four get on. In Cardiff, 11 people get
off and 16 people get in. In Swansea, three people get off and five
people get on. In Carmathen, six people get off and three get on. You
then arrive at Milford Haven. What was the name of the bus driver?














Answer: Oh, for crying out loud! Don't you remember? It was YOU!!






Now pass this along to all your "smart friends" and hope they do
better than you did.

Surely this is the most transitional period of my life.

New job.

New body.

New friends.

New mom-role.

And that's what I want to talk about today. How much I love being the mom of grown-ups.

My daughter was born first. She was one of those kids who seemed so much older than their years. You've heard parents say when asked how old little darlin' is "three going on 21"? That was my Erika.

I was a very lucky first-time mom. She was an easy baby, charming toddler, good student. We had next to no trouble with her as a teenager, which my mom still points out I didn't deserve. We had some issues of course. It's a law as mother-daughter to have some power struggles.

After high school she chose not to go to university, and as a working adult did what all should do: she moved out on her own. Until the boyfriend came along, we talked and saw each other often. And while the nightly phone calls have stopped and she doesn't come home much, we remain close. Our relationship has grown into a very nice, mature friendship and we genuinely enjoy each other's company.

In summary, she is still a joy to have as a daughter and I will be forever grateful and proud.

The Boy was born 3 years after Erika and as I've said before, was the absolute opposite experience. But for 18 years I felt I understood my purpose on this planet: to be Max's advocate. I took the role seriously (particularly the "martyr" part) and was proud of the young man that moved out last September.

Erika claims Max is my favorite. Max claims Erika is their Dad's favorite. I maintain that while most parents do not have more love for one child than another, often they will find themselves "relating" better to one. And that is the case in our family. As a family with a high-needs kid, the "good" kid gets less of Mom's attention, but benefits from being Dad's little pal. The difficult kid gets a lot more individual attention, but also is often the target of the incredible frustration and emotion that comes with challenging situations.

And in the end, Max and I are extremely close. And we see him quite a bit. As most 18 year old males, he is constantly foraging for food. Free food to be specific. So he manages to show up at meal time 3 or 4 times a week. And it's so very enoyable.

Max has become highly empathetic. This causes him some discomfort for some reason. Recently I witnessed him show a mere acquaintance extreme thoughtfullness and felt compelled to comment on it. I told him how proud I was that he was so sensitive to others needs. Not only does he recognize quickly what would make the other person feel better (rare), but he most times acts upon it (perhaps even more rare).

His response to his mother's clucking and fussing? "I know! And it pisses me off! Why can't I just be the asshole I want to be?" Turns out his difficult childhood has left him especially keen to other's discomfort, causing him to act like a total dork (his words, not mine). I point out that he also has every female that knows him telling him how adorable he is, which he does agree is a nice benefit.

Today I am having lunch with Erika. After lunch we are going to stop by her favorite tattoo shop and book appointments and look through the flash. I'm getting my second and this will be her 9th. She is truly one of the coolest people I know.

I do not believe in luck, so to speak. So I can't say I feel lucky to have such great kids. I also know that sometimes we get more than we deserve and for that I am grateful. But mostly this new phase of mothering supports my overall philosophy... You get back what you put out.

And while I was far from perfect as a mother, I put my heart and sole into raising my children. There were moments of doubt and fear, but for the most part I believed things would work out. I believed that if I did my job, both of my children would come out the other end of the school experience whole and happy. And I never put my children's well-being second to my own comfort zone (which I see constantly and loath).

I know it is so early in their lives to claim they are happy and successful, but I know one thing: Being their Mom is an honour and a joy.

Okay, so I'm moving out of the summer of glorious approval.

This is the third week of the semester and what do I have to show for it? Well, I've beaten Jak&Daxter and modeled a stud-without-a-head. And I know a bit about what womens' lives were like in Ancient Greece. My alternator is still hovering around in the underbelly of my car, I'm out of soap, deodorant, and milk, and my account balance at the bank is at... well, it's at $649 but my landlady hasn't cashed my two-months'-rent-and-three-months'-utilities $885 check yet. What delight. Two of my professors have been avoiding looking at me because they're afraid to ask about the projects I'm working on for them. One person showed up to the Gamers' Guild meeting last night. I haven't applied to even one grad school yet.

There's something to make your head spin. I hope they're all going at different times for you like they are in my browser.

I think our lives move in cycles. We get going, get good (or bad), learn a lesson, and then we start from even again. Or we start from a moderately higher place - but still lower than the peak of our last cycle. That's where I am now. I'm at that trough just waiting for my next peak. I think I've about maxed-out school accomplishment cycle for now, which should make for a comfortable and easy next few years in that respect. Maybe it'll be work or relationship based. Maybe physical, maybe spiritual. I suppose we'll see. Maybe organizational. I could use that.

I have this chest at home that's filled with just about everything I've ever written or drawn. I rarely open it, but it gives me a good bout of nostalgia when I do. All my old homework assignments are in there too - from way back when I remembered how to do calculus.

What I'm getting at is that I need a better way to keep track of my accomplishments. Ha! That was a good transition - but seriously, keeping track of all the kick-ass things I've done, jobs I've held, presentations I've given; I've forgotten most of that. I'm not even sure I remember all the jobs I've had. I wrote an application letter to a grad school and totally forgot to say anything about my two semesters as a Teaching Assistant.

Plus, I haven't gone to work out once this semester. I've gone to water polo twice, but I don't really count that.

The point of all of this is that I need better organization. I don't think that it's so much being busy that gets things done, but the fact that when you're busy you have to have everything scheduled. Last semester I had Saturdays and Sundays completely unscheduled. I think I'll stick with that. It's time to put the rest of my life back into little boxes though. I need another job as well. Hmm... there are interesting possibilities there.

Okay well, I've gotta get to work writing this stuff out. One-two, one-two. Tootles!

Happiness has been my quest for many years. Why happiness? Why not success, money, good deeds?

For me it started when I decided to take charge of my life and fix everything that was wrong. I had left the space where I felt at the world's mercy and finally understood that if another person was the cause of my problem it was because I allowed it.

The list I made of things to fix was extensive. It was a daunting task and often overwhelming. So I asked myself why did I want to fix these things. And of course the answer was "Because it would make me happy".

It became somehow less frightening to be on a single quest (for happiness) that entailed many aspects, than it was to be on a quest to find so many individual components.

It has made a huge difference in my life and I definitely consider myself to be one of the happiest people I know. I don't mean "cheerful". I've always been that. I mean deep-to-the-core satisfied with the direction my life is taking and very pleased with the many benefits I am able to enjoy.

Like any person in their pink cloud phase of enlightenment, I wanted to share my great discovery with everyone. I felt like I had discovered the secret to happiness and couldn't understand why everyone wouldn't want to jump on board. Surely everyone wants to be happy.

But that's not the case. Many unhappy people choose misery over happiness. Some just don't rank happiness high on their list of priorities. And others probably like to be miserable. And to those people I say whatever you want is fine by me. I can't say I understand it, but I appreciate the honesty.

It's to those that claim to want happiness, but just refuse to pay the price or do the work I say "don't whine to me then". I have a superior attitude in this regard. I am happy and successful and I'm not special. If I can do it, so can you.

The mistake I was making was to assume everyone needs to be happy. Or that "happiness" is the same as cheerful (but the genuine cheerfulness, not the mask).

Then came Ouiser. That's my character's name in Steel Magnolias. Ouiser is miserable and is ok with that. In fact, she takes comfort in it. I'm new to acting and am experimenting with different techniques. Part of my homework is to "be" Ouiser off-stage and to understand her.

What fun. There actually IS comfort in not giving a shit about happiness. Or rather, others' definition of it. In fact, I believe Ouiser is happy in her misery.

Maybe happiness comes when you understand and accept who you are. I'm pretty certain that happiness can be defined by a lack of... well, lacking. And if you are unhappy but do not desire anything else, then perhaps that in itself is a type of happiness.

Knowing Ouiser has changed my attitude about happiness. Perhaps it isn't the ultimate goal. "Satisfaction" is a better goal.

I am satisfied. And that makes me happy. :)

Every time I try to write about my surgery, the after affects or anything related to my weight I end up bailing out. How many ways can you say "being thinner kicks ass"?

As of today I have lost 74.5 pounds. It is becoming a number I don't throw around much, and as the number becomes bigger, I am even less comfortable stating it. Yet people, even casual acquaintances seem to feel it is appropriate to ask how much I have lost.

I don't mind the "Shona! You look great!" It's the inevitable "How much weight have you lost" that puts me just outside my comfort zone. No, that's not true... my comfort zone is WAY bigger than most.

What it does is put me in THAT position... the position of having to decide whether to get along or take a stand; be typical or unique; ignore or teach. The bitch in me screams "none of your business". The sarcastic comic in me comes back with "looks like you found it" or "and you've lost hair". The self-deprecator says "an entire eight year old and I'm still chubby!"

And it depends on who's asking as to which route I take. With those very close to me I tell them the number. To those that I don't feel like leading at the moment I generally avoid answering with a "What's most important is that I feel so much healthier". But every now and then I just have to try to show the asker how to treat fat people and explain "Thank you so much for the compliment. However, I'm uncomfortable talking about such a personal thing."

I don't want to give the wrong impression. I'm not sensitive about the weight issue and I love the positive attention. Nor am I shy or self-conscious. In fact, I have an entire new comedy routine based on things related to the weight loss, like the slapping sound my hanging skin makes when I run naked (I call it applause).

So, why do I feel uncomfortable with the question? And why would I feel any need to say anything except to shout out the big number? I think I need to figure that out. I suspect my motives aren't entirely pure, perhaps even punitive.

I'll have to give that some thought. In the meantime, if someone you barely know loses a lot of weight, just say "You look great! I love your hair."