It’s so very nice to be able to just rant on this blog.
It’s very freeing.
Anyway, I saw a post tonight from someone I used to be friends with. They were talking about how they made $3 above minimum wage in their state and they still couldn’t live on that, so clearly minimum wage needs to be increased because living on minimum wage is not easy to do…or even possible according to her.
Sociopaths don’t cry over commercials about babies or articles about strangers giving their kidney to a dying man.
They just don’t.
Because they don’t care.
But sometimes the thought crosses my mind, especially when I’m talking to other people about politics. Normally I brush the thought aside as a recognition that other people are far too emotional about politics and they ignore rational responses to political problems or antagonism from people who don’t like them.
In simpler terms, they get their feelings hurt a lot.
Why do I compare atheists to giant babies? It’s simple, they take everything so personally and they try to force people to change their personal thoughts to make them more palatable for Atheists.
They are also wimps. I have heard them complain about how “bad” someone’s opinion of Atheism makes them “feel” and I can’t help laughing.
How thin is your skin? Not everyone is going to like you, especially when you constantly attack their religion and beliefs.
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled on Friday that gay couples must be allowed to marry as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Jacobson claimed that refusing to recognize same-sex marriages would be depriving couples of their rights.
No New Jersey, that is not how the Supreme Court’s decision on DOMA works. Maybe Mary Jacobson didn’t even bother to read the ruling or something, because nothing in the ruling says anything about state’s being required to allow gay marriage as a result. In fact, the SCotUS ruling isn’t about whether states should make gay marriage legal at all.
The Token Libertarian Girl delivered a very heartfelt, emotional, and (in my opinion) completely off base assessment of why she is now anti-war and ashamed of her past support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I feel the need to separate my views and denouncement of the current threat of action in Syria from her view. I recognize her right to her own opinion, I just don’t think it’s based in reality.
I’m a robot though. My friends will tell you that I often try to remove emotion from any political opinion I have. Sometimes this pisses them off.
I’m not anti-war. I’m about as “neocon” as it gets, if by neocon you mean someone who is pissed as hell and sees no problem killing off people who are a threat to national security.
I’m anti-dumb-asses getting us involved in wars without thought of consequence or responsibility or any long-term plan.
NBC news reported less than 12 hours ago that the plan Obama has for starting World War III is still in the works.
The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday.
The State Department fed the growing drumbeat around the world for a military response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons against rebels Aug. 21 near Damascus, saying that while the U.S. intelligence community would release a formal assessment within the week, it was already “crystal clear” that Assad’s government was responsible.
They aren’t planning to get the UN’s permission (both Bush’s did that), since Russia (an Assad ally) would never let that happen, and they may not even bother with congressional approval. I mean, if he hasn’t bothered to get it yet, who thinks he’s going to bother now?
Especially you know what I mean if you are part of any “inner circle” of an organization, blogger’s row, or media credentialed folks.
I went into doing this because I love what I’m doing and I want to make a difference. I don’t try to pretend that I’m more experienced than I am and I just wanted to remained principled and hope that my talent would get me noticed, but once you reach a certain level of being “in the know” with all of this…you get disillusioned about whether or not that’s why anyone else is involved.
It’s a country club mentality, where everyone is smiling and laughing and loving each other, but in the background it’s all nasty words whispered behind people’s backs and a complete inability to know where you actually stand with people.
Do they like me? Do I annoy them? Do they think I’m a hack?
It’s impossible to tell where we stand when everyone is talking out of both sides of their mouth.
I’m too principled to smile at someone through my teeth and bash them as soon as they are out of sight. If I don’t like you, you’ll probably know about it. If I can tell you don’t like me, I’ll just avoid you. I don’t like the politics of social interaction and I’ve come to realize that the social politics of political commentary are sometimes just as bad as the politics I rail against on my websites.
I’ve often thought that one of the problem’s the GOP has is that they refuse to take chances. They like the old familiar faces and their routine song and dance, because it’s always given them results, even if the results are mediocre at best in many cases. Any attempt at changing the tempo or the dancers is regarded with fear and disdain, because the chance that it might gain them spectacular results has been covered up by the fear that it will destroy their chance at getting at least those mediocre results.
The fear of the crash and burn has made a good portion of them go stale. Succeed on your own and they might let you into their fold, but they aren’t interested in taking a risk on anyone with a new sound.
It’s possible that the voices calling for change can get stale too, preaching to the choir and going through the same 1-2-3 step waltz. We love the rabble rousers and the people who want to change the face of the GOP, but maybe we’re just as stuck in our own song and dance as everyone else.
Maybe our connection to the politics has tarnished our own social politics or maybe it’s just a fact of humor nature that we just can’t change.
Either way, I’m exhausted.
Current Mood: Little Talks by Of Monsters and Men
And some days I can’t even trust myself
It’s killing me to see you this way
‘Cause though the truth may vary
This ship will carry our bodies safe to shore
Don’t listen to a word I say
The screams all sound the same
Trust me, if this was targeted toward a specific person or organization, I’d let them know about it. This is just a general rant about a general feeling of frustration that’s been building in me for sometime.
A group named “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” (MDAGSA for short? They need to work on that.) is organizing a Starbucks boycott, because Starbucks currently has a company policy of allowing customers, in state’s where the laws allow (like mine), to carry a loaded firearm on the premises.
The Starbucks siren suddenly has a gun to her head.
An advocacy group has called for “Skip Starbucks Saturday” this weekend — a nationwide boycott on Aug. 24, to pressure the coffee giant to amend its current policy, which allows customers to carry loaded guns into Starbucks stores where permitted by state law.
Great job Jezebel.
They think that TIME magazine is “trolling” feminists by saying that women should pay more for health care…because science says they incur more healthcare costs.
Today’s TIMEtroll is brought to you by Hadley Heath, who is a woman so it’s somehow more genuine/credible if she tries to argue in a way that is contrary to her own interests/dumb. Heath argues that women should pay more for health insurance because they consume more health care, and having everyone pay the same amount for health care isn’t fair to the men. Poor men. Always getting the shaft in everything.
Strangely they aren’t bothered by the inequality involved in men paying more on car insurance, since science shows they have more accidents. They bring that up and then dismiss it, essentially saying “bah, you men are whiny bitches. Women pay the same as you for lots of other shit!”
What other stuff to do we pay the same for? Stuff like taxes and airplane tickets and all you can eat restaurants, not to mention the horrible rape culture and patriarchy and stuff.
Thanks for enlightening me Jezebel, but none of that has anything to do with Insurance premiums, but good job ignoring science in favor of making the ‘insurance and medical science are sexist!’ argument.
Oh I know what you are thinking.
How the hell could feminists take issue with a movie that is about a women defying all traditional gender roles, becoming a skilled soldier, and saving her whole country?
Apparently they manage to take a lot of issue with it. *eye roll*
So here’s the deal.
Feminists look so close at a piece of entertainment that they end up only seeing the brushstrokes and missing out on the whole image. In many ways that’s where feminists find problems in Disney movies and Mulan in particular. They are so busy looking at a single line in a single song, that they forget that the target audience isn’t seeing sexism in the film.
Ask a little girl if the scene where they sing “A Girl Worth Fighting For” where Mulan says “a girl who speaks her mind” and the men respond “Nah!” is supposed to be taken seriously, 99.99% of them will look at you like your crazy.