Let me restate, once again, a theory I hold true to. I have seen it happening all around me, and I can't help but shake my head.
You can call me cynical. Or jaded. Or whatever. But...regardless of what you call me, you know I'm right.
When you have made another human being your Alpha and Omega, you have only set yourself up for a road to failure. Humans are fallible. They fuck up. Some more than others. But regardless, they screw up a lot. And once you put your EVERYTHING in the hands of a human creature, it is bound to be broken. It's like giving a toddler something fragile - it's going to end up in pieces. It is okay to give someone part of your life, or part of your heart.
But falling in love with someone doesn't mean abandoning the world for them.
Falling in love means - I care about you enough to want you to travel this journey with me. WITH me. Beside me. Let's have our lives run parallel, not flow them into one river.
I once left behind a person I thought I was destined to have my forever with. Because not once did the idea of leaving my life for another person's life truly cross my mind. I would not and will not forsake myself and who I am for another. I don't think anyone should. I would not demand it of another. Each person must follow their own heart.
I once believed that love could overcome anything.
I was wrong. Love alone cannot conquer the world. Because love is not so simple.
I
have been in love many times. Different shades and colors of love.
Different types and shapes. I have loved and been loved back. I have
loved and been ignored. There are many who carry pieces of my heart and
don't even know it. There are many who do know this and don't care. And
then there are many who know and DO care. But no one holds my entire
self, my life, the entirety of my heart but me.
When you forsake yourself for another, you lose your identity. And then what do you have to offer that person? If you alter everything you are for another, when they fell in love with who you were....where does that leave you?
Love is not about leaving everything for one.
Love is about a mutual caring to live lives together, and still retain your identity.
But then again....what do I know?
So my mom has informed me that if Obama gets the democratic nomination, she will not vote democrat.
Instead, she will cast her vote for McCain.
Now, this makes me more than a little miffed. First, because she will be voting against rights for her own daughter - McCain certainly is NOT pro-gay rights (specifically anti-discrimination, which is more important to me than marriage). Secondly, because she is voting against her own pro-choice stance - McCain is very much anti-choice. Thirdly, because she wants to end the war in Iraq - McCain said the war may not end until 2013 - the date he would be out of office as a two term president. Fourth, she is voting entirely on the "feel" she gets from Obama. No, I am not the biggest Obama supporter in the world. Yes, I am somewhat wary of his inexperience (but I think this could be good or bad). Yes, I think he is too generalized in his desire for "change" and I don't like some of the things he has said, or his somewhat pretentious attitude. But I do think that he will turn the country towards something better - McCain just wants to continue what has been going on. That isn't okay. Our country is NOT on the right track. While I am not a huge fan of either of the democrats, I do think they will bring something different.
I will take Obama's nonspecific change rhetoric over McCain's "stay the Republican course" ideals any day.
Also...screw you Romney for your shitty comments about gay families and gay marriage at the NRA convention. AND screw you Huckabee for your racist remarks at the NRA convention. And dear NRA - is this how you represent gun rights? With racism, sexism, and heterocentrism? More reason why I don't think it should be legal for you to go out and buy a semi-automatic weapon at the local Wal*Mart - because many the people buying or all for buying them wouldn't think twice about shooting someone who wasn't like them - or at least this is the image the NRA is portraying. Buy your hunting guns at a hunting store with a license. Buy your handguns at a gun store, with a license. Be unable to buy automatic or assault weapons. Sorry girls and guys, but I've never seen a deer that needed an Uzi to be taken down.
And finally...Elisabeth Hasselbeck from the View? Shut your damn mouth. Stop making opinions unless you can educate yourself on them and unless you are willing to actually listen to what others have to say. It is YOUR fault that the View makes women look like catty idiots who can't discuss serious issues. Why you are still on that show I have no idea. It's people like you that make me lose my hope in humanity.
And my final question to you, my lovely readers, is the following (since I have been hearing it bounced around a lot lately):
Is this country more racist or more sexist? Why do you believe such? And how do you think this has been portrayed in the democratic nomination process, specifically with the treatment of the candidates?
Today was more gardening and planting. I really enjoy working outside in the dirt...apparently my grandfather did too, so it must be genetic or something.
Tried the apparently Colbert Report famous Spicy Sweet Chili Doritos. Now mind you...I'm a Doritos fan. I know they are bad for me. I know they are full of MSG and other evil ingredients. But damnit...I love those spicy nacho doritos. When I was in high school I'm pretty sure I ate a bag of them every day at lunch. So I always have to try any new Dorito flavor. And the spicy sweet chili weren't bad. They have a good kick to them, and they weren't overly sweet like I was afraid they were going to be. If you like doritos, and you're into a slightly sweet but spicy flavor I suggest trying them out.
Mmmm mmm tasty cheesy evil. :D
There's nothing like coming home and being reminded that it's still what it was.
Sweet tea that my dad had brewed in the fridge, my parents lovingly bickering with each other (although they seem to get along better than before), my mom scheming big ideas for the house, and some of the same old stuff in the same old places.
It's weird sometimes, having two homes. I'm still struggling to find that lack of "permanence" to Chicago, especially when I come to Kentucky. I think it's because I just don't feel quite settled into the apartment, and the lack of a car is so weird to me. Oh, and all the stuff I haven't figured out yet. Hah. But it still feels like home whenever I come back.
Well...off to help my dad in planting a bed. Bed as in where flowers go....we're not trying to grow king mattresses in the backyard or anything.
This is something I've been wanting to comment on for while.
When, oh when, did it become socially acceptable for men to SPIT anywhere whenever they want?! From my understanding, this behavior at one point was considered downright offensive and unacceptable. Spitting on the ground in front of someone or near someone was considered to be worth provoking a physical fight over. It was considered a challenge, like smacking them in the face with a glove. Or saying something about their momma.
Beyond that, it's just gross. I don't need to try and be side-stepping your expelled mouth cooties, and I don't need to listen to the horrifying noise you make to try and get every amount of mucus/water/parts of your brain into your mouth so you can spit. You sound like a dying animal. And I am tempted to shoot you to put you out of your (and my) misery. Really, what is so wrong with your spit that you need to projectile eject it every few moments?? If you desperately need to spit (and I'm assuming this is either because you've coughed something up, had a bug fly in your mouth, or eaten something horrifying) do it in a trashcan, in a napkin, or discreetely away from everyone else. Do not just go around spitting all over the place wherever you please!! It's gross. If you are congested, buy some Sudafed. If it doesn't help, you may have a more serious problem - outside of your excessive inability to be able to behave in public.
And just so the men don't feel shunned...ladies: stop chewing your gum with your mouth open. I'm glad your enjoying it, but I don't need to see and hear your enjoyment. You keep it up, and I'm going to start throwing crap in your gaping sticky maw. Most likely the man-spit off my shoe.
Grand Theft Auto IV dropped recently, and reminded me that there is still a massive desire for products that are incredibly racist and misogynistic. Violence aside (since I’m not one who always believes there is a direct correlation between violence in videogames and violent behavior) the game itself is problematic for other reasons. While the majority of news sources focus on the fact that the game is incredibly violent, they seem to look over the race and women-hating issues in the game. For example, all the African American characters in the game are gang-members fulfilling the angry black man gangbanger stereotype. Women are simply props in the game – they almost are all prostitutes that you are rewarded for killing after you have sex with them. There are no female leads in the game, and the black leads are all extremely negative stereotypes. All the minority characters are portrayed in a negative light (they are often the ones causing the corruption in the city). The game, consumed by mainly white middle class men, is clearly designed to promote certain beliefs or at least a certain ideology. It isn’t the violence that scares me, but that white men apparently need this “outlet” to get out their hate towards minorities and women. Why should this hate exist in the first place – and do games like this allow it to come out in a safe environment, or does it continue to promote the hate itself? Often times these companies go by the same rhetoric as insult comedians do, or insult shows – we are offending EVERYONE equally. But is it really equal? If you continue to lampoon minorities that are struggling, isn’t that different than a barb at the majority in power? And even though you are hitting on supposedly every group, does that really make it okay? And are you really hitting on every group equally? And what sort if impact do each of these insults or insinuations make for each group? Even if you shoot everyone, if you shoot someone with a BB gun and someone with a cannon, there is a difference in impact there. Do you simply poke fun at whites so you can get away with true racism? And from whom are the attacks coming from? The argument that “oh, everyone is attacked so it is okay!” is completely faulty – it is just a way to cover up and get away with being racist and misogynistic.
Going back over the comments made by Barack Obama about the working middle class, I think there is something that is being overlooked. Sure, there is a problem with him making the overarching generalization that the working class is a set of bitter, gun-toting, hate mongering bigots. I mean, plenty of rich upper class are hate-mongering. Plenty of college-educated people are hate-mongering. I think it has more to do with lack of education and exposure to other people who are different from them, or exposure to the situations going on that cause them to have negative viewpoints. But the most interesting thing is that these comments about the working class are so clung to and harped upon when the meat of the speech is ignored - that he can supposedly enact change without telling you what he is going to do! That he can make things better without causing a noticeable change in your life. "But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives." He mentions people being bitter in these towns because they haven't had jobs in a long time and the government keeps them down, but he doesn't say anything about helping them! I would be less concerned about him calling them bitter, less concerned about their supposed obsession with guns and religion, and more focused on the fact that he doesn't have any solutions for these people! Sure they may hold these negative viewpoints because they are tired of being run-down all the time, but why does that matter? Why does that need to be pointed out? What are you going to do to improve the situation now that you have recognized it? What are you going to do to try and educate them about these problems that you want them to care about? How are you going to help them so they don't need to blame others for the bad things that are happening to them? It is a very sad state of our politics today that we are more focused on who is name-calling who, and who is using the wrong words, instead of who has the best solutions and ideas. It is convenient that Obama calls for change - but in a very vague, round-about way. Who knows if the change he wants is the change I want too?
Recently Congress just voted to ban discrimination based on genetic predispositions for illnesses.
What?
So I can be predisposed to cancer and you won’t fire me but, but if I’m gay you can?! Don’t get me wrong, I understand that this bill is important. But it IS true that you are going to cost your company money paying your medical bills for your illness, when being gay harms no one and costs nothing to the company. I think it just goes to show what a grip the Fundamentalist Christians have on our country when it is so impossible to give people basic human rights. I can understand not wanting us to be involved in marriage, a institution largely considered to be religious based, but to not provide us with just basic human rights?
In addition, what if you believe that being gay is in your genes? I am then predisposed to be gay because of my genes – I mean, it may put being gay in the realm of an illness or disease, but at least then I won’t get fired or discriminated against! Some people say that if we try to line up being gay with genes that they will try to “fix” it. Well the day of gene therapy is far ahead in the future, and being gay is such a complex mix of genes and environment that it will probably never be “fixed” by gene therapy. So, maybe this can be used to the advantage of pushing forward the GLBT ERA, considering that most of the evidence leans towards there being a genetic predisposition to being gay. It seems like a double standard to me – if you are predisposed to an actual physical illness then that is okay, but if you are predisposed to be attracted to a certain gender, then that isn’t and you’re still going to be fired because of it. Are we going to pick and choose which genes are “okay” and which are “covered” by this law?!
So my sleeping schedule is all kinds of messed up. I've been going to bed at 1:30 or 2 am and then basically unable to get up until 11 am. I almost NEVER sleep in that late - usually I can't sleep much later than 10 or 10:30. But even after getting roughly 9 hours of sleep, I still am tired. My lymph nodes have felt a little swollen lately, so maybe my body is trying to fight something off.
It's nearing the end of the semester. I have a take home final to do, and a major paper left to write. I've been slowly making my way through the paper, but now progress has halted as I found out I didn't get the internship I was hoping for. So now I have to scramble to find one before the end of the month. It's getting to be that all my good news is consistently paired with or outweighed by bad.
Also, newspapers please stop calling the democratic nomination race over before it is actually over. Both candidates still have a fair chance, and I think it is a race that should be decided by...I dunno...the voting populace instead of smart-ass know-it-all political pundits who are often wrong.
But...that's just me. I've been unimpressed with Obama lately, and I don't know if he has the gumption or the ability to stand up against McCain....and I do NOT want to see McCain in office, people! I dunno if Obama can win over enough of the working class or on the fence republicans to win the overall election. So yes, for me it is more about making sure that a republican is NOT in office, as opposed to having the best possible democrat in office.
I'm not much of a TV fan. I haven't been since my sophomore year of college and I made the wise decision not to pay for cable. Since then, I've looked upon most things that come upon the TV with disdain. Personally, I'm more of an Internet and book fiend.
But, I do have to confess that my friend got me addicted to Lost when the second season came around. I borrowed his DVDs of the first season and basically had a marathon of watching them. Since then, I've been hooked - no other show has kept me this engaged! Sure, there have been other shows I have been a fan of. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena, Family Guy, Futurama, The L Word. But no show has consistently kept me interested, and very actively engaged. The L Word lost me midway through this season and I still haven't caught up on the episodes. I also like Heroes a lot, but haven't been able to figure out if/when it is coming back on air (or on the Internet, since I don't have cable), which kind of turns me off - I like to know when my shows are coming back!
But Lost is incredibly engaging for me. I love the complex character analysis, the interwinding storylines, the confusing puzzles, and the labarynth feeling to the show.
However, I do have a complaint. Stop the extreme focus on the Jack/Kate/Sawyer triangle. It's getting to be tedious. We know she can't choose. We know they are pissed about it. But for serious, it's getting exhausting to watch episode after episode that seems to be focused on their dysfucntional-ness.
I will forgive you, writers, for this annoyance. But only because the Jin/Sun storyline is so good.
Sorry if you aren't a Lost fan and are totally confused by the above rant, but I just had to get that out. If you haven't gotten into Lost, I would seriously recommend you check out the first season. It's probably some of the best stuff on TV. Great acting, fantastic writing, and very excellent cinematography.
Also....all the cool kids are watching it.
