Short answer: no.
It's an easy straw man argument to make for both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and liberals can claim that dissenting arguments are racist because we have a black president; Republicans and conservatives claim that all claims of racism are merely attempts to squelch dissent.
Of course, neither side is right and neither side is wrong. But if Joe Wilson has shown us anything, it's that the default skeptical view should be placed on the conservative argument.
Republicans love to martyr themselves. "Obama wants to crush dissenting voices!" they cry, not noticing that nobody is crushing them at all. "Well, the media won't let us speak!" they shout, apparently unaware that they are doing so on Fox News, a non-vital but significant member of The Media. And of course, if someone suggests that their unformed, vague, and unhelpful "opinion" is the product of an underlying, and racist, distrust of the President, well then you're in trouble, bucko.
Is every conservative opinion racist? Not by the longest of shots. Many are well thought-out, reasonable, and deserve to be considered. Doesn't mean I will ultimately agree, but I appreciate the alternative viewpoint.
But then there's the people who bring guns to townhall meetings. The people who have pictures of Obama as Hitler, or a monkey, or a monkey-Hitler. The people who yell out "You lie!" during the President's speech before Congress. These people add nothing of value whatsoever to the national debate. They are not "courageous" for taking a stand, as some claim. It is not courageous to act like a coward and a fool, especially when you're so very, very wrong. It's also not analogous to every other President; nobody questioned Bush's origins, or McCain's (even though there was just as much "evidence" that McCain was born out of the country as well) and when Clinton was running things, it was all about sex scandals. And nobody--nobody--yelled insults at them during a joint session of Congress. Especially not an elected official.
And for what it's worth, Obama didn't lie. The health care bill has a provision that explicitly disallows the benefits it confers from flowing to illegal immigrants. So Joe Wilson is not only an uncouth coward, he's also an idiot. Well played, sir.
But is he any stupider than the various townhall attendees, who shout about socialism and fascism without realizing there's a remarkable difference between the two? And is he any stupider than those who elected him and who will, I'm sure, see his pathetic outburst as a source of pride? It's tough to make South Carolina look any worse than it already is, but Wilson sure found a way.
To be fair, I don't trust the liberals who argue that any dissent is based on a foundation of racism, either. It is a foolish message that is tantamount to crying wolf; if every dissent is racist, then we won't be able to rally the outrage necessary when the actual racism rears its ugly head.
Because honestly, contesting the President's country of birth? I don't care how rational you think your argument, it is the height of "The Other"-based fear. Obama is an Other! We have proof! By being an Other, his opinions and ideas are invalid!
It's such complete bullshit that I'm amazed people can stand it. I guess when you have a kernel of an idea at the core (the birth certificate) it just fuels the other issues that haven't found a place to take hold (the racism). But it's sad, and it makes me sad to see our country behave this way.
Then, it makes me angry and I want Obama to win EVERYTHING just to shut those racists bastards up. I gotta find a way to help on that front.
Showing posts with label is it crazy in here?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label is it crazy in here?. Show all posts
September 15, 2009
August 20, 2009
And Now For a Different Point-of-View
Even amongst you like-minded readers, I may get some heat for this one. No worries.
One of the big stories today is that the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was released to return home to Libya. He has terminal cancer of some kind, and it was uniformly agreed he would not live beyond 3 months.
This guy (Megrahi) was convicted in 2001 so he hasn't been in prison very long. And you may recall, the 1988 bombing killed 270 people. But Scottish law--the plane crashed in Lockerbie, so he was tried/imprisoned by the Scots--allows "compassionate" releases of prisoners in Megrahi's situation.
Needless to say, pretty much everybody is against this. I've seen numerous firestorm opinions about how terrible a decision this was by the Scottish government. I've even seen no less than four Facebook status updates decrying his release.
I disagree. I think it's fine.
Why? Because why not. What purpose does it serve to have this man die in prison, as opposed to at home with his family? In fact, it only adds more vitriol and poison into the world. Had he died in prison, it'd be a minor news story and the victims of Flight 103 (the families of those lost) might pause a moment and be glad he's gone from the earth. But is it better that he die in prison? It adds nothing of value. It doesn't make the dead return to life, and it's not, as everyone has been screaming, justice that he die in prison.
Justice means that he was held accountable. I don't recall the specifics of his charges, or what he was ultimately convicted for, but he was caught, tried, and imprisoned. He was brought to justice. His illness makes it virtually impossible for him to cause harm again. Justice was served, and anything beyond that--wishing that he'd die in prison, sick and alone--is vengeance. Vengeance is unbecoming and, while it is an understandable desire for those who have been wronged, it serves no purpose. Vengeance adds nothing to our humanity, and is in fact only a reflection of the baser instincts we should strive to overcome.
I keep reading that Megrahi "didn't have compassion for the victims of 103, why should we give him any?" But compassion is easy to have when it involves your grandmother. It's much tougher to apply when the focus of the compassion is a man that by all accounts is a fairly evil guy. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him compassion. It makes us better people having done so.
One of the big stories today is that the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was released to return home to Libya. He has terminal cancer of some kind, and it was uniformly agreed he would not live beyond 3 months.
This guy (Megrahi) was convicted in 2001 so he hasn't been in prison very long. And you may recall, the 1988 bombing killed 270 people. But Scottish law--the plane crashed in Lockerbie, so he was tried/imprisoned by the Scots--allows "compassionate" releases of prisoners in Megrahi's situation.
Needless to say, pretty much everybody is against this. I've seen numerous firestorm opinions about how terrible a decision this was by the Scottish government. I've even seen no less than four Facebook status updates decrying his release.
I disagree. I think it's fine.
Why? Because why not. What purpose does it serve to have this man die in prison, as opposed to at home with his family? In fact, it only adds more vitriol and poison into the world. Had he died in prison, it'd be a minor news story and the victims of Flight 103 (the families of those lost) might pause a moment and be glad he's gone from the earth. But is it better that he die in prison? It adds nothing of value. It doesn't make the dead return to life, and it's not, as everyone has been screaming, justice that he die in prison.
Justice means that he was held accountable. I don't recall the specifics of his charges, or what he was ultimately convicted for, but he was caught, tried, and imprisoned. He was brought to justice. His illness makes it virtually impossible for him to cause harm again. Justice was served, and anything beyond that--wishing that he'd die in prison, sick and alone--is vengeance. Vengeance is unbecoming and, while it is an understandable desire for those who have been wronged, it serves no purpose. Vengeance adds nothing to our humanity, and is in fact only a reflection of the baser instincts we should strive to overcome.
I keep reading that Megrahi "didn't have compassion for the victims of 103, why should we give him any?" But compassion is easy to have when it involves your grandmother. It's much tougher to apply when the focus of the compassion is a man that by all accounts is a fairly evil guy. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him compassion. It makes us better people having done so.
June 9, 2009
So Oblivious
I am trying to be more understanding of people, in general. I have a touch of the road rage, because there is so much inattention and stupidity on the roads.
I realize, and am fairly egotistical in this regard, that I am more aware of my surroundings than the common man. I say this not to imply a superhuman quality on my part, but after many years of watching people act like morons.
People who are walking down the street, oblivious to the fact that there are cross streets where, egads, they don't have the right of way. They act as if this is the first time they have ever seen a "Don't Walk" sign, and often even step into the street to cross without looking both ways. Weren't they children once? It's right up there with not taking candy from strangers.
People who stop at the top or bottom of the escalator to get their bearings, when an escalator full of people are right behind them. Then they get all flustered when someone (usually not me) yells, "Move!" because the escalator folk are about to start trampling each other.
People who put their seats back in an airplane. I know, this may be controversial and isn't really indicative of idiocy, but it bugs me. We all have so little space. You are not so special that 3 extra inches you get are worth the inconvenience to the person behind you. The mere fact that the seats CAN go down is not a license to do so. I don't believe the majority of people who put their seats back even think about the person behind them, which is why I put this in the same category of obliviousness.
But getting older has made me realize that these people are being purposely stupid. Sometimes, people just don't know. Or they don't pay attention. It is not a good thing, but it is also not a crippling personality defect. Since I will never see most of these people again, why let it bug me?
I think this is the "Anti-Larry David" approach. Although I still think Curb Your Enthusiasm is great, it is not a good way to live for real.
I realize, and am fairly egotistical in this regard, that I am more aware of my surroundings than the common man. I say this not to imply a superhuman quality on my part, but after many years of watching people act like morons.
People who are walking down the street, oblivious to the fact that there are cross streets where, egads, they don't have the right of way. They act as if this is the first time they have ever seen a "Don't Walk" sign, and often even step into the street to cross without looking both ways. Weren't they children once? It's right up there with not taking candy from strangers.
People who stop at the top or bottom of the escalator to get their bearings, when an escalator full of people are right behind them. Then they get all flustered when someone (usually not me) yells, "Move!" because the escalator folk are about to start trampling each other.
People who put their seats back in an airplane. I know, this may be controversial and isn't really indicative of idiocy, but it bugs me. We all have so little space. You are not so special that 3 extra inches you get are worth the inconvenience to the person behind you. The mere fact that the seats CAN go down is not a license to do so. I don't believe the majority of people who put their seats back even think about the person behind them, which is why I put this in the same category of obliviousness.
But getting older has made me realize that these people are being purposely stupid. Sometimes, people just don't know. Or they don't pay attention. It is not a good thing, but it is also not a crippling personality defect. Since I will never see most of these people again, why let it bug me?
I think this is the "Anti-Larry David" approach. Although I still think Curb Your Enthusiasm is great, it is not a good way to live for real.
February 20, 2009
2 Cents: The Octuplet Lady
I am a few weeks late on this, but I watched the Dateline (or whoever) special last weekend and, as I watched, I thought that I would probably have to lay out some sort of blog post on the Crazy Baby Factory Lady.
(see, e.g., this article if you're unclear as to what I'm talking about)
The interview she did with Ann Curry helped make her seem less whack-job crazy, and more standard-style crazy like most of us. I think you have to break down her issues into two distinct categories: Wanting To Have Kids and then Raising 14 Bloody Children.
Wanting to Have Kids
Nadya Suleman wanted to have a big family. There are many reasons for this, and it sounds as if the way she was raised had a big influence on this desire. She underwent in vitro fertilization (or something similar) 5 times, and ended up with 6 kids because the last pregnancy resulted in twins. Then, according to her interview, she was happy and done.
But she had potential eggs left over at the clinic. And, she's religious or spiritual in such a way that she wanted to give those eggs a shot. I can respect that, even if my own opinion on the matter would be significantly different. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but the doctors gave one more go at pregnancy (for a presumably 7th or 7th/8th child) and BAM. A friggin' percussion section takes up residence in her uterus.
Now, I don't "agree" with someone who wants to have any more than say, 3 kids on their own. 2 or 3 children, as a single parent who is still pursuing her education, already taxes my conscience. 5 or 6 is downright silly. But I'm also aware that it's my opinion and I don't think there is anything inherently immoral about it. Especially after seeing her interviewed, where she came across as tired and a bit exasperated but not unduly nuts.
Her worst decision was in having "one more go" at her remaining ova. I can see the moral significance--if you believe that every "life" deserves a chance, you'd want to give these eggs a shot--but maybe they should have been donated to another infertile couple instead.
Raising 14 Bloody Children
So she got pregnant with what she thought was 7 kids (the 8th was a surprise during delivery). It is possible to selectively abort multiple fetuses in this situation, but after reading the above rationale for having the babies, why on earth would anyone expect her to do this? She wanted to give those eggs a shot, and boy howdy did they take her up on the offer.
But what's done is done, and I can't really fault her for not terminating any of the fetuses. Moreover, she now has 14 kids. Should she select some to give up for adoption? That seems arbitrary. Everybody is calling on various companies to boycott her, but while I believe she has been guilty of poor decision making, once the kids are out of the womb and walking around, my greater sense of charity towards the children overrides any sense that she should be punished. Because let's be honest, punishing Suleman is just punishing her children, who didn't do anything wrong here.
So I think anybody who wants to send them diapers or crates of baby clothes should go ahead and do so. Whether or not it "encourages" this kind of behavior is irrelevant; the behavior happened and now there are 14 kids that need assistance.
Final Tally
For those keeping score at home, here were Ms. Suleman's objective mistakes:
1. One of her first 6 children -- the 4th, I believe -- is autistic. That right there should have been the end of the line as far as having more babies; raising an autistic child has got be as taxing as 2 or 3 developmentally normal children.
2. ADOPTION, lady. One of her common refrains to Ann Curry is that she just wanted to have a big family like she didn't have, and that she wanted to have children all her own. I can respect that. I can even respect having one or two kids biologically to sate that desire. But after that? There are SO many children that could use a better home, why on earth would you have even 2 or 3 more on purpose when you could just adopt?
(see, e.g., this article if you're unclear as to what I'm talking about)
The interview she did with Ann Curry helped make her seem less whack-job crazy, and more standard-style crazy like most of us. I think you have to break down her issues into two distinct categories: Wanting To Have Kids and then Raising 14 Bloody Children.
Wanting to Have Kids
Nadya Suleman wanted to have a big family. There are many reasons for this, and it sounds as if the way she was raised had a big influence on this desire. She underwent in vitro fertilization (or something similar) 5 times, and ended up with 6 kids because the last pregnancy resulted in twins. Then, according to her interview, she was happy and done.
But she had potential eggs left over at the clinic. And, she's religious or spiritual in such a way that she wanted to give those eggs a shot. I can respect that, even if my own opinion on the matter would be significantly different. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but the doctors gave one more go at pregnancy (for a presumably 7th or 7th/8th child) and BAM. A friggin' percussion section takes up residence in her uterus.
Now, I don't "agree" with someone who wants to have any more than say, 3 kids on their own. 2 or 3 children, as a single parent who is still pursuing her education, already taxes my conscience. 5 or 6 is downright silly. But I'm also aware that it's my opinion and I don't think there is anything inherently immoral about it. Especially after seeing her interviewed, where she came across as tired and a bit exasperated but not unduly nuts.
Her worst decision was in having "one more go" at her remaining ova. I can see the moral significance--if you believe that every "life" deserves a chance, you'd want to give these eggs a shot--but maybe they should have been donated to another infertile couple instead.
Raising 14 Bloody Children
So she got pregnant with what she thought was 7 kids (the 8th was a surprise during delivery). It is possible to selectively abort multiple fetuses in this situation, but after reading the above rationale for having the babies, why on earth would anyone expect her to do this? She wanted to give those eggs a shot, and boy howdy did they take her up on the offer.
But what's done is done, and I can't really fault her for not terminating any of the fetuses. Moreover, she now has 14 kids. Should she select some to give up for adoption? That seems arbitrary. Everybody is calling on various companies to boycott her, but while I believe she has been guilty of poor decision making, once the kids are out of the womb and walking around, my greater sense of charity towards the children overrides any sense that she should be punished. Because let's be honest, punishing Suleman is just punishing her children, who didn't do anything wrong here.
So I think anybody who wants to send them diapers or crates of baby clothes should go ahead and do so. Whether or not it "encourages" this kind of behavior is irrelevant; the behavior happened and now there are 14 kids that need assistance.
Final Tally
For those keeping score at home, here were Ms. Suleman's objective mistakes:
1. One of her first 6 children -- the 4th, I believe -- is autistic. That right there should have been the end of the line as far as having more babies; raising an autistic child has got be as taxing as 2 or 3 developmentally normal children.
2. ADOPTION, lady. One of her common refrains to Ann Curry is that she just wanted to have a big family like she didn't have, and that she wanted to have children all her own. I can respect that. I can even respect having one or two kids biologically to sate that desire. But after that? There are SO many children that could use a better home, why on earth would you have even 2 or 3 more on purpose when you could just adopt?
November 9, 2008
"Your Honor..."
The day before oral argument, even at a fairly inconsequential hearing, it a pain in my ass. Every time I have a moment of silence, or am not actively engaging in some activity, I start rehearsing said argument in my head.
Or, out loud. In the shower, driving on the highway, drying off after the shower. Naked oral argument is weird, by the way.
It doesn't really prepare me, either. I will speak from a rough outline which has yet to be written, so all the pacing and practicing in my apartment is vaguely useless.
I do like this part of my job, though. And, the tentative ruling was not in our favor, which makes me the underdog, which makes me like it even more.*
*though note to self, write better briefs so you're not the underdog.
Or, out loud. In the shower, driving on the highway, drying off after the shower. Naked oral argument is weird, by the way.
It doesn't really prepare me, either. I will speak from a rough outline which has yet to be written, so all the pacing and practicing in my apartment is vaguely useless.
I do like this part of my job, though. And, the tentative ruling was not in our favor, which makes me the underdog, which makes me like it even more.*
*though note to self, write better briefs so you're not the underdog.
November 6, 2008
Yikes
In an attempt to gloat about the massive triumph on Tuesday, I went by a few conservative blogs and websites to drink down their sweet, sweet tears. Not so much to post things comments, but just to take it all in.
I don't really visit these sites with regularity, because while I enjoy a good debate, there is little to be found on most conservative websites. I mean, there is a debate with reality that most of these sites lose regularly, but not a debate with real people involved.
So I was sort of disappointed to see that not only are they sore losers--a minor sin that I have been guilty of myself, and can forgive--but some of these folks have LOST IT completely.
I won't go into details (because that's not the point, and because I said no more politics for awhile) but damn if I ever saw such hate-filled invective. More than angry, I became sad for these people. I firmly believe that Nov. 4 is a keystone day for our country, and will be historically reviewed as a perfect example of American excellence. And it is sad to realize there will be a significant, but small, portion of the country that has eternalized their hatred for this event in electronic form.
You people are old oats. You're betamax. You're the neanderthal, and the cro-magnons have arrived. The dustbin of history awaits.
I don't really visit these sites with regularity, because while I enjoy a good debate, there is little to be found on most conservative websites. I mean, there is a debate with reality that most of these sites lose regularly, but not a debate with real people involved.
So I was sort of disappointed to see that not only are they sore losers--a minor sin that I have been guilty of myself, and can forgive--but some of these folks have LOST IT completely.
I won't go into details (because that's not the point, and because I said no more politics for awhile) but damn if I ever saw such hate-filled invective. More than angry, I became sad for these people. I firmly believe that Nov. 4 is a keystone day for our country, and will be historically reviewed as a perfect example of American excellence. And it is sad to realize there will be a significant, but small, portion of the country that has eternalized their hatred for this event in electronic form.
You people are old oats. You're betamax. You're the neanderthal, and the cro-magnons have arrived. The dustbin of history awaits.
November 5, 2008
Yes We Can
I wanted to get my thoughts down now, before sleep dulls them.
There was nothing (at the national level) that didn't go perfectly tonight. My home state was the domino that called it for Obama. He has surpassed 300 electoral votes and may pass 350--a landslide. More than 50% of the vote--a mandate.
McCain was extraordinarily classy in his concession speech. His crowd was, well, the crowd that his campaign cultivated. They were not classy.
Obama was... pretty much as he always is. Amazing. Humble and exceedingly aware of the tasks before us. Inspiring, even. Did you see Jesse Jackson with tears in his eyes?
The coming weeks and months may dull this feeling, as "politics" takes over, at least to a certain degree.
But right now, I've got hope for America, for the first time in my entire life. That our country and our world might finally move in a positive direction, instead of scraping out an existence, trying not to slip back into the dark ages.
It is probably uncharacteristically naive of me. But look at what we did; in spite of our best efforts to screw this up, we elected the right man for the job. And more than that, we etched a permanent achievement in our history, one that cannot be undone no matter how the next 4-8 years turn out.
Thank you, America, for doing the right thing.
There was nothing (at the national level) that didn't go perfectly tonight. My home state was the domino that called it for Obama. He has surpassed 300 electoral votes and may pass 350--a landslide. More than 50% of the vote--a mandate.
McCain was extraordinarily classy in his concession speech. His crowd was, well, the crowd that his campaign cultivated. They were not classy.
Obama was... pretty much as he always is. Amazing. Humble and exceedingly aware of the tasks before us. Inspiring, even. Did you see Jesse Jackson with tears in his eyes?
The coming weeks and months may dull this feeling, as "politics" takes over, at least to a certain degree.
But right now, I've got hope for America, for the first time in my entire life. That our country and our world might finally move in a positive direction, instead of scraping out an existence, trying not to slip back into the dark ages.
It is probably uncharacteristically naive of me. But look at what we did; in spite of our best efforts to screw this up, we elected the right man for the job. And more than that, we etched a permanent achievement in our history, one that cannot be undone no matter how the next 4-8 years turn out.
Thank you, America, for doing the right thing.
October 7, 2008
Eight-Year-Olds, Dude*
I've gone on rants against bad drivers before--who hasn't, really, unless you are one of those bad drivers--but today I thought I'd share the wealth and tear pedestrians a new one.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
September 10, 2008
I Know I'm a Broken Record
Unfortunately for you all, my daily life does not allow me much room to vent about politics. My job is not remotely political, I live in a city full of people who think along the same lines, and my friends don't need any convincing.
So when I read--and maybe I should stop doing that--about all the fantastically stupid "white women" who are giving McCain a big jump, I have nowhere to release my anger. Anger at how as a group, almost any demographic can be insipidly short-sighted. I just expected better from women.
But I suppose that's equality. Men don't have a monopoly on being morons. We're all on the stupidity ship together, sometimes.
This election is shaping up to be one of the first times in memory that I'm in danger of being really disappointed in my country. Kerry in '04 was sad, but he lacked a number of important qualities that could have pushed the election in his favor. Obama just has everything going for him--he wins on the issues, on the politics, and on personality--except that we are, collectively, morons. Call me an elitist, but I'm really starting to question the very sanity and morality of those who side with the GOP on this stuff.
So I'm sorry that I keep using this space for going-nowhere political rants. I should talk more about my visit back home this past week (it was great!) or non-political issues I like to ramble on about. Class warfare, chicks, why the Tigers are so very disappointing, etc. The stuff that sells newspapers.
So when I read--and maybe I should stop doing that--about all the fantastically stupid "white women" who are giving McCain a big jump, I have nowhere to release my anger. Anger at how as a group, almost any demographic can be insipidly short-sighted. I just expected better from women.
But I suppose that's equality. Men don't have a monopoly on being morons. We're all on the stupidity ship together, sometimes.
This election is shaping up to be one of the first times in memory that I'm in danger of being really disappointed in my country. Kerry in '04 was sad, but he lacked a number of important qualities that could have pushed the election in his favor. Obama just has everything going for him--he wins on the issues, on the politics, and on personality--except that we are, collectively, morons. Call me an elitist, but I'm really starting to question the very sanity and morality of those who side with the GOP on this stuff.
So I'm sorry that I keep using this space for going-nowhere political rants. I should talk more about my visit back home this past week (it was great!) or non-political issues I like to ramble on about. Class warfare, chicks, why the Tigers are so very disappointing, etc. The stuff that sells newspapers.
August 26, 2008
What a Lousy Time to Be in California
All of a sudden, my home state is a political battleground!
Who'd have thought that the former capital of the Confederacy would have the Democrat and Republican nominees for President in a virtual tie?
And here I sit in the blue-as-the-sky liberal oasis of California. Great for living (especially the Bay Area!) but not so great for effecting political change. If anybody wants to trade votes this election, I'm more than willing to cast one of the many dozens McCain is sure to get out here. Or is that voter fraud? If it is, I was totally joking!
Seriously though, now I gots to get real with you Virginia folk. Something like 75% of my readership lives in Virginia these days, and ya'll have to step up your (collective) game! Make this shit happen, yo!
Some of you are even dating Republicans. Normally I am a tolerant person, and will merely sigh at the backwards attitudes of your misguided paramours. But you have an election (conceivably) in the balance! The time for allowing such gentle disagreement is over. The time for arm-twisting, withholding of sexual favors, and other devious tactics is here!
I mean, really. What if he/she votes for McCain, and we have another Florida on our hands, only in the Old Dominion? Do you want him/her to be one of the 500 votes that gives McCain the Presidency?
As noted yesterday, I'll be back in town in September, but probably not again before election day. I will put my money where my mouth is, and provide any ideological backup you need at that time.
And FYI, I really do know a number of you (more than 3) that are dating possible GOP types, so this isn't directed at any particular individual. BUT YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
Who'd have thought that the former capital of the Confederacy would have the Democrat and Republican nominees for President in a virtual tie?
And here I sit in the blue-as-the-sky liberal oasis of California. Great for living (especially the Bay Area!) but not so great for effecting political change. If anybody wants to trade votes this election, I'm more than willing to cast one of the many dozens McCain is sure to get out here. Or is that voter fraud? If it is, I was totally joking!
Seriously though, now I gots to get real with you Virginia folk. Something like 75% of my readership lives in Virginia these days, and ya'll have to step up your (collective) game! Make this shit happen, yo!
Some of you are even dating Republicans. Normally I am a tolerant person, and will merely sigh at the backwards attitudes of your misguided paramours. But you have an election (conceivably) in the balance! The time for allowing such gentle disagreement is over. The time for arm-twisting, withholding of sexual favors, and other devious tactics is here!
I mean, really. What if he/she votes for McCain, and we have another Florida on our hands, only in the Old Dominion? Do you want him/her to be one of the 500 votes that gives McCain the Presidency?
As noted yesterday, I'll be back in town in September, but probably not again before election day. I will put my money where my mouth is, and provide any ideological backup you need at that time.
And FYI, I really do know a number of you (more than 3) that are dating possible GOP types, so this isn't directed at any particular individual. BUT YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
August 19, 2008
I'm Bad Luck
In the last 6 months, three of the restaurants I've eaten at here in the East Bay have been robbed.
One was actually robbed the very next night after I was there.
Fortunately nobody is hurt in these robberies, but damn, Oakland. Not cool.
One was actually robbed the very next night after I was there.
Fortunately nobody is hurt in these robberies, but damn, Oakland. Not cool.
August 12, 2008
Olympic Rant
Oh come on, you knew I was going to get around to this eventually.
The Olympics are here. In full, soft-focus, sad sack, triumph over the adversity of having a semi-uncomfortable childhood, glory. It's a bit cliched at this point to take offense at the truly insipid back stories that NBC insists on running (Peacock: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE VOLLEYBALL PLAYER'S WEDDING RING) so I'll just let others take that topic on.
And honestly, you can't offends tens of... well tens of people with such lukewarm antagonism. People who live for those vignettes are idiots; most of us tolerate them and once in a blue moon find something interesting. So instead, I present:
What's the Big Deal Anyway With Like, 80% of These Sports?
Here's the thing. I admire when a person devotes their life (and at this level, it really is a devotion of that caliber) to a single achievement. Even when that achievement is sort of lame, in the context of all of humanity's endeavors. I speak largely of things like synchronized diving and the equestrian sports, but this is actually applicable to almost all sports. I have to ask: so what?
Now is when I backpedal to say, of course participation and excellence in these areas are noteworthy, to a degree. I would not say for a second that I could ever match the skill that the synchro divers exhibit, even with the same amount of training. There is an inherent talent that I do not suppose I have.
But that being said, just because a group of people devote themselves to doing something, and at some point they compete and one becomes the best at that thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they have reached the pinnacle of human possibility. The Games are rife with such statements, announcers noting that, "we are witnessing the best of the best in all the world," and so forth.
To me, the most interesting Olympic sports are those that are more pure. Running, for example. You can be the Fastest Man/Woman Alive at the Olympics--and we all run. In my mind, running is pure and straightforward and not all frill'd up with shuttlecocks and horses and epees. Swimming is similar, except that there are a bunch of different types and that seems a little silly. Freestyle is the fastest (when comparing world-records) so I like that one best. The fastest human in the world, in the water, is some Australian or Michael Phelps, depending on which race you gauge speed with.
Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who loves rowing, and thinks that those who row crew in the Olympics are amazing athletes. But technology adds something to the sport that keeps me from saying they are "pinnacles".
I won't even get started on sports that require judges to give scores. How do you "win" the pommel-horse?
This is (as titled) a rant, but it's not meant to be overly spiteful. I applaud everybody who achieves. But for me, the best part of the Olympics are the sports that you can do naked.
The Olympics are here. In full, soft-focus, sad sack, triumph over the adversity of having a semi-uncomfortable childhood, glory. It's a bit cliched at this point to take offense at the truly insipid back stories that NBC insists on running (Peacock: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE VOLLEYBALL PLAYER'S WEDDING RING) so I'll just let others take that topic on.
And honestly, you can't offends tens of... well tens of people with such lukewarm antagonism. People who live for those vignettes are idiots; most of us tolerate them and once in a blue moon find something interesting. So instead, I present:
What's the Big Deal Anyway With Like, 80% of These Sports?
Here's the thing. I admire when a person devotes their life (and at this level, it really is a devotion of that caliber) to a single achievement. Even when that achievement is sort of lame, in the context of all of humanity's endeavors. I speak largely of things like synchronized diving and the equestrian sports, but this is actually applicable to almost all sports. I have to ask: so what?
Now is when I backpedal to say, of course participation and excellence in these areas are noteworthy, to a degree. I would not say for a second that I could ever match the skill that the synchro divers exhibit, even with the same amount of training. There is an inherent talent that I do not suppose I have.
But that being said, just because a group of people devote themselves to doing something, and at some point they compete and one becomes the best at that thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they have reached the pinnacle of human possibility. The Games are rife with such statements, announcers noting that, "we are witnessing the best of the best in all the world," and so forth.
To me, the most interesting Olympic sports are those that are more pure. Running, for example. You can be the Fastest Man/Woman Alive at the Olympics--and we all run. In my mind, running is pure and straightforward and not all frill'd up with shuttlecocks and horses and epees. Swimming is similar, except that there are a bunch of different types and that seems a little silly. Freestyle is the fastest (when comparing world-records) so I like that one best. The fastest human in the world, in the water, is some Australian or Michael Phelps, depending on which race you gauge speed with.
Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who loves rowing, and thinks that those who row crew in the Olympics are amazing athletes. But technology adds something to the sport that keeps me from saying they are "pinnacles".
I won't even get started on sports that require judges to give scores. How do you "win" the pommel-horse?
This is (as titled) a rant, but it's not meant to be overly spiteful. I applaud everybody who achieves. But for me, the best part of the Olympics are the sports that you can do naked.
July 23, 2008
If My Life Were Covered by Us Magazine Blind Items
ITEM! It was a veritable who's who of Bay Area royalty Saturday night at the marriage of two of the city's most accomplished individuals. The night went off without a hitch, and even though reporters were summarily banned from the reception, an insider tells us it was all smiles, cake and an open bar--at least until the event wound down and one particular guest couldn't quite keep his bar tab from "resurfacing", if you get our drift. He was, however, kindly driven back to his hotel by one of the few remaining Bay Area bachelors we still swoon over. Sources say a donation towards a wax and detail job was made to cover any damage to the good samaritan's custom-built luxury car.
ITEM! The same above heartthrob-on-the-Bay attempted to go incognito Tuesday night to an evening showing of The Dark Knight--but had to settle for Hellboy 2 when all the showtimes were taken! Even this lawyerly lothario's star presence couldn't swing a ticket to the sold out Bale-based bat flic. Sources tell us he seemed to enjoy the replacement film, however; maybe thinking back to his tryst with the film's lovely leading lady during her promotional tour in the south of France?
ITEM! The same above heartthrob-on-the-Bay attempted to go incognito Tuesday night to an evening showing of The Dark Knight--but had to settle for Hellboy 2 when all the showtimes were taken! Even this lawyerly lothario's star presence couldn't swing a ticket to the sold out Bale-based bat flic. Sources tell us he seemed to enjoy the replacement film, however; maybe thinking back to his tryst with the film's lovely leading lady during her promotional tour in the south of France?
July 16, 2008
"Your Perspective Will Shift"
"Chinese" food from Panda Express is inherently shady. I work not but 4 blocks from a legitimate Chinatown (Oakland's, not the over-the-top gaudy and touristy SF Chinatown) but sometimes I don't have time to make that trek. And, as with any authentically ethnic food, you really have to know where to go, lest it becomes too authentic and your stomach (or psyche) can't handle it.
That's a long intro way of saying yeah, I eat at Panda Express on occasion. It's not bad, the portions are good, and (in my head) it's not nearly the worst thing I could be having for lunch.
But the best part of Panda are the fortune cookies. Of course they're mass-produced in a factory somewhere, and I'm not one for superstition so I don't really believe in their prognosticatory value. I won't even go into how plaaaayed adding "in bed" is after these things. But Panda's fortunes are consistently funny, or poignant, without being lame or too "Confucius says"-y.
So today, I got "Your Perspective Will Shift". In the past, I've gotten way-off-the-mark missives such as "You will be recognized and honored as a community leader," and "You will soon be gifted with gold pieces."
I enjoy the randomness of these fortunes. They are better than more generic "You will find happiness soon" or "A change of fortune is just around the corner" crap that you usually see.
Will my perspective shift? I'm not sure in what way, but I'm now on the lookout for a good spiritual kick to the head. Why would anybody turn that down?
That's a long intro way of saying yeah, I eat at Panda Express on occasion. It's not bad, the portions are good, and (in my head) it's not nearly the worst thing I could be having for lunch.
But the best part of Panda are the fortune cookies. Of course they're mass-produced in a factory somewhere, and I'm not one for superstition so I don't really believe in their prognosticatory value. I won't even go into how plaaaayed adding "in bed" is after these things. But Panda's fortunes are consistently funny, or poignant, without being lame or too "Confucius says"-y.
So today, I got "Your Perspective Will Shift". In the past, I've gotten way-off-the-mark missives such as "You will be recognized and honored as a community leader," and "You will soon be gifted with gold pieces."
I enjoy the randomness of these fortunes. They are better than more generic "You will find happiness soon" or "A change of fortune is just around the corner" crap that you usually see.
Will my perspective shift? I'm not sure in what way, but I'm now on the lookout for a good spiritual kick to the head. Why would anybody turn that down?
May 28, 2008
Leave Me to My Books!
This best part about this article is the company it puts us lawyers in.
Most people usually don't think of lawyers as introverted, but the bulk of the lawyers out there aren't Jack McCoy trial lawyers (though I guess he's the DA now, and no longer a trial lawyer). They sit in offices and sift through paperwork for 90% of the time.
The problem is that the other 10% of the time, you have to fight your introvert nature. And not just by going to social/marketing events (dinner parties, etc.) but for really important, case-dispositive things. Court appearances, contentious telephone calls with opposing counsel--these are tough for the introvert to navigate. I know, because I have a very strong introvert streak.
But it works out in the end, at least in my case. My introversion stems mostly from being uncomfortable when I don't have the full picture of the situation. I don't like not having all the information, so when I'm in that situation I tend to sit back and nod, or just take notes. But when I do have all the information (or--and this is key--when I think I do) I use that as a means to cut right through my introvert tendencies. This works out great in court, when I've had a chance to prepare, review statutes, and so forth. It works okay in deposition, when you're never 100% sure what the witness will say.
It still works poorly when I have to call people, especially when I need something from them.
Maybe I should have been a "systems analyst", whatever the hell that is.
Most people usually don't think of lawyers as introverted, but the bulk of the lawyers out there aren't Jack McCoy trial lawyers (though I guess he's the DA now, and no longer a trial lawyer). They sit in offices and sift through paperwork for 90% of the time.
The problem is that the other 10% of the time, you have to fight your introvert nature. And not just by going to social/marketing events (dinner parties, etc.) but for really important, case-dispositive things. Court appearances, contentious telephone calls with opposing counsel--these are tough for the introvert to navigate. I know, because I have a very strong introvert streak.
But it works out in the end, at least in my case. My introversion stems mostly from being uncomfortable when I don't have the full picture of the situation. I don't like not having all the information, so when I'm in that situation I tend to sit back and nod, or just take notes. But when I do have all the information (or--and this is key--when I think I do) I use that as a means to cut right through my introvert tendencies. This works out great in court, when I've had a chance to prepare, review statutes, and so forth. It works okay in deposition, when you're never 100% sure what the witness will say.
It still works poorly when I have to call people, especially when I need something from them.
Maybe I should have been a "systems analyst", whatever the hell that is.
May 2, 2008
So, What the Hell Was That?
Did anyone ever see that fairly lame Disney movie from the late 70s, The Black Hole? It had Anthony Perkins, Ernest Borgnine, and a crapload of annoying robots?
It holds a strange place in my heart, that movie. 80% is stupid Disney crap, but then near then end it gets really messed up. First, there's this big red evil robot which gave me nightmares* and who at the end of the movie purees Tony Perkins with a big ol' fan blade. It's really graphic, for a kids' movie.
Then there's the real ending, where (spoilers?) the ship goes into the black hole and we get a trippy ending in which the bad guy merges with the evil robot Maximilian, and perhaps lives to eternity trapped in the cold hard shell of his own evil creation. Or, he goes to hell. Or, they all die and it's a dream. I dunno, but that is some seriously weird shit to watch when you're like, 5.
Perkins bites it hard - YouTube.
*This even comes up because I had a dream with a big red robot of nondescript intentions. But when I woke up it made me think of this red fucker, and now I'm a little bit weirded out for the day.
It holds a strange place in my heart, that movie. 80% is stupid Disney crap, but then near then end it gets really messed up. First, there's this big red evil robot which gave me nightmares* and who at the end of the movie purees Tony Perkins with a big ol' fan blade. It's really graphic, for a kids' movie.
Then there's the real ending, where (spoilers?) the ship goes into the black hole and we get a trippy ending in which the bad guy merges with the evil robot Maximilian, and perhaps lives to eternity trapped in the cold hard shell of his own evil creation. Or, he goes to hell. Or, they all die and it's a dream. I dunno, but that is some seriously weird shit to watch when you're like, 5.
Perkins bites it hard - YouTube.
*This even comes up because I had a dream with a big red robot of nondescript intentions. But when I woke up it made me think of this red fucker, and now I'm a little bit weirded out for the day.
April 14, 2008
Settlement Agreements
I can't really pretend to know what goes on inside the female mind. I've had plenty of experience with women, and with female friends, and with sisters, but there's a limit to what I can figure out.
Today on Opinionistas (which, despite being very irregularly updated these days, is a great read), we get a fiery opposition to the latest in self-help for women.
I started reading the source material, and as I often do, formed my own opinion on the topic. In brief, this chick says you ladies need to settle a.s.a.p. and stop looking for a "deeper connection" or a "soul mate". Marry the first idiot to come along that doesn't deeply offend you, just so you can have babies and not be alone.
While I agree whole-heartedly with Ms. Lafsky, in that there is little merit to people who think that the uninspired path they have chosen should be the path for everyone, I would add this:
Please do not "settle" for me. There is a quote from one guy in the original article where he says that his dream girl is now 35 and he expects to be engaged/married by the time she is 37. Why? Because although she's dumped him multiple times, with the excuse that she doesn't seem them having a future together, her good sense will be ultimately overridden by her biological and social clocks.
This guy is a doofus. "It's not settling to me, I get to marry my dream girl!" is a sad, sad lot in life.
A friend of mine (hey Amy!) has a theory that the best relationships (hetero, anyhow) are the ones where the guy is just a little bit more in love with the girl than the reverse. We've discussed the theory at length, and I have come to believe it is a good one, and has been proven accurate in numerous anecdotal situations. However, we also agreed that this disparity is supposed to be fairly small; it is not "break up 4 times and then settle" sized. If you could quantify it, it'd be somewhere around 5% difference or less.
This is extraordinarily hard to find, unless you are ready and willing to recognize when you are most assuredly NOT in that kind of relationship. Because it can be very close, or comfortable, or any of a number of things that give you pause to consider commitment.
If I end up alone in my 50s or 60s and haven't yet met that "special someone", that's fine. I will (hopefully) have lived a good life and enjoyed trying to find her, and I have more respect for that than I do for the person who settles at 39 because of fear.
Today on Opinionistas (which, despite being very irregularly updated these days, is a great read), we get a fiery opposition to the latest in self-help for women.
I started reading the source material, and as I often do, formed my own opinion on the topic. In brief, this chick says you ladies need to settle a.s.a.p. and stop looking for a "deeper connection" or a "soul mate". Marry the first idiot to come along that doesn't deeply offend you, just so you can have babies and not be alone.
While I agree whole-heartedly with Ms. Lafsky, in that there is little merit to people who think that the uninspired path they have chosen should be the path for everyone, I would add this:
Please do not "settle" for me. There is a quote from one guy in the original article where he says that his dream girl is now 35 and he expects to be engaged/married by the time she is 37. Why? Because although she's dumped him multiple times, with the excuse that she doesn't seem them having a future together, her good sense will be ultimately overridden by her biological and social clocks.
This guy is a doofus. "It's not settling to me, I get to marry my dream girl!" is a sad, sad lot in life.
A friend of mine (hey Amy!) has a theory that the best relationships (hetero, anyhow) are the ones where the guy is just a little bit more in love with the girl than the reverse. We've discussed the theory at length, and I have come to believe it is a good one, and has been proven accurate in numerous anecdotal situations. However, we also agreed that this disparity is supposed to be fairly small; it is not "break up 4 times and then settle" sized. If you could quantify it, it'd be somewhere around 5% difference or less.
This is extraordinarily hard to find, unless you are ready and willing to recognize when you are most assuredly NOT in that kind of relationship. Because it can be very close, or comfortable, or any of a number of things that give you pause to consider commitment.
If I end up alone in my 50s or 60s and haven't yet met that "special someone", that's fine. I will (hopefully) have lived a good life and enjoyed trying to find her, and I have more respect for that than I do for the person who settles at 39 because of fear.
April 4, 2008
Last Night
Last night I dreamed that I had clean towels.
Perhaps there was more to the dream. But what I remember is falling off my bed, onto the floor, and realizing that under my bed was where I had kept two clean and folded towels.
I was thrilled to have them, and to forgo doing "towel laundry" (a complete waste of quarters) for a bit longer.
When I woke up, I was disappointed to learn this was not the case. It was a disappointment on par with the time I woke up to realize I was not, in fact, dating a Shakespeare in Love-era Gwyneth Paltrow.
Perhaps there was more to the dream. But what I remember is falling off my bed, onto the floor, and realizing that under my bed was where I had kept two clean and folded towels.
I was thrilled to have them, and to forgo doing "towel laundry" (a complete waste of quarters) for a bit longer.
When I woke up, I was disappointed to learn this was not the case. It was a disappointment on par with the time I woke up to realize I was not, in fact, dating a Shakespeare in Love-era Gwyneth Paltrow.
February 6, 2008
"Always Two There Are..."
When you end a serious, or even semi-serious relationship, and you end it without cheating or some other serious infraction of the relationship code, often it's not really over. It seems over, and everyone is very sad and there is much The Cure playing. But sometimes you try to be friends immediately, or after some laughably brief intermission.
This isn't always a mistake, but it almost always leads Break-Up Number Two. That is, you hang out to varying degrees (sometimes it may seem like no break-up ever happened at all, sometimes it's all talk and no face-to-face, etc.) but inevitably you have to break up again.
This happens for a variety of reasons. The most common is that one person still wants to be in the relationship, and the other one is lonely enough to let them pretend that may happen. Eventually somebody wises up, and you get Numero Dos.
Sometimes its because one of you has moved on to a new relationship, and the other person wasn't ready for that. And sometimes it's just because you fall out of contact--usually this is with less serious relationships, or it merely masks one (or both) persons meeting somebody new.
So... it turns out I have no point to make beyond the above, it's just my whiny way of saying that it sucks when that happens. But if I can't whine on my blog, where can I whine?
Writer's Note: The quote is from Star Wars, but the rest of the line ("...a master, and an apprentice.") makes no sense in this context. It does make sense in the context of me being a giant dork, and even when confronted with Serious Life Things, I am blessed with a continual loop of "Star Wars" quotes in my head.
This isn't always a mistake, but it almost always leads Break-Up Number Two. That is, you hang out to varying degrees (sometimes it may seem like no break-up ever happened at all, sometimes it's all talk and no face-to-face, etc.) but inevitably you have to break up again.
This happens for a variety of reasons. The most common is that one person still wants to be in the relationship, and the other one is lonely enough to let them pretend that may happen. Eventually somebody wises up, and you get Numero Dos.
Sometimes its because one of you has moved on to a new relationship, and the other person wasn't ready for that. And sometimes it's just because you fall out of contact--usually this is with less serious relationships, or it merely masks one (or both) persons meeting somebody new.
So... it turns out I have no point to make beyond the above, it's just my whiny way of saying that it sucks when that happens. But if I can't whine on my blog, where can I whine?
Writer's Note: The quote is from Star Wars, but the rest of the line ("...a master, and an apprentice.") makes no sense in this context. It does make sense in the context of me being a giant dork, and even when confronted with Serious Life Things, I am blessed with a continual loop of "Star Wars" quotes in my head.
December 16, 2007
Benefit of the Doubt
A man and a woman drive down a dark road. They're off the map, and while he's sure they're going the right way, she has her doubts.
Something stirs in the darkness, and a terrible feeling washes over the woman. "Honey, please. This doesn't feel right--can we turn around?"
Now, if this were a movie, or TV show, he would immediately tease her and refuse to acknowledge her "irrational fear". But this bugs me, because I feel like unless you date someone that does nothing but barrage you with "weird feelings" and whatnot, why wouldn't you just listen to her.
I mean, if I were in that situation--or anything similar, like a dark house or a desolate street--and the person I was with confessed a deep foreboding, I would actually listen! Is there anybody out there that is dating, or friends with, somebody that they would just disregard?
The thing is, if you did listen to your omen-sensing companion, you'd completely avoid the Horror Story that you headed towards. Which, I suppose, would be terribly boring for anybody reading the story. But in case it ever comes up in real life, I just want to say: listen to your gut. You've seen enough television to know how this works.
Something stirs in the darkness, and a terrible feeling washes over the woman. "Honey, please. This doesn't feel right--can we turn around?"
Now, if this were a movie, or TV show, he would immediately tease her and refuse to acknowledge her "irrational fear". But this bugs me, because I feel like unless you date someone that does nothing but barrage you with "weird feelings" and whatnot, why wouldn't you just listen to her.
I mean, if I were in that situation--or anything similar, like a dark house or a desolate street--and the person I was with confessed a deep foreboding, I would actually listen! Is there anybody out there that is dating, or friends with, somebody that they would just disregard?
The thing is, if you did listen to your omen-sensing companion, you'd completely avoid the Horror Story that you headed towards. Which, I suppose, would be terribly boring for anybody reading the story. But in case it ever comes up in real life, I just want to say: listen to your gut. You've seen enough television to know how this works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)