Helpful Hints (or What Everyone Should be Reading)
|
Posted:Jan 5, 2015 1:32 am
Last Updated:Jun 20, 2015 2:10 pm
24649 Views
|
For those of you without access to read profiles, I have decided to show mercy on your souls and offer you a little insight into why I am not answering your instant messages. For those of you who have access to read it but obviously don't, why pay for gold membership when you don't make the slightest effort to increase your odds of success through using the tools at your fingers.
Before I go further, this is my profile as it appears on AdultFriendFinder. The main pic is the only pic.
Introduction: Pragmatic Nihilist Seeks Same for Mutual Destruction
Tell Others About Yourself:
It's that time again. Time to sit down and construct a new set of parameters for my profile of the damned. Seeking anything beyond casual sexual encounters in a format such as this seems puerile at best. Wanting a chemical match with an intellectual equal AND similar sexual desires seems as likely as a trifecta. But trifectas come in, right?
The last man I was seeing was a good match on the sexual desire end and passable in the other two areas. He didn't roast me like a marshmallow, but my expectations going in weren't grandeur. It was just disappointing that he never put forth the effort to roast me more than once in a while. And then once in a while became not at all. Life and nothingness were more important than sexual gratification, and I got the short end of that stick.
I'm not perfect (SURPRISE!) nor to I pretend to be. I have a higher than average intellect (if I do say so myself) and an over abundance of opinions that I'm only too willing to share with unsuspecting passersby. Is it my fault that I'm gregarious? Well, maybe opinionated is a better term for it, but I do like to share my take on the world at large and people who specifically catch my eye. I'm not the woman who needs an instant text response or believes the world will end, but I won't text you every day to ask how you're doing, either. I'm not the most emotionally available person, and no one here will ever meet any members of my family. No one. Marriage, in case anyone was wondering, is not an option for me. I'm not interested. While I respect the rights of others to engage in the practice, I find it an outdated version of slavery and question the desire of anyone to engage in it.
I'm quirky.
And as for my stunning physical form, what can I say? While my breasts are on the larger side, they, like everything else on me, have taken to sagging. Gravitation has its hold, and it isn't letting go. Things sag everywhere I look, and I'm certainly not the toned physical specimen I once was. Long, long ago... Which makes me an odd or acquired taste. Not every man wants quite my level of realism in a partner. Many want pert and perky. Those aren't me. While I work on firming things up and fighting against a law of physics, I'm not going to be attractive to everyone. The right one, though, will find me attractive and want to share my desires.
My Ideal Person:
On the what does it for me side of things, I should start with physical attraction. I've always tended towards a more conservative looking man. By this I mean no long hair and anything you could presumably wear at a local high school football game without getting thrown out. Some schools might have more liberal dress codes, but I'd run a mile from a man who showed up to a meeting in assless chaps. Who wouldn't? Average, lean or athletic, and taller than my five foot five are a good start. I prefer blue eyes and dark hair, but those are rather ephemeral qualities in a match.
On the intellect and personality side of things, he needs to be open and able to hold up his end of a conversation about any number of topics. I enjoy a heated debate as much as a good conversation. Someone who can hold his own is definitely more attractive than an attractive stone in the road. And a sense of humor is also important. Too much in life is serious and dire. A partner who can see the humor in things and make me smile or laugh is important. Perhaps less than the initial physical attraction, but important none the less. He couldn't be very needy or overly apathetic. This is a factor that can break the legs on what would otherwise seem a good match. More important than physical attraction, it is a deal breaker for even meeting.
On an additional note, I'm not into the complications that come with a married or attached man and prefer to have enough in common not to want to pull my hair out every time I talk to someone. More than ten years age difference seldom works in the best of encounters, and meeting someone online hardly counts as ideal. We can always be friends, but there will never be benefits.
(End profile aspect of my post.)
Having read the profile, as you now have access to do, where would you imagine that anyone would imagine that sending a message with something common or banal would receive any response? Admitted, I have responded to morons. I will give an example of one such specimen from the instant messenger, as follows.
Him: Looking for a woman DTF!!! Let me know if interested??
Me: Mental health issues, aisle three.
No effort generally receives simple sarcasm, when I'm feeling generous enough to respond at all. The man who responded after I said, “Bitter and jaded,” to a polite, “How are you?” deserves a little credit. But that was a while back. And I'm usually more generous with men on the instant messenger. I wonder why they aren't put off by my “Pragmatic Nihilist Seeks Same for Mutual Destruction” intoduction, but who knows? Sometimes, available is the only qualifying factor.
Today, though, I feel generous. For all those would be communicants, read this before venturing into a verbal foray. It isn't always worth the price you pay otherwise.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
After a Long Hiatus (or It Speaks!)
|
Posted:Aug 6, 2015 6:33 pm
Last Updated:Aug 21, 2015 8:47 pm
13222 Views
|
It has been a while since my last post. Blogging hasn't been interesting to me. But this, I just had to share.
Was it world events? No
The safari complete with tame animals to kill? No
The Hair having the lead for the Republicans? (Still shaking my head over that one, but) No
Experiences on another site (though there aren't any, right?)? Hit the nail on the head.
I thought the men here sometimes lacked class. Why, just this evening, a man with a one sentence profile and no picture posted asked me to drive over fifty miles to be his personal sex delivery. My response to that, not surprisingly, was in the negative category. Though I don't remember the exact wording of the response, it went something along the lines of. "Do you believe that I'd be desperate enough to drive that far to fuck someone, sight unseen?" Surprisingly, he didn't just slink away with his tail between his legs. No good response, but he attempted to recover.
Now why I'm writing today.
Imagine now a fictional world where other sites similar to this one exists. In one of those worlds, one such site allows for an individual to have an account without providing any more information than their chosen screen name and gender. One of the minimalists on such a site in this fictional world chose to do just that, not even a picture of a random object. Then he came to my attention (in this fictional way) by sending me the following message.
"Bra size favorite position"
Anyone who has read any of my previous posts will know this was not a good choice for the (presumed) XY chromosonal pattern on the other end. Some might imagine intricate backlashes over such a pairing of words. I went, simply, with the following.
"If the best you have to offer is four words meant to elicit an answer but without forming a question, I'll opt to imagine you as that old perv who can no longer get it up to put on a raincoat much less flash in the park.
"In case that is too many words for you, not interested."
Nitwit, meet Wit. Still rather cruel to engage in mental combat with unarmed combatants, but the herd must be culled when the weak are so obviously detectable. Inbreeding should not be encouraged, after all.
Thought I'd share. Feel free to leave an ugly comment about how evil I am. It won't post, but I'll read it when I'm screening responses.
|
|
|
0
Comments
, 1 Pending
|
|
A Rare Case (or Not Sure Where I Stand)
|
Posted:Feb 3, 2015 5:01 pm
Last Updated:Jul 7, 2015 5:23 pm
21347 Views
|
A county sheriff in western Wyoming has instituted a dress code that prohibits the deputies from wearing western wear (cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and vests). I thought this would be fairly straightforward (a uniform is a uniform), but it made me think.
For those of you not in the know, the license plate for Wyoming has long been of a cowboy, including hats and chaps (I would never argue for a deputy wearing chaps in uniform, in case anyone is wondering), on a bucking bronco (for my non-American readers, a displaying full intend to become riderless as quickly as possible). Banning the wearing of western wear by law enforcement seems ludicrous. Enforcing a New York style baseball cap and paramilitary boots adds insult to injury.
But uniformity being the question, the sheriff does have a point that he wishes to set a professional standard that will be followed by all the deputies. What perplexes me is that the sheriff didn't consider making cowboy hats the standard issue as have other law enforcement communities around the country. (The DPS officers in Texas wear cowboy hats, and they look sharp in them.) Not letting deputies choose what will be their standards after years of a lax dress code seems rather heavy handed and dictatorial. And only the looks of a man with long hair aren't improved with a Stetson hat.
Of course, I didn't like moving from the ball cap adjacent cover to the black wool disasters when the Army (General Shinseki just had to play fashion maven) decided in its vast wisdom that wool was the best choice for standing in the beating sun everyday. They've since moved to using it as a dress cover. Thank goodness someone with common sense finally smacked the pretty idea out of their heads. And I liked that the brim kept the sun out of my eyes. The beret (taken from the French, and their renowned fighting skills) never made sense for anything but show.
But here I go again, off on a tangent. And will it be excluded from my post? Of course not. Random meanderings through the back roads of my mind are all anyone will ever find here. Carefully thought out arguments with concretely constructed foundations and arguments? Those would require more time than I'm willing to give here.
And meandering it is.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
A Touch of Irony (or Ten Year Waiting Period)
|
Posted:Feb 3, 2015 3:35 pm
Last Updated:May 14, 2015 11:10 am
21127 Views
|
Ten years after convicting a would-be suicide bomber, Jordan will be executing the woman along with other jihadists.
When I first read the title of the article, “Jordan to execute would-be suicide bomber, jihadists,” I thought about the irony of the situation. It only got more ironic after reading it.
The would-be (otherwise termed as failed, though the success of authorities in preventing the attack seems paramount here) suicide bomber was convicted of the plan and or attempt in 2005. She has been awaiting execution (or pending an extended appeal process, whichever way you choose to look at it) for ten years. For someone who intended to kill themselves, the irony in Jordan killing her now is only heightened by the fact that they waited so long to do so.
Of course, Jordan wants to make a statement regarding the execution of a Jordanian pilot who was shot down and captured in Syria. Though original talks of a trade for the release of the pilot were made, the execution emphasizes their failure. Jordan's response? If you wanted them, we're killing them. They had their due process and were in the chute, if I may be so blunt. Time to herd them on through.
Which leads me to wonder whether Amnesty International protests the execution of would-be suicide bombers. I'm aware of their stance regarding the execution of prisoners around the world, and many of those were convicted of murdering a number of innocent people or in particularly gruesome ways. Surely this woman, with only intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, would bring up their protest. How else are we to assure that overpopulation doesn't continue if we don't encourage culling the herd from time to time, after all?
I'll search it and get back to everyone on that one.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
There's Something About Marcus
|
Posted:Jan 31, 2015 2:45 pm
Last Updated:Feb 4, 2015 1:12 pm
21405 Views
|
Ever meet someone who made you want to flee every time you saw them? Not necessarily to the point of Godzilla in Tokyo, but something similar?
There's something about Marcus.
To be fair, the fear and need to flee was not an instant reaction to this self-declared magnanimous character. The first impression was merely odd. He was standing in an area reserved for people who were a part of my organization. He was a stranger to me, and I wondered at his audacity for simply invading our space. I didn't approach him but rather maintained my distance. When the mentally unstable wander into your space, it is best not to startle them.
I met Marcus a short while later, when a coworker arrived who was able to make introductions (someone who knew who the hell he was, a key to the meeting).
He was wearing a cap with a circular emblem of what I understood to be the German flag. But, with prior military experience, I knew that a unit from any military could have an emblem reminiscent of a flag. I proceeded to ask questions to ascertain the origins of said hat and individual.
A normal human being would have stated that the hat was obtained while in the German military. I was not dealing with a normal human being. The round about conversation went through the issuance of the hat, that he was born in a hospital, and heaven only knows what other rabbit holes I wandered to come to the true and final conclusion that I was right in my guess. The nut apparent was German,
Two other people had a similar curiosity regarding the origins of said Marcus. One entered the rabbit hole, again much to the delight of the rabbit. Half an hour later, he learned that the rabbit was German. The other person had dealt with German men previously and asked a rather pointed question, German or Austrian? He turned pink from frustration or embarrassment. I'm not certain. But it became a life's goal that would later arise.
Seeing Marcus at the office became a scenario that I dreaded. Being sent to pick him up for a meeting and then deliver him home afterward was awkward. Marcus could talk about anything or nothing, with equal authority. And he had a way of unnerving me that bordered on familial. My sisters are the only people who can be that annoying, and they made it into an art years back. The only difference was that I could sometimes introduce topics that would be fun for discussion. With Marcus, you were just dragged under the train.
To be fair, the cringe worthy factor did fade. Though I explained that I wasn't the person he should be talking to about any number of things he brought up regarding the organization for which I worked, this remained a thorn in the side of our interaction. What grew to be amusing was the odd occasion where I, like the grand dame of the German or Austrian question, brought about the pink transformation.
Truth be told, I knew that my skill in achieving Marcus pinkening was through embarrassment rather than frustration. This sometimes took great planning and careful maneuvering. When such a situation came up, it was more than a delight to experience.
My favorite pinkenings were a simple one regarding an ethnic slur he used against my lineage and a declaration that someone was his girlfriend. I couldn't pick a favorite. They're like . You love them both, but perhaps one is a little better at sports than the other.
I'll start with my charming .
Marcus informed me that Germans called British people island monkeys. This occurred in a text, and I was able to play it off without hurling any insults or ethnic slurs back in his direction. Not my style. But I did proceed in buying my delightfully playful purse, one from Kipling, a brown bag with little brown monkeys all over it and a monkey key chain. Showing it off at work, I proudly explained the origins of the bag in relation to the island monkey comment. Marcus pinkened.
My All-Star was a trap that Marcus fell into but which required extra time to be realized. While helping me in my area (a task he wasn't compelled to undertake but was appreciated for doing), he joked about all of the volunteers he was recruiting for the organization being his girlfriends. I mentioned the particulars about one such volunteer, a man I had not yet met but who I had heard about on occasion, and asked if he was one of Marcus' girlfriends. Rather than be caught in the immediate and obvious trap, Marcus responded in the affirmative.
The larger trap was immediately set for another day.
I had the opportunity to meet with said girlfriend at an organizational event some time later. He was a nice man, intelligent and open in my estimation. I took it that he would appreciate the trap that was about to be sprung.
Prior to Marcus leaving with said girlfriend, I mentioned that one of Marcus' girlfriends was at the event. Curiosity was apparent in the girlfriend's eyes, and a smile came over his face when I explained that he was the girlfriend. Marcus pinkened and quickly rushed out of the building with his girlfriend in tow.
While it is difficult to determine which of my is most dear to my heart, I do still have the purse and will be taking it to the girlfriend's birthday party tonight. I might get a chance to explain the purse yet again to another group of Marcus' friends. Or, potentially, to the dreaded Mrs. Marcus.
Let the pinkening begin!
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
On “Accidentally Vegan Foods” (or Reprehensible)
|
Posted:Jan 28, 2015 9:31 pm
Last Updated:Apr 9, 2015 9:29 am
21527 Views
|
I perused the list as a label conscious vegan of relative short standing. I avoid products with ingredients I cannot identify if they do not specify that they are vegan. This made the link to PETA's list, Accidentally Vegan Foods, of interest to me. Confirming suspicions and adding some depth to my dietary options was the idea.
There were a number of categories. Breakfast, Beverages, Snacks, Condiments. I was a little surprised to see Heinz Ketchup on the list but Hunts Ketchup absent. The ingredients on the Hunts label seemed to suggest it was vegan friendly (with a little extra research, another vegan consumer advocate had contacted Hunts to receive word that no animal-derived products are used in its production). Relief, as it would have been disappointing to find that my favorite ketchup was off of the list. Though this did instill some suspicion regarding why particular items found their way onto the list where others did not.
Not going further into the suspicions that were aroused with the one item that immediately came to mind, I did scroll down to the bottom of the list. There I found the wonderful PETA caveat.
The caveat:
*Items listed may contain trace amounts of animal-derived ingredients. While PETA supports a strict adherence to veganism, we put the task of vigorously reducing animal suffering ahead of personal purity. Boycotting products that are 99.9 percent vegan sends the message to manufacturers that there is no market for this food, which ends up hurting more animals. For a more detailed explanation of PETA’s position, please click here.
Now, where PETA's stance would not have disturbed me when I was a vegetarian and had not fully committed to the lifestyle choice (unlike sex, gender, and sexual orientation, I believe that being a vegan is a choice), it annoys me that the organization chose to proclaim the items as vegan rather than vegetarian where they aren't.
Now, I don't fault companies for wishing to make a profit. I accept that this is a part of the social contract. I simply expect an organization that purports to support the vegan lifestyle not to patently tell me that trace elements of something I find morally reprehensible are acceptable by their standards. Sell that to the vegetarians who don't mind the particular traces, and let even those vegetarians know what elements of animal torture are acceptable under PETA's guidelines.
I was a member of PETA. I appreciated the guidance I found through the organization in making the final commitment to living my life as a vegan. Now I question it as a source. I consider it to offer a purposefully perverted and profit-driven philosophy.
Premise rejected.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Religious Freedoms (or Though Shalt Not)
|
Posted:Jan 27, 2015 7:24 pm
Last Updated:Jan 28, 2015 10:10 pm
21844 Views
|
Okay. No worries about me going into a deep and philosophical discussion about religion here. This monolog/ blog is regarding a particular issue floating in the ether today. Human rights with regards when countered by deeply held religious beliefs. And yes, today's topic is about the push for equality regardless of sexual orientation (mind, we aren't going so far as to include BDSM or polyamory but instead limiting ourselves to the proposition of equality in same-sex or opposite-sex unions).
The overwhelming majority of people answering questions regarding whether marriage should be extended to same-sex couples are in agreement with the idea. Not just civil unions, which could confer the majority of legal status provided to married couples of the opposite-sex variety, but full marital status and the rights and protections therein. The US didn't rush into the allowance of same-sex marriage, and the first celebrity divorce has already taken place. One can truly appreciate the equality when you have the same right to admit it was a mistake or no longer works.
In any event, the question of where the civil rights of same-sex married couples can be limited with regards to religious organizations was due to come up over time. As we've heard religious organizations as well as corporations with deeply held religious beliefs come out against being forced to provide health insurance that covers reproductive issues including birth control and abortion, there could have been no doubt that this would be echoed in the provisions of civil rights of the same-sex couples. But here it took a curious turn.
The Mormons, Latter-day Saints, or LDS, have come forward requesting concessions as they suggest extending civil rights to the same-sex couples. While the LDS have suggested that they agree that it is wrong for members of the LGBT community to be discriminated with regards to jobs or housing (at least they are conceding rights the community should have been granted in the sixties), the LDS are seeking legal protection for their members in government and health care. Here it gets a little murky.
Separation of church and state, the theory that the government should not dictate a religion for its citizens or attempt to control or enforce its will on religions in a general sense, would seem to favor allowing religious organizations the ability to follow their principles with regards to whether they would perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. The arguing point was not this simple. The point was regarding the secular aspects of the LDS and its members.
The LDS stated that it was pursuing legal protection for its members in government and health care. Examples their legal team provided including physicians who refuse to perform abortions or provide artificial insemination to a lesbian couple. While not wishing to perform abortions is an issue at the heart of the abortion issue for medical practitioners, the idea that a doctor would refuse to provide artificial insemination based on sexual orientation is highly disturbing. Is this really a question that can or should be asked on the forms at the local sperm bank? Are lesbians somehow less worthy of becoming mothers than heterosexual women? And how would that not be a prime example of discrimination based on sexual orientation?
And why not extend those rights to discriminate to other groups, since the right to initiate life is on the table? Refuse to sell Manolo Blahniks to lesbians because the designer only wants heterosexual women to wear heels. Force gay men to sit at the back of the bus. Where do you set your limits when you believe a woman's reproductive freedom is a matter of your religious organization's determination?
But the LDS are accepting of homosexual members and want to keep them within the church. They just want their LGBT members to remain celibate or marry members of the opposite-sex. They're tolerant after all.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
A Touch of Class (or What Women Experience Here)
|
Posted:Jan 19, 2015 2:32 pm
Last Updated:Feb 2, 2015 8:54 pm
22616 Views
|
Today I was approached by yet another denizen of the damned in an attempt to engage me in naked athletics. No surprise, he will always be unsuccessful in his attempt, but I wanted to show the pathetic nature of his approach.
Initial email. “Hi”
Second email. “I'm straightforward u wanna fuck”
Response email.
I have no idea who you are, what you look like, or even what being fucked by you might entail. And yet you expect a positive response.
Are you delusional? What woman fucks a man simply because he is a man and amenable to the idea? You have no profile picture to even hint at compatibility, if I were inclined to fuck men whenever they popped up. Your entire profile content is, “Hi I'm a 48 year old male looking for a good time I'm 6/2 brown hair blue eyes.”
If you're still reading this, delusional is more than a suggestion, it is a diagnosis you need confirmed with a mental health professional. There are treatment options for them. Be open to them.
End email response.
Perhaps I was overly harsh? Maybe he was simply hopeful that the site would provide him with the no-charge of his dreams?
Or maybe my profile or auto-rant that should have keyed him in that staying away from an intelligent woman with options was too much for the comprehension level of his pathetic mind?
Who knows.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
My Ex, The Trained Assassin (or Not A Military Related Story)
|
Posted:Jan 16, 2015 9:28 am
Last Updated:Aug 8, 2015 10:33 am
22982 Views
|
When I saw the headline on the bing news feed that someone's ex was an assassin, my thoughts immediately went to the idea that a woman was making allegations against a veteran who was a trained military sniper. What brings me to talk about the story is that this is anything but the case.
Busch, a NASCAR driver, stands accused of physically assaulting his then girlfriend. The ex-girlfriend is seeking a no-contact order, which Busch is fighting. In fighting the order, Busch has alleged that his ex-girlfriend is a trained assassin, a mercenary killer who has killed people both abroad and in the US. He further claims that she has returned to their shared abode, covered in blood.
Where this seems either bordering on delusional or criminally culpable in the duplicity, Busch went further to have his former assistant (described in the article as being an assistant to both Busch and his girlfriend, though Busch was likely the one he assisted for the most part) testify that she had made similar claims to him, or rounding up immigrants on the Mexican border. Farce turns to perjury.
Of course, Busch does say that people can believe that he is crazy for making such outlandish allegations. Instead, this is an attempt to cover his perjury and the perjury he no doubt paid for from his former assistant. Think him crazy, and you might dismiss the fact that he violently assaulted the woman. Believe the other person's claims that the woman wanted to reconcile, and you might believe that the assault only became an assault after reconciliation was no longer possible.
We won't go into how people who experience domestic violence often refuse to press charges on the people they love and refuse to leave, regardless of how violent they get or how many bones are broken. That would be repeating a story only too often told. Does it make the violence any more acceptable if it isn't reported until reconciliation is no longer considered, though? Violence is wrong in its inception, not based on how long the recipient of it takes to report it to authorities.
But I'm not on the jury. Busch's lawyers would have screened me out of it long before his claims became so outlandish. Oh, and he admits to putting his hand on her face and her head “tapping” against the wall as he told her to leave. But he maintains his innocence.
No. My initial thought that he was insane when reading the headline was wrong. He isn't insane. He's attempting to hide perjury.
|
|
|
2
Comments
|
|
Ultra-Orthadox Entry into the Idiocy Arms Race (or A Step Too Far)
|
Posted:Jan 14, 2015 9:53 am
Last Updated:Jan 16, 2015 9:27 am
23433 Views
|
To say that I am incensed about the article I just read underpens the nuclear reaction I had to it.
No one died. No one was mutilated. But the sexism of the statement was a cert for entry into the Idiocy Arms Race. An what better choice for my two hundredth blog posting here?
Hamevaser, newspaper serving an insular ultra-Orthodox in Israel, chose to digitally remove German Chancellor Angela Merkel from the iconic pictures of world leaders marching in support of the families and country rattled by the mass killings in Paris. To be fair, they also digitally removed all evidence of all female political leaders in the pictures. Chancellor Merkel was not singled out.
As the mind contemplates why women should be excluded, as no one is as open about discussing how women are treated in ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities as they are in similarly restrictive Muslim ones, the reason for their exclusion had to be considered. Why, after all, were they excluded? Were they wearing pants? Were their skirts too short? Does the community consider a woman in public with an uncovered head disrespectful? Why?
The answer was perhaps more alarming than I had initially posited. Women, quite simply, are not to be seen in public without being considered immodest. The ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper chose not to offend the families viewing the paper with pictures of women who were, by appearing in public, being immodest. Young might see women, after all! Heaven forfend! And it could tarnish the memories of those who died in the attacks.
Was the Taliban this restrictive? Not even appear in public without offending people?
Now, while I could accept that traditions may be archaic and misogynistic in their practice, I would argue that the use of the pictures was not required for the stories if the paper was in any way offended by the presence of women in them. Don't crop out women in a pretense that they don't exist or aren't active in society. If your will be harmed in some way by seeing prominent leaders who make a difference in the world who happen to have two X-chromosomes instead of your natural and misogynistic preference for XY- chromosomal combinations, perhaps that harm will be that they won't be traditionally misogynistic? Wouldn't that be a delight?
My official thought on the digital removal of women from the pictures? I wonder why female circumcision only occurs in Africa. Oh, right. For Jewish males, it shows a greater bond with God that women don't have. Guess female circumcision would mean we could be in the pictures.
Not worth it.
Oh, and if I were the photographer who owned the rights to the picture and the paper didn't contract for the right to alter the image, I'd sue. They should pay for their narrow minds.
Just as a short post script, I will add that al Jazeera did not exclude the German Chancellor or any other female policitians from their publications. They called some of the other marchers out on their domestic policies regarding journalists (the Egyptian delegate comes from a country that jailed 200 journalists last year alone), but no one was deleted.
Guess we don't only need to focus on Sharia law as a concern regarding the treatment of women.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Maher on NYPD (or Supportive as Your Middle School Jock Strap Today)
|
Posted:Jan 10, 2015 6:21 am
Last Updated:Jan 10, 2015 10:57 pm
24000 Views
|
The death of Staten Island resident Eric Garner at the hands of NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo was unfortunate. It pointed out that police procedures (which were followed to the letter) were woefully inadequate. Mr. Garner was obese and had medical conditions that contributed to the death while in a standard choke hold. NYPD procedure should be established to address these not uncommon possibilities. And selling single cigarettes shouldn't be such a big, damned issue. But NYC charges through the nose for cigarettes, taxing the heck out of them, so some people pay as they go. Can't miss out on the taxes, though. And so a man with no other insult to the city of New York than selling singles was choked to death, according to accepted procedures. The officer didn't murder him. The procedures failed both the officer and the unfortunate resident.
And the mayor didn't support the officer even as he was no-billed by the grand jury. The medical examiner had ruled the death a homicide, and numerous people were already protesting the deaths. NYPD doesn't know how to deal with fat people? Who the hell are they?
But the mayor, while not supporting an officer after he was not indicted by the grand jury, decided to attend two funerals for fallen police officers. The mayor said nothing to contradict the protestors claims that NYPD was racist, but he showed up for the photo op. No support, but a desire to show up in front of cameras? A desire to be re-elected but not to show respect over a fallen officer? Of course they turned their backs on him. That is what you do to someone who betrays you.
Enter Bill Maher.
Using such catchy phrases as, “When did the NYPD start suffering from PMS?” and “New York's Whiniest,” who could help but put him in the league with the Great Satan himself, Limbug. Though not the vitriol of the abortion debate (and he acknowledges that officers have a shitty job), Maher is an asshole. “Seriously, if our deal with the police is that we have to constantly reassure them how much we love them unless they throw a tantrum, we're not supporting them," he said. "We're dating them."
Really, Bill?
I will say that, as I woman, I took particular offense at his contextualizing NYPD as women. The NYPD is suffering from PMS (an affliction women suffer because men can be assholes) and their need for reassurance as a dating scenario. How about thinking they might deserve a little damned respect for putting their lives on the line? No. He couldn't give them that any more than that the mayor could.
But Maher should show up at the next NYPD funeral. Because there will be one. And because he should see what it feels like to be shunned.
But an ass has gotta be an ass. Sometimes he's just funnier than others.
On Ebola, I was amused by Maher. On NYPD's reaction to an unsupportive mayor? Well, you read the blog. You tell me.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Vitriol from Both Sides (or A Touch of the Abortion Dilemma)
|
Posted:Jan 10, 2015 5:34 am
Last Updated:Jan 10, 2015 5:34 am
23789 Views
|
While catching up on the latest news regarding the recent terrorists in France (does anyone say this when asked whatcha been upta?), I read a comment by someone I suspect was well meaning in her comparison but who made me question her facts. She said that the terrorist attack on the cartoonists in France was similar to the killing of abortion doctors, in as much as both were falsely attaching religious reasons for killing people.
It made me think.
I hadn't heard of an abortion doctor killed in years. The research I made into the topic (while perfunctory, online through a search engine) showed the last abortion doctor murdered by a pro-life affiliated (as we are to suspect due to the actions) individual was in 2009. The target was not, as one might initially suspect, a typical doctor performing these procedures. This doctor was one of the few remaining doctors who specialized in late term abortions.
Not to say that certain life is more of value than others, but late term abortions can result in the terminations of fetuses that could have survived being born at the time of the procedure. This is where the idea of abortions will stick in the throats of the less than firmly in the woman's choice regardless theater in this particular war. If the baby could have lived, why not let it? And why not a threshold for termination that allows for only those fetuses that could not survive, except in cases of dire medical necessity? Roe v. Wade was the first legislation to put these limits on late term abortions. But not everyone sees that. But the people who see a baby at the time of conception will most definitively see these abortions as murder, and the doctors who perform them as mass murderers.
But murder is against the Christian principles of the groups that called the murder of an abortion doctor a hero. That much can't be argued. Though killing someone who purposefully kills babies might be seen as a rationale, it certainly doesn't trump a commandment.
And the pro-choice advocates, when the murder was caught, did they advocate mercy? Understood. They weren't proclaiming to be Christians or bound by anyone's commandments. They could demand blood and attempt to invalidate the arguments of their adversaries on the other side of the argument by claiming hate crimes.
The remaining doctor who specialized in late term abortions (imagine waking up in the morning with that being your sole goal in life?) claimed that the killing of doctors such as himself was political assassination, the result of hate speech and incitement to violence. Republicans may not be fascists, but they are tools to the fascists. He went on to name three prominent ministers and one blow-heart of a political commentator (not Limbug, though he is my favorite to lambaste). Being of the opinion that life has value (the argument a pro-life individual would propose) is seen as a hatred of freedom (the right to choose as a pro-choice individual would counter).
The article went into the back-story of the remaining late term abortion specialist. Before he had medical school, he became vehemently anti-Christian. He wrote about how, to hear the service, you need to pay. A very negative experience in a certain church predisposed the doctor towards a loathing towards Christians.
The abortion doctor in question wasn't pleasant during the interview with Esquire magazine, but it was in 2009 and a good friend and colleague of his had just been murdered. His paper comparing humanity to a cancer wasn't. The man wasn't pleasant as a rule, and tolerance was what other people should have.
All of that said, one might wonder how I would suggest that late-term abortions be performed if not by individual doctors who specialize in the procedures. The matter, one could imagine, could be simplified by assuring that the procedures are performed as any other outpatient surgical procedure is performed. Hospitals should have surgeons on staff to perform the procedures to receive credentials. Abortions are not cosmetic procedures, after all. They do this in Canada. But they are also much more clinical about it. The abortion doctor in question apparently has a kinder, gentler procedure involving seaweed.
Here, some might balk at the idea. What if a doctor is morally opposed to terminating a fetus? Most would not have that issue, but those who did could avoid surgical practices at hospitals. The idea that a woman should travel to Colorado to end a pregnancy where the fetus has no brain (though perfectly acceptable in a political commentator from either side of the aisle, not an ideal scenario) is ludicrous. And at what stage could this fetal abnormality be determined? How soon could you be certain that you were aborting a political commentator?
For my part, I'll stand up for a woman's right to have an abortion, even a late-term abortion, until she no longer has that right. I won't sign up as a pro-choice advocate because people should be responsible in their reproductive choices, starting with using protective measures that may prevent the spread of disease as well as unwanted pregnancies. But who wants to be unwanted? I won't sign up as a pro-life advocate either.
Don't tell my dad. (Don't worry. He isn't on here.  )
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
New Entry into the Idiocy Arms Race (or You Might Be A Bigot When...)
|
Posted:Jan 10, 2015 3:24 am
Last Updated:Jan 10, 2015 2:44 pm
23824 Views
|
Russia certainly has its quirks, but I never imagined it would jump into competition with the powerhouses of idiocy that India and certain African countries have made their mark and trade. But don't underestimate Russia. They have untold depths of stupidity.
Russia, in an effort to cut traffic accidents, has banned transsexuals, transgenders, fetishists, exhibitionists, and others with “sexual disorders” (open to interpretation on this last one, since the DSM-IV doesn't classify any of the aforementioned as disorders making them all not medically definitive). Russia added people under four foot eleven and amputees to the list.
Russia did attempt to rationalize at least the sexual side of its bigotry (though I am fully aware their bigotry against shorter people and amputees may have a sexual context as well, as logic clearly isn't involved). They said that they are targeting individuals with “gender identity disorders, disorders of sexual preference and psychological and behavioral disorders associated with sexual development and orientation.” Pictures of the intellectually disincline carrying pitch forks come to mind.
Is anyone surprised that the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights (now that you've heard that they exist, to be certain) considers the legislation to be a “flagrant violation of human rights”?
Of course, I'm not entirely up on Russian legislation. I didn't realize that Russia had banned the spread of “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors,” in 2013. Heaven forfend that a should understand or gain acceptance for his or her non-traditional sexual orientation. The rainbow flag that most of us have come to associate with gay pride and public defense of LGBT relationships were examples provided in the article, as if they were attempting to hide a guilty secret.
Next will be the pink triangles.
But it still makes me wonder what their rationale behind excluding people under five foot tall and amputees could be? Did some intellectually adept for this purpose individual (read moron) get into an accident with an amputee? No statistics nationally or internationally were used to argue their cases, in any event. But it gives the insurance companies something to mull over when raising rates.
|
|
|
2
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (rm_debluvz2fck) use [blog rm_debluvz2fck] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
61
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
