tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29531376390880628442024-03-05T05:20:35.913-05:00Too Much MineMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.comBlogger340125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-20309555913067603952016-04-22T19:59:00.001-04:002016-04-22T19:59:42.647-04:00Body ImageFor nearly all of my life, being skinny was my thing. I was literally underweight until I got into my twenties; at one point I was 6'3" and 135 pounds. People questioned whether or not I ate. Food was shoved my way. I put on some weight as I entered my 20s, but it basically plateaued at a close to a 'healthier' level<br />
<br />
Then comes the past few months and I've put on quite a lot of weight. I got a new phone and put in my guess at what I weighed when I started using apps to track my activity. I was actually surprised (in a bad way) when I got on a scale and saw what I actually weighed. I weighed 156 pounds late in 2011, I weighed 213 in October of last year. I weighed 236 on Wednesday. I weigh 237 pounds today.<br />
<br />
This really bothers me. There are lots of factors that I can recognize: Ridiculous diet, Not exercising since last summer, Mental health, Bad genetics, Aging. The logical part of my brain totally sees those. The logical part of my brain can see that being 6'3" and weighing 237 isn't totally out of line. However, I still don't like it.<br />
<br />
Being thin is something that became a part of my identity. Now I look down and I see a gut. I was tall and thin. Now I'm chubby. I'm obsessing over this. I can't not be skinny; that's who I am. I've weighed myself 3 times today, which is more than I've weighed myself in the past year. I'm not who I think I'm supposed to be anymore and it's upsetting.<br />
<br />
I can logic my way into thinking more healthily about this; that is something therapy has taught me to do generally. However, it hasn't worked for long. My belly is always there to remind me. My face is fatter in pictures.<br />
<br />
On top of being worried about gaining weight, I'm very much worried about my worry. I don't wanna think like this. I don't wanna go down the trail to which this worry could lead. I don't feel like me. I feel even less attractive than I already felt with my low self-esteem having ass.<br />
<br />
<br />
My number one reason for going on runs, and I hope it will remain this, is to alleviate anxiety. I explained to my therapist a few sessions ago that I like running because it tires me out. It's like taking a dog for a walk to wear it out; I take myself for runs.<br />
<br />
I never want to run with my main purpose losing weight. I never want to make drastic changes to how much food I eat simply to lose weight. I hope I'm not heading there, but my thinking is worrying me.<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-83923067780077612102015-11-16T18:08:00.003-05:002015-11-16T18:08:55.326-05:00ParisI've taken a while to post anything about the attack in Paris on Friday for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, I was out of town Friday-Sunday and couldn't really take the time/have the equipment to express my feelings. Secondly, My feelings on this are complicated and jumbled. Actually, my feelings on the reaction to the attack is what has my feelings all mixed up. I'm heart-broken that extremists killed scores in Paris. Those who died had nothing to do with French intervention in Syria.<br />
<br />
I'm frustrated by the overwhelming response the (first) world has had to the attack. ISIS is attempting genocide against religious minorities in the Middle East. ISIS has committed acts of terror in the Middle East that rival and surpass what was done in Paris. Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons. Boko Haram has been doing terrible things in Africa.<br />
<br />
It's not that the Paris attacks weren't horrible. So many who are going down this line of reasoning seem to want to downplay the attacks in Paris. The response to the murder that took place Friday night in Paris is right. The lack of response to everything else is what's wrong. The evil is just as real in places were there isn't wealth or white people. It should be confronted and acknowledged in the same way.<br />
<br />
The backlash of an act of Islamic Extremists that is this widely publicized in the west is profound and frightening. The islamophobia and xenophobia is, aside from being racist, is exactly what a group like ISIS wants. It protects their narrative of a religious war between Muslims and the west. The prejudice shown to young muslims in France or England or the United States is more likely to make them sympathetic to ISIS.<br />
<br />
Failing to recognize the root of the problem has been an issue since forever. The problem isn't so much that people are terrorists; it's why people are choosing to become involved in terrorism. We can bomb and bomb and kill loads of people who are in ISIS and probably even defeat ISIS militarily, but the conditions that made ISIS take hold will still remain. Poverty, discrimination & lack of economic opportunities and social options is what breeds the rise of terrible groups. A young person from Syria may join ISIS because his only other option is to become a refugee or dying due to the warfare. A woman from England might join ISIS because she has faced prejudice her entire life and is treated as a second-class citizen.<br />
<br />
A person who grows up in a household that is well enough off to avoid ever being wanting probably isn't going to join a terrorist group. A person whose life hasn't been destroyed by a civil war probably isn't going to resort to extremism. A person who is treated with respect by everyone and her government regardless of race, heritage, religion or origin isn't going to run off to ISIS.<br />
<br />
I'm frightened by the nature of attacks in Paris, which I realize is what they're going for. They were suicide bombings and mass shootings at soft targets. Al Qaeda was (is) always going for the spectacular attack. Flying planes into buildings, big bombs, stuff like that, which while still scary I don't find nearly as terrifying as what happened in Paris a few days ago.<br />
<br />
The last thing I want to write about has already been mentioned in this post in a way. The fear and hatred of immigrants fleeing the terrible conditions in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, etc isn't exactly new, but seems to have reached a new pitch after that Paris attack. The hardline right in Europe is already growing in popularity. Republicans are falling over themselves today to tell us how much they don't want Syrian immigrants in their state. ISIS is happy about it too. They need people to rule. They need an enemy to frighten their people. The governments of the world cannot condemn other humans to life in horrible conditions or death for the tiniest risk that you might let in someone dangerous.<br />
<br />
There are plenty of dangerous people here already anyway.<br />
<br />
-Michael Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-71838128275923160752015-08-28T10:47:00.000-04:002015-08-28T10:47:28.488-04:00CitizenshipFor some reason the pretty basic idea of 'birthright' citizenship has come under fire in the past week. Okay, I know the reason. It's because Donald Trump is a racist and the rest of the republicans are desperate to outdo each other by using slurs. It is really a pretty fundamental right in the United States that a person who is born in this country is a citizen of this country and of the state in which they reside.<br />
<br />
This idea formally came into existence, although it was pretty much how things were done in the years prior (with the huge exceptions of slaves,) with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was quickly followed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. At the time, the protection of guaranteeing citizenship to those born in the country was in large part to protect the freed slaves and their future offspring from any legal tricks they Southern states may have played*.<br />
<br />
Citizenship by location of birth rather than status of the parents is very much an American idea. In Europe, many times citizenship was only granted by class or by heritage. It wasn't exactly perfect in the early days of the United States. Citizenship was only granted to white men. Then was extended to black men. Finally citizenship was granted to women. With many hiccups of xenophobia and racism along the way.<br />
<br />
However, the basic idea is that citizenship is not something only for the wealthy, powerful or connected. It is not for those with long heritages. Citizenship and the protections thereof are granted to anyone who is born in this nation.<br />
<br />
More importantly there is a concept in Abrahamic religions, which has become common law in the west, that the sins of the father are not the sins of the child. Therefore a child cannot be punished for the crime of his parents. <br />
<br />
The classic example is an architect designs a house which collapses and kills someone's oldest son. The architect's oldest son is put to death as punishment.<br />
<br />
Is that a fair punishment? Perhaps<br />
Is that a just punishment? Absolutely not. The child did nothing wrong<br />
<br />
A child has no control over his or her parent's immigration status. Depriving that child of basic rights as a way to punish the parents is unjust.<br />
<br />
Taking away this right would have another major problem. It could create a humanitarian crisis. An entire generation would be citizens of nowhere. Born & naturalized in the U.S., but not granted citizenship. The parent's home country doesn't have to grant the children citizenship. Where can that person go? They're not allowed in the U.S. anymore, but aren't welcome anywhere else because they don't have a country to grant them paperwork.<br />
<br />
It could be a refugee crisis. All because the right thinks that punishing children because they're parents sneaked into the country to have an opportunity (like picking fruit for below minimum wage) that isn't possible in their home country is totally reasonable response to the issue. <br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />
*Didn't exactly workMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-82534803429796149882015-07-10T09:38:00.001-04:002015-07-10T09:38:44.782-04:00<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/14075063/?claim=vjkeznjd85t">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-78746534240913370382015-07-09T21:06:00.001-04:002015-07-09T21:06:25.920-04:00Greece from an Amateur Historian and Pretend Economist<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/80m2nTHmuxM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
So, as you probably have heard Greece is in some pretty serious economic trouble. Massive deficits have led to unsustainable debt. The Greek government is unable to make payments on its debt and is facing the prospect of losing its ability to borrow and more importantly its inclusion in the Eurozone. Greek banks are essentially out of money currently while the other Eurozone nations work to decide if Greece will be offered another bailout and what terms it will have.<br />
<br />
Despite the imminent crisis the Greek government refused a bailout that was offered to the them. The terms basically were for Greece to increase taxes and drastically cut spending yet again. The Greek Government and later its voters were reasonable in turning down the offer. The austerity plan Greece has been under since taking its first bailout has shrunk the Greek economy on a level than can be termed a depression.<br />
<br />
Greece was faced with 3 choices:<br />
<br />
1.) Accept the bailout and face a worsening economy, but at least the currency would be stable.<br />
<br />
2.) Flatout refuse any bailout and adopt a new currency which would be disastrous, but at least there is a way for Greece to recover in theory.<br />
<br />
3.) Refuse the bailout, leverage the risk of #2 as well as other things to try to get a better deal.<br />
<br />
Greece has chosen option #3 and have left the powers that be to decide how to handle the situation. After Greeks overwhelmingly voted to oppose the bailout terms Sunday, this week has seen some European nations soften their line while others haven't really done so.<br />
<br />
The most significant issue as I see it is the matter of debt relief. Greece's debt is unsustainable no matter what the bailout terms are. If its creditors refuse to forgive some of Greece's debt but offer a bailout, this will keep happening again and again. The power-player in the Eurozone is Germany, which has flat out refused the idea of debt relief. <br />
<br />
The political, social and economic issues here are very complex. Greece elected a liberal government early this year, which brought in an anti-austerity platform. This government has up to very recently refused to 'play ball' in the negotiations. German sentiment towards debt is that it is a blood oath to borrow money and one must alway pay their debts. Germans don't forgive debt. Germans are stringent rule-followers. The overriding fear amongst all parties involved is that if a solution is not found and Greece is forced out of the Eurozone that it would almost certainly spark a humanitarian crisis in Greece.<br />
<br />
Greece holds a special place in the West. The first great western civilization(not really true, but that is the narrative.) The home of great thinkers like Plato and Socrates. The Parthenon. The Gods and Goddesses. The Myths. Alexander the Great. The west has sought almost since the fall of the Greek Empire to protect Greece. The risk of turning Greece into a failed state is something that may be unthinkable to some.<br />
<br />
More important than the history of ancient Greece is the history of 20th century Germany. Europe knows the risk of having a nation with a crumbling economy. The winners of World War I forced Germany to pay impossible to pay reparations as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was forced to pay in Gold and Goods. The amount of gold backing German currency dwindled. This would lead to a period of hyperinflation in the Early 20s in Germany. In response to this the German government created austerity programs that crippled the German economy, which led to the rise of the Nazi Party & Adolf Hitler.<br />
<br />
The fear is that if Greece is forced out of the Eurozone it would have to print its own money. Greece's huge debt obligation and need to have a functioning government could lead to the printing of a lot of this new currency. A state needs a way to fund its deficit and if Greece is unable to borrow it would have to print more money, which can rapidly lead to hyper-inflation. The badly damaged economy risks a) a power vacuum or b) dangerous groups being able to rise within the Greece structure.<br />
<br />
I personally think that Europe's continued fears of repeating the mistakes (very justified) of the years between the world wars means there will end up being a deal of some sort this weekend. The biggest stumbling block, oddly enough, will be Germany. It also seems likely to me that any deal that will be reached will be a stop-gap solution with limited or no debt relief for Greece meaning we'll come back to this situation again. <br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.<br />
<br />
-MichaelMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-9790668224925184002015-07-03T23:25:00.000-04:002015-07-03T23:25:13.023-04:00Why I Oppose Legalizing Marijuana in OhioI feel like I should start this off by saying that I am entirely for the decriminalization of recreational Marijuana. I don't really want to get to in depth about why that is, but I will give my basic rational as simply as possible. There are a couple main things that would be good about decriminization of pot: 1.) It takes power and income away from criminals & 2.) It decreases government spending on law enforcement while also increasing the government's income. Add that to the fact that marijuana's status makes no sense given how alcohol is treated in the U.S. and you my reasoning on why I believe marijuana should be decriminalized.<br />
<br />
So why am I opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana in Ohio? There are two reasons. I believe firmly in Federalism. I also think Responsible Ohio (the organization trying to get the measure on the Ohio ballot) is shady as fuck.<br />
<br />
Responsible Ohio has submitted a petition to the Secretary of State to get a measure on the ballot in November to allow for recreational use of marijuana in Ohio. It has roughly twice the number of required signatures, but the Secretary of State's office is going to try their best to throw out as many of those signatures as they can. However, it is likely that it will be successful and the proposed amendment to Ohio's Constitution will be on the ballot.<br />
<br />
The issue with Responsible Ohio is that the amendment was drafted by and the campaign was financed by the proposed growers. The amendment would effectively creates a monopoly on the distribution and sale of marijuana in Ohio by only allowing 10 growers to supply the market.<br />
<br />
The Ohio legislature is putting a second ballot measure up that would effectively nullify that proposed amendment. The proposed change the legislature is proposing is to prevent 'a special economic interest' (monopolies) from changing Ohio's Constitution with the ease Responsible Ohio is having. Provided both measure were to pass there would be a protracted and complicated legal situation that would need to be resolved.<br />
<br />
<br />
Bigger than the shady nature of proposed amendment to legalize recreation marijuana in Ohio, is that it attacks an important foundation of our nation's republic. The principle of Federalism is key the nature of American government. Following that near disaster that was the Articles of Confederation, Federalism avoided having only one central government in a place as large and diverse as the 13 states were while at the same time avoiding having the central made impotent by the power of state and local governments. Basically, what it breaks down to is Federal law cannot be trumped by the states. What is not decided by the Federal government is left to be decided by the States. This was reaffirmed by the outcome of the American Civil War.<br />
<br />
Marijuana is currently banned by the Federal government and it is not up to my state or any other state (looking at you Washington, Colorado & Oregon) to change that. Alabama cannot refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples anymore than Ohio can legalize pot because federal law dictates otherwise.<br />
<br />
Avoiding conflicting laws between the federal & state government is crucial in U.S. government. It is not simply to avoid confusion amongst the public, which is definitely a valid concern. Respecting Federal law is important to protecting civil rights. The Federal government's record is far from perfect on the matter, but maintaining a strong central government with a liberty-protecting constitution is certainly the best hope we have.<br />
<br />
Marijuana is certainly not as crucial as say, marriage equality, but it is important for states to not flippantly pass contradictory laws. If a state feels something is unjust about federal law, there is a way to challenge that law in the courts without creating the inflammatory state vs. federal dynamic that is so harmful.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-MichaelMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-37871480320683878822015-06-04T18:08:00.002-04:002015-06-04T18:08:59.487-04:00Travel Tips?I have some vacation time coming up and I don't know what I'm going to do with it. I definitely want to take a trip somewhere. However, I don't know where. It doesn't help that I'm pretty clueless when it comes to booking things like flights and hotels. The one time I planned my own trip somewhere I lucked into a ridiculously good deal, but there wasn't much strategy there.<br />
<br />
As I've started looking I find myself particularly confused/stressed about booking a hotel. I feel like everything is way too expensive and that there should be some way of looking to make cheaper places stand out. I'm also worried about booking at a bad spot (either a bad neighborhood or far away from public transit.)<br />
<br />
Some trips I'm considering:<br />
<br />
Plane Trips<br />
<br />
<b>Chicago- </b>The drive to Chicago isn't necessarily so terrible. It's a six hour drive from her to get to Chicago and its traffic. However once in Chicago its a bit of nightmare. Also, the public transport in Chicago is pretty robust and the flights are relatively cheap so flying is definitely the preferred way for me.<br />
<br />
The issue so far with Chicago is the hotels are hella expensive.<br />
<br />
<b>Washington D.C.- </b>I've wanted to go to DC for a long time. As a politics/government/history nerd, it's pretty ridiculous to have made it this far without seeing the seat of our nation. It is too far to drive without wasting a day and the flights are even cheaper than the ones to Chicago. And I don't know about Washington's public transit; I assume its pretty robust from Fallout 3.<br />
<br />
Hotels are even more expensive here than Chicago upon a quick search.<br />
<br />
Car Trips<br />
<br />
<b>Gettysburg, PA</b>- I've done this trip before when I was little. I'd like to go back sometime since I'm sure I'll have a much better appreciation for the cool history.<br />
<br />
Cheapish hotels.<br />
<br />
<b>Somewhere Pretty, WV, VA, TN- </b>I don't even know.<br />
<br />
Day(ish) Trips<br />
<br />
<b>Hiking- </b>Can go not very far and maybe overnight it and wander around the wilderness.<br />
<br />
<b>Ohio History Stuff- </b>Because why not.<br />
<br />
I also could just stay in Columbus, because there is cool shit here that I never do.<br />
<br />
<br />
All of this to ask you what I should do? Also how should I do it? Any tips (particularly about hotels?)<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-25422163400208259882015-05-28T21:49:00.000-04:002015-05-28T21:49:57.671-04:002 Parties 2 PartyLet's talk about why the United States has a 2-party system. If you're American and paid attention in Government class you probably have some idea. There are two big reasons for this. One is the cause and the other emerges from that fact.<br />
<br />
The nature of elections in the U.S. is whoever gets the most votes wins everything. 50% plus one is basically the same as winning 100% of the votes. This creates an environment where factions who share some similar ideology join together and form political parties. Since the goal is to get to 50% plus one, you arrive at having two major political parties at any given time.<br />
<br />
If one were to take apart the modern Democratic party, there would probably be quite a few individual factions. Everything from Socialists to socially conservative Democrats exist within the party. They form an alliance because each faction individually would have no chance at governing in our system.<br />
<br />
Because two parties become powerful they make the laws to aid those parties staying in power. It is easy for a Republican or Democrat to get on the ballot, but it is very challenging for a third party candidate. The two parties also become fundraising and logistical juggernauts, because they hold the power and are sure victors in elections. This makes serious competition from a third party nearly impossible<br />
<br />
The U.S. and big and diverse place, so the lack of regional parties is surprising to some. As the nation grew the two main parties grew with it. A big part of that is the power the parties already held at a Federal level (and their role in creating that expansion.) However, I think the main reason is the Presidency.<br />
<br />
In the U.S. we elect our head of state in its own elections. Unlike in parliamentary systems where a Prime Minister only has to win his seat*, the American President has to win a National victory. And while it is easy to dismiss the executive power of the Presidency, it is still an incredibly powerful position to hold. The President is a big deal constitutionally, but more importantly there is no position so significant culturally on the earth<br />
<br />
A party with no chance of holding the presidency quickly loses relevance nationally. That inevitably leads to that party have no relevance locally, because of Federalism. The Federal Democrats will give scraps to the state Democrats who will give scraps to the local Democrats.<br />
<br />
I don't believe there will ever be a time where a third party can hold prominence in the U.S. One of the two main parties today could die and be replaced, but the system will not support a third party for very long.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
*It is more complicated than that, but I wanna keep it simple, because that has little to do with the point.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-14360947968459315462015-05-18T22:25:00.002-04:002015-05-18T22:25:29.897-04:00Bernie Sanders & Howard DeanI feel like such an old person relative to the internet sometimes. Aside from being a virtual senior citizen at 26, I became politically active at 14. This means my optimism and enthusiasm about elections is pretty much dead. I mean, there is some life in me still, but largely that is because politics and elections are interesting games and I would much rather live under the rule of the lesser evil.<br />
<br />
The candidacy of Bernie Sanders makes me happy. The far left hasn't had a serious presidential candidate in a long time and his announcement has been meet with surprising enthusiasm and (more importantly) serious fundraising. However, it is probably futile. I am reminded of another politician from Vermont. A man who young people supported in droves, but couldn't get the rest of the party to help him to the nomination. A man who opposed the war in Iraq and advocated for healthcare reforms.<br />
<br />
11 years ago, a surprise candidate rose to become the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination as the campaign approached the Iowa Caucuses. Governor Howard Dean from Vermont ran what was at the time a revolutionary campaign for a Democrat. His campaign was really the first ever to use the internet effectively. His fundraising was done largely through small donations from supporters rather than having wealthy financiers making max donations. In this way, Howard Dean amassed as large of a war chest as any Democrat had had for a primary to that point*.<br />
<br />
Things didn't go as expected though. In Iowa, John Kerry and John Edwards made huge gains in the polls as the caucus approached. Moderate and traditional Democrats shied away from Howard Dean's progressive message. The results from Iowa had him go from frontrunner to 3rd place in what was a very disappointing performance. If you know of Howard Dean, you know him from his concession speech on the night of the Iowa Caucus in 2004 (or David Chappelle's parody of it.) He lost his damn mind and his chance at the nomination. John Kerry went on to beat Dean in the New Hampshire primary and Dean's campaign imploded.<br />
<br />
I see similarities between the rise of Dean and the rise of Sanders. Bernie Sanders is much more liberal than Dean and he is running at a time where socialist ideals do have quite the appeal to young democrats. However, Sanders has the same problem Dean does. An enthusiastic and vocal support base alone doesn't win primaries. The establishment and its machinery are a powerful force that is very hard for an upstart to rival**. I think most importantly, long standing party members tend to go with what's old and familiar as election day draws closer.<br />
<br />
Howard Dean isn't the only example of this. People older than me will point to Edmund Muskie who had a similar fate in the primaries of 1972.<br />
<br />
With all that said, I will still be supporting Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination in 2016 as I supported Howard Dean in 2004. I will support the candidate I believe has the most similar views to my own despite him not being the most 'electable' and his path to the nomination being difficult.<br />
<br />
My worry is that those who support Bernie Sanders, especially who are going through their first competitive primary cycle will not support the Democratic nominee if it is not him. If you support Bernie Sanders and his views know that any Democrat will be much preferable to any Republican. Not voting or voting third party really only helps the Republicans.<br />
<br />
Having a candidate who you support strongly lose in the primaries sucks. You have to see someone you admire and a source of hope give up. You must attempt to come to peace with other candidates who you spent so much time opposing.<br />
<br />
Do not allow your energy to become nothing no matter how disappointing it may be.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />
*Obama's campaign in 2008 perfected the model of fundraising Dean had used in 2004.<br />
**Another thing Obama did in 2008Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-80441530167024954712014-02-27T00:08:00.000-05:002014-02-27T00:08:09.557-05:00The Bill in Arizona is Awful, but That May be a Good SignThe war over gay marriage is pretty much over. The fight for gay rights is almost won. Decision after decision by Federal courts are ruling bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. The precedent has been set. The Supreme Court will eventually be forced to take up the issue, but I don't think they're too eager about it. The lower courts rulings suit them just fine and gives all the more justification for their eventual ruling in favor of marriage equality.<br />
<br />
In the face of the progress the last year or so has brought, recently there has been a backlash by certain state government. Notably, Arizona's recently passed a bill that would've allowed for segregation of LGBT individuals. Fortunately, the Governor decided to veto this bill. She probably didn't decide to do so for the noblest reasons, but whatever keeps shit like that away is alright I suppose.<br />
<br />
However, I see the fact that legislation passed as a sign of progress. How? Well, this is a counter-attack by the retreating far-right wing. They know that protection of the 14th Amendment for gay people and trans* people will soon be precedent. This counter attack has nothing to do with them winning; Arizona lawmakers undoubtedly knew that the law they passed would never take effect. It would've been stopped with an injunction and then killed by a Federal Court.<br />
<br />
No, the move to get extreme anti-gay laws passed is all in an attempt to maintain power and support. These people are a governor standing with the national guard to stop a black student from entering a public school. The point then and the point now is to galvanize support with those who oppose the extension of Civil Rights. While, it isn't a majority who oppose these things, enough people do the keep the politicians they support relevant and maintain they're platform.<br />
<br />
It is short-sighted to put yourself on the wrong side of history. Once the battle is done there's always gonna be a black mark on anyone's record whose opposition was so extreme. A segregationist could win some votes and a few states in 1968, but within a few years segregationists were unelectable. <br />
<br />
Basically, what I'm saying is that while some state governments are doing horrendous things, they've already lost. The awful bigoted people still exist and will continue to exist, but their power is being taken away.<br />
<br />
Also, while legal equity is coming soon, there is still a lot of cultural and institutional prejudice against LGBT people. A court decision won't fix that, but being granted equal protection under the law is a very nice step.<br />
<br />
-MichaelMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-72353016328189590192013-08-12T01:45:00.001-04:002013-08-12T01:45:11.598-04:00On My Fear of ManiaIt is nearly 1:00 am and I had trouble falling asleep. Like I was tired, but then it quit once I settled into bed. One off nights where I have trouble sleeping don't bother me. However, this has been going on for like a week and it scares me. Any symptom of mania scares me to death. I am unable to accept that similarity to my father.<br />
<br />
I mean this particular fear comes to me a lot. If I feel particularly horny, it scares me. If I feel great, it scares me. If I feel okay after not getting much sleep, it scares me. If I'm even slightly imprudent with my finances, it scares me. If I feel restless, it scares me. <br />
<br />
There is anxiety inducing shit going on right now, which could explain the sleeplessness. A car crashed through the front of my workplace on Thursday (no one was hurt.) I will be losing hours as a result and everything is so influx that I don't know how much income I will lose and for how long. If I can't pay bills, then I'm either homeless or back living with my parents. At this point I don't know which prospect is scarier. <br />
<br />
Logically, I can look at myself and see that I've never been manic. A good mood does not mania make. If I can't sleep well, I will at the some point during the day be miserable and tired. I'm restless because I'm not satisfied with where I'm at; I'm plenty content, but I want more and I want different. My sex-drive fluctuates, because I'm a human with hormones and shit going all wacky and changing all the time.<br />
<br />
Also, I know that even if I am manic, it isn't a huge deal. Having mania doesn't make a person bad. I'm not an asshole. I have seen the assholeness that mania can bring out in other individuals. However, whatever it is that goes on in my brain doesn't turn me into an asshole or at least very, very rarely an asshole. I certainly am comfortable with seeking help with mental illness. I want treatment. If I needed treatment for mania I would seek it.<br />
<br />
I don't know which fear is worse, fearing my father himself or turning into him. I certainly spend an obscene amount of time trying to make certain that I don't act or think or do anything like him. My fear of mania certainly comes from my desire to not be my father. There is plenty of evidence to show periods where I've been depressed. The notion that I may be bi-polar too upsets me more than it should. Whether I'm bi-polar or not I'm not anything like my father and I'm completely aware that bi-polar doesn't equate to terrible person. However, my mind when thinking about myself cannot come to that rational conclusion.<br />
<br />
Someday, I really hope I'm able to end my father's occupation of my brain. <br />
<br />
Thanks for reading.<br />
<br />
-Michael Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-30242800932046039422013-06-29T23:30:00.000-04:002013-06-29T23:30:04.972-04:00Supreme Court Decisions Three big decisions by the court this week, which I don't think are being represented very well in the media. I'm not surprised given that constitutional law is nuanced and requires more than a soundbite to describe. And of course, there has to be winners and losers with nothing in between.<br />
<br />
Starting with Shelby <i>County v. Holder</i>, in which the Alabama country sued the Attorney General arguing that sections 4 and 5 of the <i>Voting Right Act of 1965</i> were unconstitutional. Section 5 requires that any State or County which has historically discriminated against minority voters get Federal approval prior to any changes to voting procedures. Section 4 creates a formula to determine which States and Counties fall into that category.<br />
<br />
The Court's decision wasn't really as awful as some of my fellow lefties make it seem. The court did not rule Section 5 as unconstitutional, so Federal intervention is still allowed. The court did determine that the formula that Section 4 uses is unconstitutional. However, if Congress were to update the formula, Section 4 would be back in effect. The majority opinion is that the formula, which was last updated in the 1970s, isn't fair under modern circumstances.<br />
<br />
I really hate that Section 5 is being rendered impotent until Congress can get their act together. And that might be difficult given how this and the prior Congress behaved. However, the formula really ought to be updated, because I don't if y'all have noticed, but Republican controlled State Houses in the north have been discriminating against minority voters recently. Particularly, in the aftermath of the 2010 elections.<br />
<br />
Virtually all the areas which fall under the enforcement of Section 5 are in the South. Which I think is fair, because if you ask me all the horrendous things that state and local governments did are definitely still modern history. That said, I'd like to see the protection extended. The PoC in Cleveland and Detroit could use some backing against the disenfranchisement that the State governments are handing down.<br />
<br />
And a final thought on this decision. The Federal Government has no rule in conducting elections in the Constitution. Thus, under the 10th Amendment it is the State governments that should conduct and make law about elections. So, constitutionally The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a big gray area. The precedent that was set by the court in its ruling on the first challenge the law in 1966 is that Federal intervention was deemed to be okay by the Constitution due to the extreme circumstances. That precedent, which is a big one for this important law, still remains intact.<br />
<br />
<br />
In <i>Winsor vs. The United States</i>, a widow was denied Federal benefits due to the fact that the marriage was same-sex. She was charged an estate tax on property left to her, which had she been a man she would've not had to pay. Under section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) the Federal Government does not recognize same-sex marriages. She challenged the law under the 5th amendment.<br />
<br />
brief interlude: The 5th and 14th Amendment are pretty much the same. Why are there two of the same amendment? The Bill of Rights applies to the Federal Government. The 14th amendment was needed in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent Southern States from being able to deny Due Process and all the wonderful rights granted by the 5th Amendment to recently freed slaves. The 14th Amendment did add a guarantee of Federal and State citizenship to all U.S. citizens as well as a spelled out equal-protection clause. Also, some stuff that no longer applies, because everyone who had anything to do the Civil War, more specifically the South's Rebelling, is long dead. And we're back.<br />
<br />
The majority ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. It served no pointed other than to discriminate against homosexuals. The decision also questioned the Federal foraying into marriage which is traditionally left up to the states.<br />
<br />
The decision did not strike down DOMA as a whole, but only that particular section. While Section 3 was a biggie, it still leaves the troubling and blatantly unconstitutional Section 2 enforceable. To be clear, section 2 was not challenged in this case, so the Court could not rule on it. Section 2 gives States the right to not recognize the Marriage of a gay couple issued in another state. This is a clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Other states have to recognize my Ohio driver's license as valid. A married heterosexual couple could move from Ohio to Iowa and be recognized by their new State government. But a married homosexual couple moving from Iowa to Ohio would not be recognized by their new State government. Also section 2 is violating the 14th Amendment. It really gets needs to get taken to Court.<br />
<br />
<br />
The final decision, which I will (try to) only write about briefly, is Hollingsworth vs. Perry. At issue was Proposition 8, a gay marriage ban in California passed by voters in 2008, which has been ruled unconstitutional by a District and Circuit court. The Supreme Court did not rule on Prop. 8 or the constitutionality of Gay Marriage Bans. The Court determined that the person making the appeal to the ruling by a District judge did not have standing in the case. The Court ruled that appeal could only be rightly filed by the State of California and since the State chose not to do so the case should've stopped at the district level. The case is to be sent back to the Circuit Court with orders to dismiss it.<br />
<br />
The California Supreme Court had ruled that the proponents of the ballot initiative could defend the law in court. It is an interesting dynamic, because Proposition 8 was not passed by the California government, but by a popular vote. So, the thought is that perhaps a citizen should have more say with Prop 8 than a state law passed by traditional means. The U.S Supreme clearly did not agree with their Californian counterparts on this, which I think is good precedent to maintain. <br />
<br />
This ruling means that by rule of the District Court Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. However, it does not have a broader effect. California's gay marriage ban is overturned, but my state's ban is still intact. Sometime, probably sooner rather than later, there will be a State that'll fight this issue to the Supreme Court, which would bring about a broader ruling. And my suspicion is that Gay Marriage Bans would be found unconstitutional, at least with the current make up of the Court.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading and please comment<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i> </i><br />
Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-13243589026903497902013-06-08T14:16:00.000-04:002013-06-08T14:16:08.377-04:00Gaming Tuesday- New Consoles or E3 or somethingI apologize to my long neglected blog as well as the few readers it has.<br />
<br />
The worst thing to have in the world of video game consoles right now is the spotlight. The Wii U (technically part of 8th Generation of game consoles with Xbox One and PS4) had no competition for the spotlight and flopped. The PS4 had the spotlight with its announcement and got bashed. No console was shown. There was a ridiculous amount of social media bullshit. Then came the Xbox One announcement, which probably has received the roughest criticism. They didn't show much gameplay. The Kinect is big brother. It isn't backwards compatible And then there was a backlash to the rumors about always having to be online and used game and DRM issues.<br />
<br />
In turn, it seems the internet has fallen in love with the PS4 even though nothing has changed about it. I don't know what the PS4 looks like. I haven't seen it function, so I'm forced to assume the things that were shown in their reveal ran on PC. And the PS4 isn't backwards compatible either.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to hide my inner Xbox fanboy. If the PS4 and Xbox One wind up being roughly equal I'm going to be getting the Xbox. I love my gamerscore. I love Xbox Live and I don't care that I have to pay for it, because it fucking works well. Anyway, this post is largely going to turn into a post in defense of Xbox One, because there is actual details out about the hardware.<br />
<br />
I have no problem with Microsoft making new/more difficult rules about Used Games. It certainly is a bone thrown the way of the game developers. Also, since it seems that games are going to have to be installed, it's necessary to have some rules about licenses. It really seems to me that they are being rather lax here. Games can be traded in or given to a friend.<br />
<br />
I don't really buy used games anymore, so I don't really feel that broken up about Microsoft hurting the used game market place. Honestly, I'd rather not even have to bother with a disk. I love Games On Demand. And with Xbox One games will be available both through physical disks and digital downloads. If it really is true that every title that comes out for the new Xbox will be available day one digitally, Microsoft has me sold.<br />
<br />
I think this is the beginning of the divergence of the console war. Microsoft seems to be wanting digital distribution. I have a feeling that the Xbox one will launch with a blu-ray drive, but within a few years new Xbox Ones won't have a disc drive(this also will avoid them having to pay Sony for blu-ray). I'm all for that. Disc drives are noisy and take up a lot of space in a console that could be used for hard drive space or processing power.<br />
<br />
Sony is all-in with blu-ray. The data that can stored on a blu-ray disc is immense and that potential was never full reached by the PS3. It was the one edge the PS3 had on the 360. A game like L.A. Noire* needed 3 discs on the Xbox, but only one blu-ray disc for the PS3. A blu-ray disc can't compete with a hard drive, but if Xbox starts to do streaming of games, a game on a blu-ray will look better and play better.<br />
<br />
I think the main thing is that there isn't a lot to be known at this point. After E3, I think things will be clearer and I strongly suspect neither console will have much of an edge. And a lot of the time with new hardware there may be a problem lurking that won't be revealed until the masses have it. If either of these turn out to be prone to failure, any other advantages disappear. <br />
<br />
Predictions:<br />
-I think both consoles will be priced at $499<br />
-My gut tells me that Halo 5 is up Microsoft's sleeve and will be revealed at E3<br />
-The PS4 will be playable at E3<br />
-The PS4 will be shown and its design will be way less stupid that the PS3<br />
<br />
Yea, this is kind of just unconnected thoughts and definitely not proofread<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading,<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
*I didn't really love L.A. Noire. I feel the limited RAM of the 360 and PS3 made it impossible for the gameplay to be expanded.<br />
<br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-87747497554700297522013-04-11T23:31:00.000-04:002013-04-11T23:31:04.878-04:00This Totally CountsSince I don't feel much like being anything other than negative and pissy. And I don't have the time/energy to do a proper BEDA feels. Here are some things:<br />
<br />
Two people have left our office crying this week, which you would think would be a commonish occurrence, but it isn't, so that sucks and stuff.<br />
<br />
I got my hair cut today. It's shorter than I've had it in a while, but not by too much. I finally managed to get a stylist to cut it where I want it without worrying about what'll happen when it curls up.<br />
<br />
I'm gonna be getting a nice tax refund for 2012. After last year, where I basically didn't get a damn thing, I had more income withheld, so I'm not shocked, but it's nice. And I'll even be getting a tiny bit back from the School District income tax, which is weird, because I've always owed money to the schools.<br />
<br />
I think Sunday is going to be my first day alone at the new job. It's scary and exciting and other feels.<br />
<br />
If things go well, I think I'll move out on the 25th or 29th. Hopefully there will be something available that quickly. And hopefully I'll have passed their income requirements with this next round of paychecks.<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-49909783113728737212013-04-10T23:13:00.000-04:002013-04-10T23:13:24.585-04:00Tired Rambles I'm super worn-out. I've worked for 10 straight days and will not have a day scheduled off for the foreseeable future. I really want to have a day to just rest and play video games and waste time on Tumblr. But I also don't want to stay at home, because I know Dad will try to get me to do shit with him. And I'd like to think I'd tell him off, but I don't know if I really would.<br />
<br />
Do your stupid shit on your own. I'm fucking tired from my jobs.<br />
<br />
Something that has made me quite happy about having to work so much and keeps me motivated is that the next day I have off will probably be the day I move out. I really hope that I will get approval for an apartment on April 23rd and hopefully actually be able to move-in shortly after that. I need to get back to working on getting shit ready for the move.<br />
<br />
I kind of have developed this fear that I've sort of hit the wall with therapy. And it certainly isn't my therapist's fault. She's trying her best, but my brain is like, 'nope... I'm not going that deep. Never, nu-uh... Imma keep being neurotic.' And I feel bad because there are things I really should tell her that triggers for anxiety, but I can't bring myself to. I mean, if she can't get it out of me no one can.<br />
<br />
Basically, I'm working on shit, but it sucks and is hard. And I feel bad about it sucking and being hard, because it shouldn't be. She tells me to give myself a break, but it's hard to break my natural pattern of thinking. I just need to keep trying, because I'm better off now than when I started therapy.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading,<br />
<br />
-MichaelMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-39111921445426021422013-04-09T22:28:00.000-04:002013-04-09T22:28:10.929-04:00BEDA Feels- Fear OffI'm afraid that I've reached that the point of diminishing returns.<br />
<br />
I'm afraid that I'll get turned down by the apartment complex after my next paycheck.<br />
<br />
I'm afraid of what will happen to everything when I do move out.<br />
<br />
I'm afraid of my father<br />
<br />
I'm afraid no one really likes me<br />
<br />
I'm afraid of losing someone close to me<br />
<br />
I'm afraid of getting very sick<br />
<br />
I'm afraid that I'm bipolar<br />
<br />
I'm afraid of leaving and having to come back<br />
<br />
I'm afraid that I'll never have a romantic relationship<br />
<br />
I'm afraid of the future<br />
<br />
I'm afraid that I'm a bother<br />
<br />
Inspiration: <a href="http://mentalpod.com/">mentalpod.com</a><br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-39298861165575661362013-04-07T23:22:00.001-04:002013-04-07T23:22:35.977-04:002nd JobI have a second job now as I mentioned in yesterday's post. Anyway, I as someone who is a bit ridiculous in the amount of personal information he shares on the internet, I, for whatever reason, really don't feel comfortable going into specifics about where I work of for whom I work. And it's nothing bad about the employers or myself. It's not a concern about security either; I haven't really made it that hard for someone who wants to stalk me to do so.<br />
<br />
For my job at a Doctors' Office, I actually do have specific reason for avoiding specifics. I'm pretty sure that if I put one of the Doctor's names in a post it would end up showing on Google searches and probably in the first few pages. It's not that my blog is all that popular, trust me it isn't, it's just that the practice has zero online presence. I really would rather no patients would find this. I do have my personal contact info available here and I think some people might view me as an in; I don't want anyone contacting me personally for a prescription request or to schedule a last minute appointment.<br />
<br />
Anyway, into vague detail about this second job. A big thing about this job is that I'm working for a vendor in a retail store. I'm spending all my time at a large Home Improvement store, but not actually working for the store. Well kind of, technically the store hired the company I'm working for to stock and maintain products, so I'm kind of working for them, but not really.<br />
<br />
So, the vendor I work for provides almost all the plants at said store and takes care of those plants. The Two big things my job entails: Stocking plants and watering plants. For example, yesterday I hung 90 ferns in hanging baskets and proceeded to water 90 ferns in hanging baskets as well as almost everything else.<br />
<br />
It's surprisingly physically demanding. I'm sore. I'm worn out. It's alright though; I'll get used to it.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-MichaelMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-67481474832690879662013-04-06T22:40:00.000-04:002013-04-06T22:40:30.332-04:00BEDA Feels- Anxious HabitA feels post today. Probably going to be short, because I'm fucking tired. Definitely, found out exactly what the 2nd job* will be like in terms of physical demands today. It's nothing terrible and I'll get used to it, but it's very physical work and I haven't had to do that in a while. Consider this a preface, to a bigger social anxiety post I plan on doing.<br />
<br />
So, this new job while it's only semi-retail it is in a very busy retail environment. That's not an environment I'm comfortable in and it's particularly unsettling because I'm new to this job, so no tolerance has been built up yet. Then, there's the fact that I'm new to the job, so I don't feel certain in what I'm doing and that breeds lots of 'I'm going to fuck up' worries**.<br />
<br />
Today was my third day at this job in three weeks*** and the first day that was really busy in the particular part of the store where I'm working for a third party vendor. So, lots of people around. Costumers asking me questions, because I'm working in the store, but I don't know the answer to, because I don't actually work for the store. So, this brings about a certain type of anxiety, which causes a particular habit in me, which cause a particular outcome.<br />
<br />
I don't know the actual name for what I'm doing; I'm pretty sure there must be one, but I haven't found the words to make Google tell me what it is. Basically, I have my lips closed, but I pull them into my mouth, basically my lips aren't really visible any more and the skin just below and above the lips touches. My lips are sort of behind or on my my teeth, so the skin that rubs together is backed by my teeth. What an elegant and concise explanation that was.<br />
<br />
Well, apparently 'sucked in lips' is what I was looking for, but I'll leave that last paragraph, because I don't know... padding or something.<br />
<br />
This causes my lips to become chapped and the skin around my mouth gets very irritated. This doesn't happen when I have daddy anxiety. It doesn't happen when my insecurities make me anxious. It doesn't happen when I'm out in the usual way (i.e. out for a meal) and social anxiety kicks in. No, this is triggered by prolonged exposure to crowds. Also, uncertainty seems to be a factor. Like, I don't know exactly what to do and there are so many people who can see my ignorance/guess at what's right.<br />
<br />
I don't know exactly what the function of that is. It seems quite instinctual to me. My brain just thinks this is the thing to do when it's nervous in this situation. All facial expressions seems to be instinctual, so this isn't particularly special; the results are painful, so I really notice it.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'll have to work on changing the behavior. Namely, by noticing it when it happens and then stopping it. Hopefully, that won't be too terribly difficult; I don't like depending on lip balm just cause I get nervous sometimes (a lot.)<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
*Have I told the blog about the second job yet?<br />
**I actually had my first fuck up today.<br />
***Basically only working weekends for nowMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-83486653076199899552013-04-05T21:31:00.001-04:002013-04-05T21:31:10.387-04:00North Korea ShenanigansAs the occasoinal topical blogger, I figured, 'why not comment on something topical?' So lucky you, two days without a feels post. Let's talk about North Korea and everyone's response to North Korea.<br />
<br />
The main thing remember in this, is that this is what North Korea does. They threaten war all the damn time. Hostile rhetoric is a speciality Pyongyang. It's partly to do with getting concessions, oftentimes food-aid, from global powers. Then there's the Military dictatorship within an extremely isolated nation. The most important thing to have in a military dictatorship is an enemy. The populous doesn't know that a lot of the threats could never be fulfilled and all the menacing talk is probably inspiring in loyalty to the Government.<br />
<br />
A mystery that remains is what is going on within the North Korean power structure. Or what that power structure even is. It's impossible to know, but maybe there is some in-fighting leading to these threats. Is there a fight between factions? Is Kim Jung-Un trying to show power and strength, because whatever other leadership there is in North Korea doubts it?<br />
<br />
Another variable with this round of tensions is the damage economic sanctions have had. And these newest sanctions we're approved by China, which had been North Korea's remaining ally. The sanctions must have had some effect on the ruling class in the North. There is no wealth to be denied the population of North Korea, but the political and social leadership might just be feeling the squeeze of these sanctions.<br />
<br />
I'm not too worried about this becoming a war. One has to think that the North Koreans know they cannot win in a conflict. Also, it also seems the leadership in North Korea wouldn't benefit from a war in anyway. The way the structure is in North Korea is pretty good for those who have power and assuming that they behave rationally will not make a move to lose power.<br />
<br />
If they are determined that war is their best option, certainly the missile and nuclear threats would be foolish to follow up on. It is really doubtful that they have a nuclear weapon that could be delivered by any means other than plane, which is an absolute non-starter. If they do have a warhead that can be put on a missile, they couldn't fire it without ensuring their own destruction.<br />
<br />
A ground invasion of South Korea is about their only realistic option. North Korea's large military would have the numbers advantage certainly and could quite possibly force a retreat. However, North Korean military technology basically stopped when the Soviet Union collapsed. Modern weaponry could do a lot to stop any North Korean advances. In fact North Korea's only real chance at survival if a war breaks out would be if China would ally itself with them. I doubt China would do that, but if they did we'd have another World War.<br />
<br />
So the best case scenario for North Korea if they take military action is a global conflict (in which North Korea is likely to be just a battlefield.) That's why I'm not scared. North Korea (undoubtedly((almost))) isn't going to destroy itself to prove a point. They'll act threatening to keep their people in line and just maybe get the West to make some concessions. Tensions will ease only to flare back up when the North feels it's advantageous.<br />
<br />
If war does break out, if North Korea fulfills its threats to fire missiles at Guam or Japan or South Korea, I'm not too worried about that unlikely outcome. It would certainly suck and could even be horrifying if there's a nuclear exchange, but fortunately I believe that the conflict could be contained and ended quickly in case of North Korean aggression.<br />
<br />
tl;dr North Korea is playing chicken and they're driving a Smart Car and the rest of the world is a Semi<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-56346358144368695632013-04-04T22:24:00.000-04:002013-04-04T22:24:33.710-04:00Dr. KingA non-feels BEDA Post<br />
<br />
45 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. This (of course) was long before I existed, but the legacy cannot be forgotten. A man of peace murdered for speaking truth about the lies that Southern institutions and culture was based upon. He spoke against the untruth of Liberty in the United States. He made certain that everyone knew that there was no 'good enough' when it came to equality.<br />
<br />
What is most amazing about Dr. King is that he didn't fight; his movement was all about resistance. Authority has no idea how to respond to a provoked person who doesn't respond to their provocation; who isn't discouraged by the use of violence against him. Dr. King and the many people who used non-violent protest knew that might isn't what's right. Justice, no matter what the powers-at-be believe, is always right in this world. Dogs, firehoses, a noose... these things have no morality and the truth about what is moral and just will always beat them in time.<br />
<br />
He was the perfect leader at the perfect time. And he remains a perfect example of how to struggle against inequality. A perfect reminder of why no institutional or cultural prejudice is acceptable. It is ones obligation to stand against such prejudice even if it's unpopular or difficult or dangerous.<br />
<br />
It is apparent that the nation is still grappling with issues of injustice; the constitution and the rights within still doesn't apply to everyone. Not long ago, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for and against marriage equality. Justice's questioned whether or not this movement was going 'too fast,' which shows that there is still a ways to go. Rights should never be considered gradual things; a person is entitled to them and it's the Court's job to give it them when the Legislative Branch fails to create laws that are in line with the Constitution and the Executive Branch chooses to enforce these unjust laws. The Court isn't there to judge whether or not something is comfortable; it is not there to conform to popular opinion. It is there as a citizen's only protector when law is unjust and the Court should have no consideration other than protecting everyone's constitutional rights.<br />
<br />
We must not ignore that while much progress has been in terms of equality in the law, that cannot be said of culture, private industry and institutions. In fact the lag between the law and reality is quite severe. The law can be rewritten with a simple stroke of a pen, but the mechanism of discrimination can't be taken apart that easily. Old prejudices linger. Those who had been disenfranchised remain disadvantaged. While a lot of overt racism, sexism, homophobia and the like is no longer a part of our culture, those things still remain. Minds still harbor old prejudices and more importantly old institutions and class structures hurt the progress that people who were subject to legal injustice are able to achieve. These things mostly are not intentional by the government or those who control the means of production. But they will not fix themselves gradually as newly recognized rights become older and more established. The rights that were denied to groups of people will continue to hurt those groups even when their rights are restored. The injustice can only be stopped by the restoration of rights as well as the propping up and protection of that disenfranchised group, because even if the hurdles are removed for that group that doesn't mean they aren't still stuck with a lousy starting position.<br />
<br />
Talk about run-on paragraphs.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />
Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-72433104944238935512013-04-03T23:28:00.002-04:002013-04-03T23:28:52.962-04:00BEDA Feels- Good MoodsWeird things. Good Moods scare the shit out of me anymore. I mean, I can revel in it for a bit before I realize what's happening. Perhaps, I'm scared of prolonged good moods.<br />
<br />
If I'm in a good mood and realize it, the killer goes like this:<br />
<br />
Brain: Oh shit, is this mania? Oh God I'm bipolar. I just can't be bipolar. I can't be like him<br />
Rational thought: C'mon bro, this isn't mania<br />
Brain: Noooooo, it is. It has to be. I can't even sleep.<br />
Rational thought: You can't sleep because you're worried your manic, so you're probably not manic<br />
Brain: WHAT DO YOU KNOW? You're just in denial<br />
Rational thought: Stop<br />
Brain: NEVVVEEERRR<br />
<br />
Then there's the fear that it won't last. Shit is unpredictable and there's always the risk that I'll be coming to hell.<br />
<br />
Really short one today, but just in case<br />
<br />
tl;dr I'm scared I'm manic if I'm happy<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-90260983112784547172013-04-02T21:42:00.002-04:002013-04-02T21:42:50.911-04:00BEDA Feels- AngerAnger became an important topic in my therapy session today. It kind of sucked. I'm bad at it. I refuse to express it in anyway. She really did her best to get me to express it, but I struggled. And I had a bit of a rise, but then couldn't go much further. Basically, she noticed that I looked calm shortly after and asked me if I was suppressing anger, which I was. I couldn't express anger again.<br />
<br />
I find outwardly showing anger terrifying. It feels like weakness to me. No one can know that they've gotten to me. In fact, no one can know than anything can ever get to me. If anyone know, then my Dad can know.<br />
<br />
It's not had any positive outcomes at home. I get mocked or guilt tripped, if I ever show that my Dad's inconsiderate behavior upsets me. Anywho, story time. And I story that I haven't really ever told anyone to illustrate two things. I didn't show anger well and my father reacting inappropriately.<br />
<br />
So let's go back about six year. I'm seventeen and my father is in a particularly horrible manic period. It's like 7:00am on a Sunday. I am awoken by my father who wants me to help him work on a car (by 'help' he basically means watch.) So, this is very annoying. It's the weekend, I'm seventeen, it's 7:00 in the morning. I wanna sleep in; High School basically meant not sleeping nearly enough during the week and trying to make up for that on the Weekends. So, waking me up for something that could just as well have been done later is infuriating.<br />
<br />
So, I don't get up. He lingers being an annoying dick. Then, the fucker dumps water on me. I don't immediately hop up though; pride is a thing that I have. He keeps being an asshole, so I get up and angrily punch my closet door. He flips the fuck out and tackles me pinning me to my bed. I scream for him to get off me; he screams at me to calm down and that he's keeping me from wrecking the house. Mom comes down she yells to get him off me. He tries to justify it to her and this is the only time Mom actually threatened to leave him through all this shit.<br />
<br />
The worst bit is that I still had to help him. I shouldn't have, but that's not the way the dynamic has ever worked. I can't remember exactly how it went down, but basically I felt I had to do it and Mom basically just wanted me to do it and get it over with. That is so much of the dynamic: don't fight, always appease. He's being horrible, but go along with horrible thing, because otherwise things will be more horrible.<br />
<br />
So, there's more to this occurrence and it's fallout, but it's not entirely relevant. So quick summary, He came home with chest pains (I think they were probably phantom.) When he goes in for a Cardiac Catheterization, he tells me that I need to apologize to Mom for what happened; basically placing all the blame on me. Anyway, this incident was when I decided that the relationship wasn't salvageable.<br />
<br />
Something my Therapist told me was that some of my anxiety is suppressed anger forcing itself out however it can. And I realized today that this is going to suck to fix. I feel like we have managed to crash some of my mental walls, but really facing anger and how to deal with it today seemed so daunting. The way I'm dealing with it right now is comfortable, because it's what I've done for so long, but horribly unhealthy. So stuff and things and hard.<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-63596079514867173772013-04-01T20:56:00.000-04:002013-04-01T20:56:00.438-04:00BEDA FeelsSo this is the grand return. I'm going to try to do BEDA. The theme is going to be feels. Happy fun feels and sad scary feels. 30 rambly posts. Lucky readers.<br />
<br />
Today's thing will be abandonment, because that one thing on Twitter.<br />
<br />
I'm scared of abandonment, but who isn't really? Someone leaving and not coming back sucks; I mean, it hasn't really happened to be, but it's terrifying. So it's anxiety inducing. If it does happen, it's would be scary so I worry about it.<br />
<br />
I'm always afraid that the people who come into my life will leave because I can't get the opportunity to prove that I care. I hate thinking that someone thinks negatively of me because I lack the ability to show them that I am a capable friend. I don't want to be left because of something that isn't true. I hate believing that people take my shyness as my being an asshole.<br />
<br />
Quite the inverse of that and a product of low self-esteem. I'm afraid that the people who do actually like/care about me will stop; that people will eventually realize that I'm not worth it. Or the more someone gets to know me the less they'll like until they just decide to leave.<br />
<br />
Then there is this feeling of partial abandonment, which I actually have legitimate reason to feel. It isn't fair, but notable absences are something I always notice/feel let down by. It isn't fair, because I don't ask for support. It isn't fair, because I don't let anyone know that I feel that way.<br />
<br />
There is a fear that I am or will be an abandoner. Basically, the horror a Hufflepuff feels at being disloyal. Like is there a situation that'll present itself later in life that I will just bail from? Is it about to happen? I mean things have been shitty and I haven't ran away from it yet, but what if my tolerance is gone? Once I get out of here will I get flighty?<br />
<br />
This issue along with others (that I'll ramble later) are shit I'm working on w/ my Therapist. I know a lot of this isn't true and there's no evidence to validate these fears. Neurotic mind or something<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-MichaelMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-19687721742743139202013-02-10T23:08:00.002-05:002013-02-10T23:08:18.570-05:00The Proportionality of ContactDisclaimer: this is really bitchy and short<br />
<br />
I really hate feeling like I am the one who has to initiate most of the contact in the majority of my relationships. It frustrates me on so many levels. I feel selfish for thinking like that. I feel like I'm maybe just a bother. I don't feel like it's equitable and then I feel bad for thinking like that. I think about this and it just makes me feel weird about my relationships and stressed.<br />
<br />
My personality type isn't particularly comfortable with starting conversations. I don't want to make someone talk to me. I would definitely be comfortable being initiated upon, because then I know that the person wants to talk.<br />
<br />
Another thing is that one of the few people who often initiate contact with me is the one person I want no contact with. And I dread potentially being *that* person to anyone else. I would really hate to be someone who people are afraid not to respond to; a person who the people I'm closest to can't tell me my flaws or mistakes or ways I upset them or have hurt them or whatever.<br />
<br />
I know, I know that the reality isn't really that people just hate me or can't be bothered. I know that it isn't true, but it still nags at me. I know that in reality other people are kind of like me. And a lot time it's really just us being two people who don't want to bother the other.<br />
<br />
I just wish there was a better balance.<br />
<br />
-MichaelMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2953137639088062844.post-79757799199475671332013-01-25T22:59:00.003-05:002013-01-25T22:59:58.958-05:00Your Feelz Aren't My FeelzSo, a bit of a short story is in order. I'll call it "Michael's Nervous Breakdown 2012"<br />
<br />
Around Thanksgiving something (current theory: Holidays= Time around dad w/ no escape) triggered me to start having anxiety and panic attacks with alarming and annoying frequency. Basically, I was nervous and pretty much crippled by it. Anyway, I started a new medication, because Dr. C thought that perhaps the reason anxiety was breaking through so strongly was because I had bi-polar disorder. THAT THOUGHT was/still is horrifying to me. I didn't really agree with that assessment at the time, but also knew that my desire to not be Bipolar like my Dad was very strong.<br />
<br />
So, I started that medication and sought counseling despite the cost which had made me avoid it during some previous issues. I picked a counseling practice to contact after doing a little looking on the webz. I got an appointment and that was a big help.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I've been going to weekly sessions and dropped the added medication (with the consent of Dr.C).<br />
<br />
So, context sort of achieved.<br />
<br />
Anyway, counseling has been very helpful so far. Getting a third party who is totally removed from my situation provides clarity that I was severely lacking. Things are ridiculously obvious, but I'm trapped in my own perspective. It helps that she is awesome.<br />
<br />
The thing that she's helped me see that I'm not responsible for other people's feelings and moods. I mean, that isn't really a brilliant thing. But it was such an "ohhhhh" moment for me. In a very simplified version of events, here's how she dropped this nugget of knowledge on me*:<br />
<br />
Tasha: Do you think you could make me happy.<br />
<br />
Michael: I'd like to think I can<br />
<br />
Tasha: You can't. Even, if you come in and are charming and funny and kind. I get to decide whether I'm happy or not.<br />
<br />
Again, this is kind of obvious stuff, but I've too trapped in the prism of being me to have seen it. I've always let other people's emotions affect me so much. If someone I care about is upset for whatever reason, I internalize it and stress about it; I take it as my burden when it isn't.<br />
<br />
I definitely don't want to make it sound like she is suggesting that I stop caring or that I plan to do so. I care, I care a whole bunch about the people in my life. I just need to start doing it in a healthier way. I am not the center of anyone's life but my own. I am only responsible for my own feelings. So, while I want to see everyone happy, I need to stop feeling like it's my responsibly to make that so.<br />
<br />
Basically, I need to take care of the head of #1 playa. Stressing about other's peoples feelings does nothing to help them. All it really does is double the burden. And I can still be helpful or caring or supportive or whatever without having to carry the full weight of the burden as well.<br />
<br />
As I said, my counselor is great. She's gotten to one of the roots of my daddy-anxiety issues and it's so obvious and something that happened this week made it click and I definitely know she's right. She also gave me a brilliant strategy to try; it'll just require a little bravery on my part**.<br />
<br />
<br />
I do want you all to know that things have improved so much from where they were at the start of this. Life is going pretty well right now. So Blawg Post<br />
<br />
Thanks for reading<br />
<br />
-Michael<br />
*She was more graceful and intelligent and I was less graceful and more dumb<br />
**I'm not a Gryffindor, okay?Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16962629370754870293noreply@blogger.com3