Gun violence has been out of control in the United States for quite a long time. It is absolutely incomparable to anywhere else in the world (that isn't a war zone). There are too many guns, guns are too accessible and mental health parity still doesn't really exist, which is a very poor combination for a nation to have. I don't think there is a simple solution here; there are around 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. Those don't just go away with stricter laws, but even this alarming fact isn't the biggest hurdle.
Among the most powerful of lobbies in Washington D.C. and in State Capitols is the National Rifle Association. The NRA would like to see virtually all regulations on gun sales removed. Their influence is all over lax policies on the sales of guns.
Why are they so powerful though? I don't think a majority of American's do not want assault rifles to be legal to own or people with mental illness access to guns. One reason for their influence is they have big money and certainly will spend it to support candidates and run attacks. We saw this in the most election with their typical 'They're coming for your guns.' ads*. Another is their endorsement. It is almost a necessity for any Republican at higher than the local level to have the NRA's support to win nomination. The NRA's support is also coveted by Democrats, particularly in conservative states that are largely rural.
The leadership of the NRA has no concern after the tragedy of this morning. Just like they didn't after the shootings at Columbine or Virginia Tech. Or when there was an attempted assassination on Gabby Giffords. Politicians have proved over and over again that they will not stand up to them. Sure, Senators and Congressmen will issue statements of sorrow and sympathy, but they will not take action to prevent them from having to do that so often.
Is there a way to counter the NRA? Well, it is hard to say whether or not this time it will finally be different. The pro-gun control sentiment is high right now, but is it going to last? to 2014? to 2016? Politicians ought to be held accountable for their servitude to the NRA. However that is no easy task. The NRA has the funds and will continue to exist as a force in American politics. Does there need to be a powerful anti-gun lobby? I doubt one could rise to have the clout that the NRA does.
The solution lays with the electorate. Politicians who sell their soul to the NRA should no be seen as liberty-perservers, but as extremists who are unwilling to compromise even when the problem with current gun laws is apparent. The NRA shouldn't be at the heart of our politics. It should be at the fringes with the Ku Klux Klan either until it falls apart or grows some goddamn sense. The NRA's approval should be a stain on a politicians record for a voter.
The legislation that needs can be thought of pretty damn easily. Even really basic regulations don't exist. In fact, regulations on gun sales are more lax now than they were before the Columbine massacre. I think most student councils could come up with a better weapons policy than the United States' government has managed to do. Here's some of my ideas for some reforms:
-Illegal to be in possession of any firearm, which is primarily designed to be anti-personell or anti-vehicle.
The main example of this would be an Assault Weapons ban, which we had, but was allowed to lapse due to NRA influence. Certain guns exist for the purpose of combat. That's what they were made for and what they do well. An AK-47 certainly can kill a deer, but that's not it's designed purpose and their are rifles which are much less of a threat to human lives.
-Illegal to have any ammunition, which designed to cause greater damage (such as hollow points) to bodies.
For much the same reason as above. There is no reason one needs tracers or hollow points, or armor piercing rounds for hunting or sport.
-No person with a mental illness should be allowed to own a gun. Gun Sales should be contingent upon review of ones medical history.
I don't even know why this doesn't exist yet.
-Every weapons sale requires a clean background check.
40% of gun sales are done without these checks. Mostly because of what is directly below
-Ban Gun shows
Allowing these to exist is awful. A place where guns and ammo can be exchanged legally without any trail of the possession of a gun changing hands and no regulations.
-Allow local governments to have their own laws on the sale and possession of firearms.
The needs of Chicago and rural Illinois are vastly different, but it was decided that it would be unconstitutional to have a local law further restricting sale and possession of firearms. I disagree. There is no sport going on with guns in Urban Chicago.
-Magazines cannot hold more than 10 rounds.
High capacity magazines have absolutely no other purpose than to kill more people more quickly.
There is just so much that could've been done to prevent mass shootings from be such a common occurrence. And it just stays there, because Washington never moves and State houses do no better. This is a fight that neither major party is willing to take up and that needs to change. It hurts everyone. It puts everyone in danger. And all just to please the fucking NRA
Thanks for reading
-Michael
*Always masked behind the idea of liberty.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Sluts and Such
Since everyone else is doing it. And I haven't posted in ages.
I'm not the hugest of Jenna Marbles fan. I was, until yesterday, subscribed to her channel, but I'll say I was picky about which ones were worth watching. If it looked like a funny topic, I'd be down, but there's only so many 'what guys think while' videos one can take. Anyway, her video this week was about how she doesn't understand 'sluts'. (If you wanna watch, you can look it up. I will not be putting a link to it here.)
I think it's informative to think about the issue of slut-shaming in a broad perspective. We cannot escape that as a western culture sex out of wedlock is frowned upon nor that the culture has largely derived its values from Christianity. Basically what that means is
Pleasure = Sin,
Sex(for any purpose other than recreation and in wedlock) = Pleasure
Therefore Sex = Sin
We all have grown up in this world. Our minds are sort molded to feel guilty for even desires of sexual activity and to place shame upon those who do get their swerve on.
I realize fully that when it comes to sex women have it much, much worse than men in terms of being shamed by society. It is a patriarchy after all. A man who has lots of sex with lots of different people* can certainly be shamed by society**, but that is atypical and only really happens when a man is unfaithful.
The main societal issue is obviously not with the perception of men who have sex. If a man is getting laid a lot, it's cause he's virile. It's a point of pride amongst male peer groups to be getting some booty.
Okay, enough about boys.
Girls and women who choose to have casual sex or pre-martial sex are viewed by our culture as 'sluts.' Not everyone shares this view obviously. People have their own moral codes and views. The stricter religious types may see any sex outside of marriage as being 'slutty.' Some people with looser views may think pre-maritial sex is okay with a longstanding boyfriend, but may still give a woman the label 'slut' if she has multiple partners. Or if she puts out on the first date. Or if she has one-night stands. Or all kinds of things.
I do not have definition of slut. I don't think it's a useful term. It shames someone for doing something that isn't shameful. Whether or not a person chooses to have sex and the frequency of it and with whom the act performed is no reason to slap a label on a person with such negative connotations. Calling some one a 'slut' just enforces the religious idea that sex is bad and the patriarchal idea that women need to save themselves for marriage.
The only sexual behaviors that should be under scrutiny of any one should be dangerous ones. There isn't a problem with taking 'too many dicks.' The concern should be whether or not that dick has a condom on it, or is there with consent, or has an STI or could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
If anyone deserves a derogatory term thrown at them for their sexual behavior, it is those who have unsafe sex. Even then it is so much better to educate rather than mock.
The culture on this issue isn't going to change quickly, I'm afraid. Different generations have drastically different views and the old and morally stricter generations have great social and political control. There will be a changing of the guard before too long though. There is a march towards tolerance of sexuality and sexual behavior. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Thanks for reading and please comment
-Michael
*I will come to safety in a bit
**See Tiger Woods***
***I am certain that if Tiger Woods were single when we learned about his propensity for having lots of mistresses, it wouldn't have been a big deal,****
****See Wilt Chamberlin
P.S. Ending on a Dr. King quote. Gag me with a spoon.
I'm not the hugest of Jenna Marbles fan. I was, until yesterday, subscribed to her channel, but I'll say I was picky about which ones were worth watching. If it looked like a funny topic, I'd be down, but there's only so many 'what guys think while' videos one can take. Anyway, her video this week was about how she doesn't understand 'sluts'. (If you wanna watch, you can look it up. I will not be putting a link to it here.)
I think it's informative to think about the issue of slut-shaming in a broad perspective. We cannot escape that as a western culture sex out of wedlock is frowned upon nor that the culture has largely derived its values from Christianity. Basically what that means is
Pleasure = Sin,
Sex(for any purpose other than recreation and in wedlock) = Pleasure
Therefore Sex = Sin
We all have grown up in this world. Our minds are sort molded to feel guilty for even desires of sexual activity and to place shame upon those who do get their swerve on.
I realize fully that when it comes to sex women have it much, much worse than men in terms of being shamed by society. It is a patriarchy after all. A man who has lots of sex with lots of different people* can certainly be shamed by society**, but that is atypical and only really happens when a man is unfaithful.
The main societal issue is obviously not with the perception of men who have sex. If a man is getting laid a lot, it's cause he's virile. It's a point of pride amongst male peer groups to be getting some booty.
Okay, enough about boys.
Girls and women who choose to have casual sex or pre-martial sex are viewed by our culture as 'sluts.' Not everyone shares this view obviously. People have their own moral codes and views. The stricter religious types may see any sex outside of marriage as being 'slutty.' Some people with looser views may think pre-maritial sex is okay with a longstanding boyfriend, but may still give a woman the label 'slut' if she has multiple partners. Or if she puts out on the first date. Or if she has one-night stands. Or all kinds of things.
I do not have definition of slut. I don't think it's a useful term. It shames someone for doing something that isn't shameful. Whether or not a person chooses to have sex and the frequency of it and with whom the act performed is no reason to slap a label on a person with such negative connotations. Calling some one a 'slut' just enforces the religious idea that sex is bad and the patriarchal idea that women need to save themselves for marriage.
The only sexual behaviors that should be under scrutiny of any one should be dangerous ones. There isn't a problem with taking 'too many dicks.' The concern should be whether or not that dick has a condom on it, or is there with consent, or has an STI or could cause an unwanted pregnancy.
If anyone deserves a derogatory term thrown at them for their sexual behavior, it is those who have unsafe sex. Even then it is so much better to educate rather than mock.
The culture on this issue isn't going to change quickly, I'm afraid. Different generations have drastically different views and the old and morally stricter generations have great social and political control. There will be a changing of the guard before too long though. There is a march towards tolerance of sexuality and sexual behavior. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Thanks for reading and please comment
-Michael
*I will come to safety in a bit
**See Tiger Woods***
***I am certain that if Tiger Woods were single when we learned about his propensity for having lots of mistresses, it wouldn't have been a big deal,****
****See Wilt Chamberlin
P.S. Ending on a Dr. King quote. Gag me with a spoon.
Monday, November 5, 2012
General Election Night Preview/Viewing Guide 2012
Hello all. Hopefully, this will be the last political post for a while and will be unless this goes past election day, which I hope it doesn't.
So, this post will be about how I expect tomorrow night to go. I'm not getting into the congressional elections as this will focus specifically on the Presidential election. This isn't a post in which I am predicting the outcome, but rather how the night will play out regardless of result.
Let's start with poll closing times. Here is nice and organized list of all the closing times: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G12/closing.phtml?format=gc
So, the first closings will be Indiana and Kentucky. The portions of those states in the Eastern Timezone close at 6:00pm EST and at that point networks may project the winner in both of those states. These states will go Republican
The next batch comes at 7:00pm EST. Three non-competitive states close at this time, but the first biggie closes in Virginia.
7:30pm EST brings the closing of what seems to be the most coveted state of Ohio. The semi-competitive state of North Carolina will also close.
The biggest closing of the night occurs at 8:00pm EST. Mostly non-competitive states and Obama will get quite a few electoral votes out of this group. The Central Time Florida polls close at this time and as the networks found out in 2000 projecting prior to this is very unwise. The seemingly non-competitive Pennsylvania will also close.
Arkansas is the lone closee at 8:30pm EST
Another big group comes at 9:00pm EST. Wisconsin and Colorado are the two competitive states in this group.
A group of mostly red states closes at 10:00pm EST. Nevada and Iowa are in this group and are the final two 'battleground states' to close.
The left coast closes at 11:00pm EST. If the night goes well for Barack Obama this is the point at which the election will be called.
The final polls close with the Aleutian Islands in Alaska at 1:00am EST.
Okay, that's all nice orderly. However, it won't be that neat. I suspect that there will be emergency injunctions sought by the campaigns and granted by judges to extend polling time in states like Ohio. This has become a common practice and I see no reason to think it'll stop this year.
Alright, I want to talk about the four possible distinctions that each state will be given by the networks at their closing.
Obama wins the state's electoral votes: This is given to a state that based on pre-election polling, exit polls, and voting history will undoubtedly give its electoral votes to Obama
Romney wins the state's electoral: This is given to a state that based on pre-election polling, exit polls, and voting history will undoubtedly give its electoral votes to Romney
Too Early to Call: A state is likely to go to one candidate or another, but the network would like to see actual returns to confirm the result implied by the exit polling, pre-election polling and history.
Too Close to Call: All available data suggests a close contest in that state.
These distinctions with the early states can provide clues as to how the nation is breaking. The networks are extremely cautious with these things post the 2000 election. However, I will tell you that the people who make these calls are highly informed and the difference between 'early' and 'close' is significant.
A few possible hints that these distinctions could provide tomorrow night:
How North Carolina is initially classified. This state almost certainly a Romney state, but if it is given the 'too close' distinction instead of 'too early' it will be a good sign for Obama.
Another possible good sign for Obama would be Georgia not being immediately called.
A potential good sign for Romney could come in a very specific distinction for Maine. Maine can split it's electoral votes. Four are certainly going to be for Obama, but if the fifth isn't given to Obama quickly after close it's a good sign for Mittens.
Another potential positive sign for Romney could come from Michigan. It is state that should be called for the Democrats right a close, but another distinction could hint at a national trend.
I think there are several states whose results could take days. My ranking of likelihood:
1. Virginia
2. Florida
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Ohio
The electoral votes of any of those individual states may not be important after election night though. So, while recounts may happen, they could be just for a consolation prize or a few extra electoral votes.
So, there you have it.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
So, this post will be about how I expect tomorrow night to go. I'm not getting into the congressional elections as this will focus specifically on the Presidential election. This isn't a post in which I am predicting the outcome, but rather how the night will play out regardless of result.
Let's start with poll closing times. Here is nice and organized list of all the closing times: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G12/closing.phtml?format=gc
So, the first closings will be Indiana and Kentucky. The portions of those states in the Eastern Timezone close at 6:00pm EST and at that point networks may project the winner in both of those states. These states will go Republican
The next batch comes at 7:00pm EST. Three non-competitive states close at this time, but the first biggie closes in Virginia.
7:30pm EST brings the closing of what seems to be the most coveted state of Ohio. The semi-competitive state of North Carolina will also close.
The biggest closing of the night occurs at 8:00pm EST. Mostly non-competitive states and Obama will get quite a few electoral votes out of this group. The Central Time Florida polls close at this time and as the networks found out in 2000 projecting prior to this is very unwise. The seemingly non-competitive Pennsylvania will also close.
Arkansas is the lone closee at 8:30pm EST
Another big group comes at 9:00pm EST. Wisconsin and Colorado are the two competitive states in this group.
A group of mostly red states closes at 10:00pm EST. Nevada and Iowa are in this group and are the final two 'battleground states' to close.
The left coast closes at 11:00pm EST. If the night goes well for Barack Obama this is the point at which the election will be called.
The final polls close with the Aleutian Islands in Alaska at 1:00am EST.
Okay, that's all nice orderly. However, it won't be that neat. I suspect that there will be emergency injunctions sought by the campaigns and granted by judges to extend polling time in states like Ohio. This has become a common practice and I see no reason to think it'll stop this year.
Alright, I want to talk about the four possible distinctions that each state will be given by the networks at their closing.
Obama wins the state's electoral votes: This is given to a state that based on pre-election polling, exit polls, and voting history will undoubtedly give its electoral votes to Obama
Romney wins the state's electoral: This is given to a state that based on pre-election polling, exit polls, and voting history will undoubtedly give its electoral votes to Romney
Too Early to Call: A state is likely to go to one candidate or another, but the network would like to see actual returns to confirm the result implied by the exit polling, pre-election polling and history.
Too Close to Call: All available data suggests a close contest in that state.
These distinctions with the early states can provide clues as to how the nation is breaking. The networks are extremely cautious with these things post the 2000 election. However, I will tell you that the people who make these calls are highly informed and the difference between 'early' and 'close' is significant.
A few possible hints that these distinctions could provide tomorrow night:
How North Carolina is initially classified. This state almost certainly a Romney state, but if it is given the 'too close' distinction instead of 'too early' it will be a good sign for Obama.
Another possible good sign for Obama would be Georgia not being immediately called.
A potential good sign for Romney could come in a very specific distinction for Maine. Maine can split it's electoral votes. Four are certainly going to be for Obama, but if the fifth isn't given to Obama quickly after close it's a good sign for Mittens.
Another potential positive sign for Romney could come from Michigan. It is state that should be called for the Democrats right a close, but another distinction could hint at a national trend.
I think there are several states whose results could take days. My ranking of likelihood:
1. Virginia
2. Florida
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Ohio
The electoral votes of any of those individual states may not be important after election night though. So, while recounts may happen, they could be just for a consolation prize or a few extra electoral votes.
So, there you have it.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Sunday, November 4, 2012
2004 Deja Vu
Since it became clear that Mitt Romney would win the nomination, I've felt like this election has been strangely similar to that of 2004. When I say that, I mean in terms of incumbent vs. challenger not Republican vs. Democrat.
It is really hard not to find Mitt Romney reminiscent of John Kerry. Both are stuffy, rich white guys from Massachusetts who lack the public speaking ability of their opponent. Both stick their foot in their mouths often and it just proves how disconnected they are with the people. And both have a tendency to conveniently change their positions over and over again when it is politically advantageous.
In 2004, the incumbent party had the much stronger convention and saw a surprisingly large bounce out of it; much like this year. John Kerry won the first debate handily in 2004 as Mitt Romney did this year and it tightened the race basically by undoing the post convention bounce. The Vice Presidential debate were eerily similarly, with the incumbent V.P. pretty much schooling the young candidate. George W. Bush recovered and effectively fought the last two debates to a draw. Obama recovered a bit better, but the key in both cases was the poor first debate performances were made up for with the 2nd and 3rd debate.
I think the most significant comparison between the two campaigns is this: The challenging party is not enthused about their candidate, but are just wanting to get rid of the incumbent. Liberals hated George W. Bush as much the right hates Obama. However, that didn't seem to be an electoral advantage. Bush hovered around 50% approval as Obama has, but the challenger was less popular in both cases.
I think Obama is in a better position heading into election than Bush was in 2004 though. Obama seems to have bigger lead than Bush did in the polls (both national and swing state) and his electoral path is a clear and likely one.
Probably another post tomorrow night about the election (my apologies)
Thanks for reading
-Michael
It is really hard not to find Mitt Romney reminiscent of John Kerry. Both are stuffy, rich white guys from Massachusetts who lack the public speaking ability of their opponent. Both stick their foot in their mouths often and it just proves how disconnected they are with the people. And both have a tendency to conveniently change their positions over and over again when it is politically advantageous.
In 2004, the incumbent party had the much stronger convention and saw a surprisingly large bounce out of it; much like this year. John Kerry won the first debate handily in 2004 as Mitt Romney did this year and it tightened the race basically by undoing the post convention bounce. The Vice Presidential debate were eerily similarly, with the incumbent V.P. pretty much schooling the young candidate. George W. Bush recovered and effectively fought the last two debates to a draw. Obama recovered a bit better, but the key in both cases was the poor first debate performances were made up for with the 2nd and 3rd debate.
I think the most significant comparison between the two campaigns is this: The challenging party is not enthused about their candidate, but are just wanting to get rid of the incumbent. Liberals hated George W. Bush as much the right hates Obama. However, that didn't seem to be an electoral advantage. Bush hovered around 50% approval as Obama has, but the challenger was less popular in both cases.
I think Obama is in a better position heading into election than Bush was in 2004 though. Obama seems to have bigger lead than Bush did in the polls (both national and swing state) and his electoral path is a clear and likely one.
Probably another post tomorrow night about the election (my apologies)
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Electoral Blawg
I will eventually get back to blogging regularly. And maybe make a post about my own life. However, this post is not personal. It's one of my dreaded political posts. Anyway, at least this will be short.
So quite a bit of my time these days is spent playing on interactive Electoral maps. Long time readers may know about my kind of ridiculous knowledge of the electoral college. Anyway, in looking at this election from a very broad perspective there are two really obvious things to consider:
-President Obama will lose states he won in 2008
-President Obama loses electoral votes due to the 2010 census
Okay, with that said the electoral victory Obama had in 2008 was overwhelming. He could lose a lot and still be just fine. Also given the way the way the states are likely to go Obama is much closer to hitting 270 in my opinion that Romney.
At this point there are eight states that can be considered competitive when I look at the map. They are: Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada. Taking those states out of the equation that leaves the electoral vote looking like this: Obama 237 Romney 206.
Now of those eight state, I believe that 5 of them are likely going to a candidate. I feel reasonably sure that New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada are going to be states that the President wins and Florida will go to Romney. So taken these predicted results into consideration the electoral vote becomes: Obama 263 Romney 235.
These leaves Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado as the true toss-up states in my book. If this really is the case, it is very likely the President will win the electoral college. Romney would have to carry all three of those states, while not an impossibility, it is very unlikely; in fact, I think it is considerably more likely that the President will carry all three of them than Romney.
I really think it is unlikely for Mitt Romney to win the electoral college. He could very well win the popular vote, but the electoral math is pretty daunting for him. He really needs to carry most of the states that are still up for contention and that seems highly unlikely. It could happen, but nothing in the polls or political trends really suggests that will happen.
I really feel that this election has been Obama's to lose all along. The Republican candidate was going to be weak regardless of who won their primary. Demographic shifts particularly in Virginia and Colorado make the electoral map more treacherous for the GOP. And ultimately Obama still is a very strong candidate and his campaign is amazing with the logistics of motivating and turning out voters.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Monday, September 24, 2012
Selfish
This is kinda of turning into an Emma response blog
I'm also really talented at typing my philosophies in cogent ways so this will be great.
So, I personally find myself thinking about the episode of Friends, "The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS." Joey makes the point that there is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Phoebe tries to prove him wrong, but isn't able to do it. Basically, the point is that you can't do something nice for someone else without getting some satisfaction out of it for yourself. It's funny as ever, but I think it's a apt philosophical point.
I believe that there is no such thing as a selfless action. I believe every action a person makes is in someway self-gratifying. The motivation may not be selfish, but in someway it will benefit yourself.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and the thing that really strikes me is how one can perceive absolutely everything as selfish and be absolutely correct. In fact, I can look at opposite actions and see them both as selfish. The most basic example I can come up with:
If I eat, I am eating food that other people could use to nourish themselves.
If I don't eat and starve, I no longer can be productive in society and others will have to attend to me while I die and in the handling of my corpse.
There is no middle ground there. I can't not be selfish either way.
I really think the value of the line between selfless and selfish is pretty much nothing. How I really judge things is by their motivation. It really isn't that one is being charitable, but why he or she is being charitable to me. Being charitable is selfish either way, if you really thing about, but is one doing it for the acclaim and glory, or for the happiness of helping those less fortunate and seeing their lives improved.
I really think whatever you do or want, the judge of it's morality should be the motivation of it. I really think guilt of 'the self' is really built into western culture. Doing anything to benefit oneself in anyway is frowned upon and I don't think that's the right way. My self is as important as any other selfs out there and I'm allowed to want and do.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
I'm also really talented at typing my philosophies in cogent ways so this will be great.
So, I personally find myself thinking about the episode of Friends, "The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS." Joey makes the point that there is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Phoebe tries to prove him wrong, but isn't able to do it. Basically, the point is that you can't do something nice for someone else without getting some satisfaction out of it for yourself. It's funny as ever, but I think it's a apt philosophical point.
I believe that there is no such thing as a selfless action. I believe every action a person makes is in someway self-gratifying. The motivation may not be selfish, but in someway it will benefit yourself.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and the thing that really strikes me is how one can perceive absolutely everything as selfish and be absolutely correct. In fact, I can look at opposite actions and see them both as selfish. The most basic example I can come up with:
If I eat, I am eating food that other people could use to nourish themselves.
If I don't eat and starve, I no longer can be productive in society and others will have to attend to me while I die and in the handling of my corpse.
There is no middle ground there. I can't not be selfish either way.
I really think the value of the line between selfless and selfish is pretty much nothing. How I really judge things is by their motivation. It really isn't that one is being charitable, but why he or she is being charitable to me. Being charitable is selfish either way, if you really thing about, but is one doing it for the acclaim and glory, or for the happiness of helping those less fortunate and seeing their lives improved.
I really think whatever you do or want, the judge of it's morality should be the motivation of it. I really think guilt of 'the self' is really built into western culture. Doing anything to benefit oneself in anyway is frowned upon and I don't think that's the right way. My self is as important as any other selfs out there and I'm allowed to want and do.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Quick and Hard: Michael's Enamored Tuesday
Yea, I haven't posted in quite a while. No excuses. I just didn't have any real desire or motivation to post. My job isn't exciting and I can't talk about in detail. Maybe I could do a post about Minecraft. I'm nearly finished with my biggest project yet, but meh... that's for another time, if ever.
So, yesterday was a particularly awesome day. A few friends and I went to the U.S. World Cup Qualifier against Jamaica. We were planning on leaving from at about 11;00, but someone was the entirety of 'The Price is Right' late. We ended up getting to Crew Stadium around 12:30. Grilling, drinking, sneaky public and such commenced.
The game didn't kick 'til 8:00 for a bit of perspective. Tailgating all day is pretty damn balla. Plus, I used a vacation day, so it wasn't a total loss financially.
The game was fucking amazing. Pretty much the entire stadium was cheering and Jamaica supporters were few and far between. Last year in Philly, the stadium was basically all Mexico supporter, so it was nice to be in a stadium full of U.S. supporters.
Okay, on to what the title implies. I fell in love with two strangers yesterday. In fact, two strangers that I didn't even speak.Very shallow, or to put it more kindly, very ancient Greek* of me. This isn't uncommon for me, but two in one day is special.
Anyway, I very briefly say girl #1 at Target. I ran into Target to pick up rations. I had filled up my cart with snacks and booze and was headed to check out. I always look around. I cannot do things that require much focus in public, because I am way too much of people watcher. Anyway, at the near end of an aisle aroudn the Pharmacy, I spotted this girl. She had blonde hair and glasses and was wearing a longish red skirt and red wedges.
I'm was immediately all aflutter(shy), but I know my social obligations well enough to not stop and stare with my mouth open. That's all really, but she may have scored higher than anyone on the "First Sight' Test.
I was checked out by a chatty old lady cashier who commented on my booze and snacks. Damn right, I'm having a party and you can't come home with me.
Hours and drink later, in comes girl #2. She was standing behind me in the stands. Brunette, U.S. soccer shirt, jeans. Also, importantly a wedding ring on her left hand. So, aside from the fact that I'm constantly too nervous to approach any strange woman, she wasn't eligible. She was cute, nice to the people around her, cheered loudly, and was wearing a U.S. soccer shirt, so I was still infatuated.
This blog hasn't been so exciting since Hipster Girl xD
tl;dr: If I ever have a girlfriend, I will be dumped for my wandering eye.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
*Outer beauty= Inner Beauty. Think Odyssey
So, yesterday was a particularly awesome day. A few friends and I went to the U.S. World Cup Qualifier against Jamaica. We were planning on leaving from at about 11;00, but someone was the entirety of 'The Price is Right' late. We ended up getting to Crew Stadium around 12:30. Grilling, drinking, sneaky public and such commenced.
The game didn't kick 'til 8:00 for a bit of perspective. Tailgating all day is pretty damn balla. Plus, I used a vacation day, so it wasn't a total loss financially.
The game was fucking amazing. Pretty much the entire stadium was cheering and Jamaica supporters were few and far between. Last year in Philly, the stadium was basically all Mexico supporter, so it was nice to be in a stadium full of U.S. supporters.
Okay, on to what the title implies. I fell in love with two strangers yesterday. In fact, two strangers that I didn't even speak.Very shallow, or to put it more kindly, very ancient Greek* of me. This isn't uncommon for me, but two in one day is special.
Anyway, I very briefly say girl #1 at Target. I ran into Target to pick up rations. I had filled up my cart with snacks and booze and was headed to check out. I always look around. I cannot do things that require much focus in public, because I am way too much of people watcher. Anyway, at the near end of an aisle aroudn the Pharmacy, I spotted this girl. She had blonde hair and glasses and was wearing a longish red skirt and red wedges.
I'm was immediately all aflutter(shy), but I know my social obligations well enough to not stop and stare with my mouth open. That's all really, but she may have scored higher than anyone on the "First Sight' Test.
I was checked out by a chatty old lady cashier who commented on my booze and snacks. Damn right, I'm having a party and you can't come home with me.
Hours and drink later, in comes girl #2. She was standing behind me in the stands. Brunette, U.S. soccer shirt, jeans. Also, importantly a wedding ring on her left hand. So, aside from the fact that I'm constantly too nervous to approach any strange woman, she wasn't eligible. She was cute, nice to the people around her, cheered loudly, and was wearing a U.S. soccer shirt, so I was still infatuated.
This blog hasn't been so exciting since Hipster Girl xD
tl;dr: If I ever have a girlfriend, I will be dumped for my wandering eye.
Thanks for reading
-Michael
*Outer beauty= Inner Beauty. Think Odyssey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)