wow. i went like three weeks without being seriously depressed. was nice while it lasted.
g [6/14/2003 11:03:00 PM]
I haven't felt like answering emails recently.... It's weird. I mean, short ones, like with Kels, ok... but some people expect more than a sentence or two if you know what I mean and I just don't feel like it. So they remain in my inbox, slowly piling up. Actually I did answer them a while ago even though I wasn't really in the mood, but they're piling up again. I feel bad.
g [6/04/2003 06:35:00 PM]
If one of your girlfriends said, "we should bury all the men in the world and just keep them underground for mating purposes," would you laugh and say, "that's the smartest thing you've said all day!" You would be joking, of course.... But if you were on the other side? If you overheard some guys talking, laughing, and one of them said, "we should put all the girls in the world underground and keep them there for mating purposes," wouldn't you be angry as hell? No matter if they were joking or not.
Mr. Pezza says we are moving towards equality. Maybe, or maybe women are moving up in status. They are two totally different things; the former would result in balance, equality, eventually. The latter would result in a backlash against men: women rule the household, because they gave birth, so it is their right to say how their children are raised and such; women rule the workplace because they are more intelligent and can work together better; women rule the country because they are so much friendlier and therefore get votes, are so much more empathetic and can work things out better between other countries. Maybe the men have more testosterone, bigger muscles. Well, okay, from each according to his ability, and the men are left with manual labor, washing dishes, cooking, building things for the women - in other words, slaves. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Doesn't counter-rascism, counter-sexism, make you angry? Doesn't it frustrate you that many women are sore at all men for the things the male majority did a hundred years ago and the male minority still do today? Doesn't it make you go crazy how so many blacks are sore at all whites for the things the white majority did a hundred years ago and the white minority still do today?
And you know what else makes me angry? The underrepresentation of hispanics, our country's largest minority. Just thought I'd mention it while we were on the subject of race.
...Starting to understand why some intelligent, educated people support capital punishment, but still disagree to the ends of the earth. Don't really understand why so many intelligent, educated people, supposed forward-thinkers, can support abortion. Uh-oh, I foresee possible anger over that. But are they arguing that taking away the right to choose an abortion is taking away a fundamental right? The right to choose to kill? Since when is the right to murder a fundamental right? If they are arguing that it is not murder because the fetus is not really a live human being yet, then let them prove it and I will be okay with abortions. It is hard for me to say when I think it becomes a living thing, a human being, and thus murder; I feel that I don't know enough information in this area. I can understand supporting abortions when the pregnant woman is at risk. Then it becomes a choice of who dies. The mother, who has had a chance at life, has at least had some time to enjoy life; or the baby, who cannot know what it will be missing, and therefore can't miss it. The mother, to whom people are no doubt attached; or the baby, who will never be allowed to make a human connection. At this point it gets into religion, what you think happens to the baby when it dies, and all that. We ain't goin there. Heehee, it's funny: my opinion on abortion just developed pretty recently (within the last couple months I guess). Nice to know new opinions can pop up for me now and then, still. I mean it's been forming, but now it's concrete.
g [6/01/2003 04:52:00 PM]
Making me angry right now (!!) - two articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning.... One, page C1, "Two basic rights clash in Scouts' policy on gays" by Jane Eisner. A man by the name of James Dale, assistant scoutmaster, was dismissed for being gay (thirteen years ago). He fought it all the way to the supreme court where they ruled - incrudulity reaches a peak - "that forcing the Scouts to accept gays would violate the group's right to express its message and instill its values." Oh the anger. I completely disagree with the decision, made three years ago; it's going to take forever for it to be overturned. However, "the largest Boy Scout council in the Philadelphia area became the latest local group to challenge the national organization by voting unanimously last month not to discriminate against homosexuals." Yay!! Hopefully other areas will follow suit. The other article, describing a situation that is, perhaps, even worse, on the very front page: "New rules may alter U.S. media ownership: Likely revisions could limit the diversity of voices, views." WTF! We need more diversity, not less, in the views we receive from the media! First sentence summarizes the action: "In a historic decision that could dramatically affect what Americans see, hear and read, a federal agency controlled by free-market Republicans is poised to loosen or scrap long-standing rules that prohibit corporate media concentration." In other words, huge companies will take over most of our media so that smaller ones can't compete and we will only hear their point of view, not the minority view, not the back of the coin. God save our minds from the propaganda they are about to receive.
How can our government do these things to us??? I know they are trying to do it for the public good, but ... I guess I have a very different idea of what is good for the public. I don't support intolerance or brainwashing. >: ()
g [6/01/2003 02:22:00 PM]