Me: I want you to marry me.
Girl of my dreams: yes.
Me: I'm going to Spain for a semester.
Girl of my dreams: that sounds incredible, see you when you get back! Have fun.
Me: Come visit.
Girl of my dreams: we'll see how it works out.
Me: I went to Morocco!
Girl of my dreams: I love you so much.
Me: so when do you want to come visit?
Girl of my dreams: I'm sorry, it's over.
Me: what changed since yesterday?
Girl of my dreams: (after a three week silence) I need to take risks. Don't wait for me.
the story since then takes three forms:
Me: hello.
A girl I might be interested in: I have a boyfriend.
Me: great, so does that mean you're telling me this to get me to back down or because you want to see how far I'll go for you? Because all I did was say hello, and attempt to engage you in intelligent conversation. I haven't even complimented you, yet.
Me: hello.
A girl I might be interested in: I want to find a hot spanish guy to fuck the shit out of me.
Me: well, good luck with that.
Me: hello.
A girl I might be interested in: I like to read.
Me: me too! I'm a fairly prolific reader, I like non-fiction and satire, I also really enjoy some historical fiction. What kind of books do you like?
A girl I might be interested in: well I just finished Dan Brown's new book, and I love Twilight!
Me: umm, well.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
What's Wrong with a US Government Shutdown
or, how I learned to love my security state; or, who needs any regulation, really?; or, wars around the world and anarchy at home; or, we should be so lucky; or, pork-barrel, why not just make me a sandwich; or, because we just can't agree about anything these days; or, "Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth, None of them along the line know what any of it is worth."
so, here's my big problem and I want it to be yours too: the US government continues to face the threat of "most non-security federal operations" coming to a halt after Friday, April 10th. This is not a late April fool's day joke, this is the straight verdad. Now, maybe if you're not a big fan of the US government, this doesn't sound so bad. Maybe if you believe that our budget problems have to do with programs for the elderly and unlucky, it sounds even better. Maybe, if you believe that these gd politicians and lazy a-holes are trying their damnedest to shuck the budget up with loopholes, amendments, unnecessary inclusions, and other pork, you might also be thrilled. Maybe that's how you feel, and maybe you're not all wrong, but I cannot abide it. Here's my problem with the budget "debate," stop reading now if you don't want to know, I am petrified of two things in the United States: a security state and unregulated corporate interests. And I'm particularly scared of them, together.
The economic collapse was rooted in the unregulated, shadowy world of derivatives and the collapse of the housing bubble - and were largely beneficial for the richest people in the country (the same people all those bloated budgets are trying to appease on both sides of the aisle). It's not common knowledge but it is a documented fact that citibank release a memo addressing "American Plutocracy," aka, rule of the super rich and how to continue this trend.
A government shutdown doesn't change this, in fact, unless economic regulation is included in the national security apparatus that stays active during the shutdown, what limited regulation has been placed on the super-rich since the economic downturn is basically being turned-off. This "freedom" to be greedy, coupled with the rising security measures taken to protect our "freedom" (PATRIOT Act, Bush's NSA wire-taps, etc.) seems absolutely terrible for the average American and is going unspoken of, buried beneath the partisan strife of our largely divided country. Since the PATRIOT act, we've moved closer and closer, above and below the board, towards being an American security state, and that seems less like freedom than a little danger.
What's the fear of the shutdown, that we'll be invaded or attacked? No, of course not, that's why the security apparatus must remain engaged. Homeland security costs 50 billion dollars, we spent 43.5 billion dollars on "intelligence" in 2007 and it's estimated at 80 billion for 2010 (the actual spending remains classified at this time). Those are big numbers, China spends 70 billion on their entire military. Yet, in the midst of this "security" our soldiers would cease receiving their paychecks? Our military bases are one of our many means of national security and global hegemony, so much so that we refuse to close them even in this age of globalization and free, open markets. And while I am ecstatic about the hits that defense contractors are going to take in the event of a shutdown, I'd be even happier if we simply cut them out of the budget and out of the picture completely - but then they'd just sell to somebody else right? But the question is, is anyone else willing to pay them like we do? Because nobody does and besides, plenty of arms and ammunition get sold anyway.
So what's my problem with the gov't shutdown? That it is not about the people, about the lay constituent. It's about BS. It's about big money controlling our government and getting their way with or without the government there to watch. It's about our bloated idea of what it means to be secure and "free" at the same time. But it could be about self-collapsing the empire, withdrawing our troops, closing our foreign bases and worrying more about improving life at home, and it could start with redesigning the tax codes to reflect the difference in equity and lifestyle between a guy who makes $373,651 and a guy who's getting a million dollar salary and a four million dollar bonus; let alone the corporate tax rate, which, while it might be one of the highest in the world, topping out at 35% for the highest earners, apparently has plenty of loopholes so some of the highest earners don't have to pay any taxes at all! (I'm looking at you GE.) While medicare, medicaid and social security eat up much of the national budget, military spending (past and present) eats up most of the rest, what if that didn't have to be the case? What if instead of handing the reins to the security apparatus and giving the carte blanche back to the richest criminals in the world we could see a bigger picture?
If government is so expensive, why not try something else instead, like crowdsourcing? But that might be too transparent, too wikileaks. And why isn't this model more indicative of the direction our government is heading? 'cause it could be.
and, I don't mean to bring up old news (if there is such a thing) but this fits again:
so, here's my big problem and I want it to be yours too: the US government continues to face the threat of "most non-security federal operations" coming to a halt after Friday, April 10th. This is not a late April fool's day joke, this is the straight verdad. Now, maybe if you're not a big fan of the US government, this doesn't sound so bad. Maybe if you believe that our budget problems have to do with programs for the elderly and unlucky, it sounds even better. Maybe, if you believe that these gd politicians and lazy a-holes are trying their damnedest to shuck the budget up with loopholes, amendments, unnecessary inclusions, and other pork, you might also be thrilled. Maybe that's how you feel, and maybe you're not all wrong, but I cannot abide it. Here's my problem with the budget "debate," stop reading now if you don't want to know, I am petrified of two things in the United States: a security state and unregulated corporate interests. And I'm particularly scared of them, together.
The economic collapse was rooted in the unregulated, shadowy world of derivatives and the collapse of the housing bubble - and were largely beneficial for the richest people in the country (the same people all those bloated budgets are trying to appease on both sides of the aisle). It's not common knowledge but it is a documented fact that citibank release a memo addressing "American Plutocracy," aka, rule of the super rich and how to continue this trend.
A government shutdown doesn't change this, in fact, unless economic regulation is included in the national security apparatus that stays active during the shutdown, what limited regulation has been placed on the super-rich since the economic downturn is basically being turned-off. This "freedom" to be greedy, coupled with the rising security measures taken to protect our "freedom" (PATRIOT Act, Bush's NSA wire-taps, etc.) seems absolutely terrible for the average American and is going unspoken of, buried beneath the partisan strife of our largely divided country. Since the PATRIOT act, we've moved closer and closer, above and below the board, towards being an American security state, and that seems less like freedom than a little danger.
What's the fear of the shutdown, that we'll be invaded or attacked? No, of course not, that's why the security apparatus must remain engaged. Homeland security costs 50 billion dollars, we spent 43.5 billion dollars on "intelligence" in 2007 and it's estimated at 80 billion for 2010 (the actual spending remains classified at this time). Those are big numbers, China spends 70 billion on their entire military. Yet, in the midst of this "security" our soldiers would cease receiving their paychecks? Our military bases are one of our many means of national security and global hegemony, so much so that we refuse to close them even in this age of globalization and free, open markets. And while I am ecstatic about the hits that defense contractors are going to take in the event of a shutdown, I'd be even happier if we simply cut them out of the budget and out of the picture completely - but then they'd just sell to somebody else right? But the question is, is anyone else willing to pay them like we do? Because nobody does and besides, plenty of arms and ammunition get sold anyway.
So what's my problem with the gov't shutdown? That it is not about the people, about the lay constituent. It's about BS. It's about big money controlling our government and getting their way with or without the government there to watch. It's about our bloated idea of what it means to be secure and "free" at the same time. But it could be about self-collapsing the empire, withdrawing our troops, closing our foreign bases and worrying more about improving life at home, and it could start with redesigning the tax codes to reflect the difference in equity and lifestyle between a guy who makes $373,651 and a guy who's getting a million dollar salary and a four million dollar bonus; let alone the corporate tax rate, which, while it might be one of the highest in the world, topping out at 35% for the highest earners, apparently has plenty of loopholes so some of the highest earners don't have to pay any taxes at all! (I'm looking at you GE.) While medicare, medicaid and social security eat up much of the national budget, military spending (past and present) eats up most of the rest, what if that didn't have to be the case? What if instead of handing the reins to the security apparatus and giving the carte blanche back to the richest criminals in the world we could see a bigger picture?
If government is so expensive, why not try something else instead, like crowdsourcing? But that might be too transparent, too wikileaks. And why isn't this model more indicative of the direction our government is heading? 'cause it could be.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
and, I don't mean to bring up old news (if there is such a thing) but this fits again:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
An Interplay of Correlations and Differences
Soccer and Other Reasons America is Fat
It's the cheapest sport in the world, and while that's not why people don't really like it in the states, it does explain why we don't play it. I mean, there's nothing to market. And while we might not be afraid to swing a bat, swoop in for a big catch or crush somebody else covered in similar equipment, we're really not chasing the ball around the field. As for Soccer and Basketball, I'll only say this: Soccer is more inclusive, though Basketball is probably our most athletic sport. And while Europe is getting fatter we're getting fatter still. No, I don't blame our lack of interest in Soccer for this - because it doesn't stop there.
food and subsidies
It's not the fast food, it's the bottomless cup. The fast food isn't good for you but the bottomless cup makes you fat. Soda is so different in Europe. First, they don't have mad corn subsidies here so their soda-pop is still made with sugar. While they might eat a lot of bread, they have a cultural eating tradition and there's so much home cooked food. Not to say that people don't eat out, but there does appear to be some sort of cultural pressure with their giant lunches here, to eat them in the privacy of your home with family and people you can trust. Eating lunch out, eating tapas, it's more of a shared experience more of a communal act and people don't eat as much. And we're not afraid to pig out in front of anybody. What's cheap in America is bad for you and what's cheap in Spain is bread and seasonal food. What strikes me in this is how the food has been dictated by the culture, as opposed to the food being dictated by lobbyists and government policies.
But here it is then, what is "freer?" To focus on playing sports that require equipment over activity or to play what's affordable and easy to start - a sport that also teaches you to keep your eye on the ball and hone some quick feet. To eat what your culture has been eating for five hundred years or to let some lobbyists and the government dictate what's affordable.
It's the cheapest sport in the world, and while that's not why people don't really like it in the states, it does explain why we don't play it. I mean, there's nothing to market. And while we might not be afraid to swing a bat, swoop in for a big catch or crush somebody else covered in similar equipment, we're really not chasing the ball around the field. As for Soccer and Basketball, I'll only say this: Soccer is more inclusive, though Basketball is probably our most athletic sport. And while Europe is getting fatter we're getting fatter still. No, I don't blame our lack of interest in Soccer for this - because it doesn't stop there.
food and subsidies
It's not the fast food, it's the bottomless cup. The fast food isn't good for you but the bottomless cup makes you fat. Soda is so different in Europe. First, they don't have mad corn subsidies here so their soda-pop is still made with sugar. While they might eat a lot of bread, they have a cultural eating tradition and there's so much home cooked food. Not to say that people don't eat out, but there does appear to be some sort of cultural pressure with their giant lunches here, to eat them in the privacy of your home with family and people you can trust. Eating lunch out, eating tapas, it's more of a shared experience more of a communal act and people don't eat as much. And we're not afraid to pig out in front of anybody. What's cheap in America is bad for you and what's cheap in Spain is bread and seasonal food. What strikes me in this is how the food has been dictated by the culture, as opposed to the food being dictated by lobbyists and government policies.
But here it is then, what is "freer?" To focus on playing sports that require equipment over activity or to play what's affordable and easy to start - a sport that also teaches you to keep your eye on the ball and hone some quick feet. To eat what your culture has been eating for five hundred years or to let some lobbyists and the government dictate what's affordable.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
To Live and Die in the Social Network
It's not the first thought I have in the morning, but it happens in the first five minutes of my day just about every day and pretty much without fail. I ask myself, "Why am I on FB?" I have answers for this question, but most of them aren't anything I'm particularly proud of. I started a FB account years ago because the girl I wanted to date was on FB and FB is/was more aesthetically appealing than myspace. Because of my age, I have a hard time understanding what the major difference is between FB and classic AOL from back in the day. I have a profile, people stay in touch with me through the service, and that's pretty much that. I have more than three hundred odd friends, but of those friends I really only keep up with a few of them. Facebook has allowed me to preserve more single serving friendships than I knew was possible. In the scope of this, I still don't feel that my political rantings and ravings have reached anyone, changed any mind, or touched any heart that wouldn't have already been influenced by what I have to say. I still haven't gotten a couch to sleep on that wasn't from a friend close enough for me to call and ask over the phone.
A month before she left me, my ex-fiancee took some time off from facebook after a party she threw had three people show up and she felt as though she didn't want to confuse and delude herself, she didn't have three hundred friends, she had three. When she quit, I felt compelled to do the same. "But my family connections," I say to myself, and I didn't. Facebook is the only place I connect with my family - who are scattered all across those estados unidos - but the phrase loses all it's power when you actually say it out loud or type it out and read it - because then it just sounds lazy and cheapens the very idea of "connecting with family" if not the concept of what "family" itself should mean.
Now, I'm in Spain and there's even more fuel on the fire. I don't have a super-smart-phone here and I pay for every call and every text I send. Many of my fellow students have been using Facebook as a tool for planning everything from a night out or a weekend of traveling in Europe. It's cheap and convenient, but ultimately, again, it is the kind of convenience that just seems lazy when I really sit down and think about it. But what of the alternatives, and in the situation where one is looking at alternatives, if they're an inadequate substitute (email chains, telephone chains, word of mouth) and the superior option is free and already being utilized by everyone (Facebook) does it make any sense to move away from Facebook? Doesn't seem like it does, but Facebook brings it's own laundry list of problems.
Facebook is like looking in the mirror, peering into an echo chamber or worse looking into people's windows (some of which may not even realize that they left that "window" open in their security settings). If you do any of those things too often you are acting outside the bounds of what is considered good social etiquette. If you spend too long staring at yourself in the mirror, you don't have any time for anyone else. If you just listen to what's being said in an echo chamber, you'd be warned that you're not getting all the information. And if you wander around and get caught peeping into other people's windows you're just about guaranteed a fine, a night in jail and a date with the court. Yet, this is what Facebook is.
This is the most well-documented age ever and most of what's being documented isn't even worth taking note of. How many pictures have to be taken before you reach a saturation point? When is it more like reruns or syndication than real life? When I think about Facebook in terms of being a waste of time, it seems oh so useless. But without Facebook, I wouldn't have any easy way to stay in touch with so many people, and without knocking them (because they span quite the range of amazing and not) I just wonder how useful it really is.
A month before she left me, my ex-fiancee took some time off from facebook after a party she threw had three people show up and she felt as though she didn't want to confuse and delude herself, she didn't have three hundred friends, she had three. When she quit, I felt compelled to do the same. "But my family connections," I say to myself, and I didn't. Facebook is the only place I connect with my family - who are scattered all across those estados unidos - but the phrase loses all it's power when you actually say it out loud or type it out and read it - because then it just sounds lazy and cheapens the very idea of "connecting with family" if not the concept of what "family" itself should mean.
Now, I'm in Spain and there's even more fuel on the fire. I don't have a super-smart-phone here and I pay for every call and every text I send. Many of my fellow students have been using Facebook as a tool for planning everything from a night out or a weekend of traveling in Europe. It's cheap and convenient, but ultimately, again, it is the kind of convenience that just seems lazy when I really sit down and think about it. But what of the alternatives, and in the situation where one is looking at alternatives, if they're an inadequate substitute (email chains, telephone chains, word of mouth) and the superior option is free and already being utilized by everyone (Facebook) does it make any sense to move away from Facebook? Doesn't seem like it does, but Facebook brings it's own laundry list of problems.
Facebook is like looking in the mirror, peering into an echo chamber or worse looking into people's windows (some of which may not even realize that they left that "window" open in their security settings). If you do any of those things too often you are acting outside the bounds of what is considered good social etiquette. If you spend too long staring at yourself in the mirror, you don't have any time for anyone else. If you just listen to what's being said in an echo chamber, you'd be warned that you're not getting all the information. And if you wander around and get caught peeping into other people's windows you're just about guaranteed a fine, a night in jail and a date with the court. Yet, this is what Facebook is.
This is the most well-documented age ever and most of what's being documented isn't even worth taking note of. How many pictures have to be taken before you reach a saturation point? When is it more like reruns or syndication than real life? When I think about Facebook in terms of being a waste of time, it seems oh so useless. But without Facebook, I wouldn't have any easy way to stay in touch with so many people, and without knocking them (because they span quite the range of amazing and not) I just wonder how useful it really is.
age already alternatives anyone chains chamber connect convenient date echo email facebook fail family fb felt fine friends guaranteed hundred keep lazy life looking minutes mirror night odd open people political power preserve pretty quit reach really saturation seems sit social sounds stay taken telephone think threw took touch windows
created at TagCrowd.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Sam Osborne
- I am a student @ MATC in Madison, WI. I am in the Liberal Arts Transfer Program. I plan on teaching, and on continuing my education إن شاء الله