7.07.2007

i got a forwarded email from my mother today that told a (probably fictionalized) story from an enraged 'american mother' whose daughter had gone to a colorado court for a speeding ticket. the basic gist of the story was that illegal, non-english-speaking immigrant offenders were handled by the court first, because the interpreters employed by the state refused to work after a certain time. the illegal immigrants were then all handed small (<$50) tickets and allowed payment terms. the girl whose mother relates the events to us, by contrast, is made to pay a ticket in excess of $200 for the same offense, was not allowed payment terms, and apparently suffered a bruised ego from having to take a back seat to untermensch illegal aliens.
there is then a list of (mostly self-righteous) grievances resulting from the situation, in the form of sarcastic statements about the role of the government in the matter. the over-arching tone of these complaints is one that places the blame squarely on the workers themselves; citations are made to their lack of insurance and the effect that has on the author's blue-blooded american insurance premiums. as if anyone, legal citizen or not, can afford health and auto insurance on meager or no employment. i personally don't have health insurance, and i was born and raised in the heartland of america. finally, there is the outrageous (and unsubstantiated) assertion that "No country in the world has ever survived having 2 major languages."

the sad thing is that noone realizes how stupid they look when they blame the illegal aliens themselves for american socioeconomic problems. when you're snakebit, you don't blame the tail, do you?
don't blame immigrant workers for coming to america where they have more opportunity than in the country where they have legal citizenship; don't put the blame entirely on mexico for it's weak social system. the real reason these people are here because too many labor applications depend on their willingness to work for less than legal citizens and without the rights that the companies are required to furnish citizens with. these people are here because many businesses; big corporations on down to small construction firms; depend on them to profit. remember the days of labor union strikes, and strike-breakers who would come in and work, undermining the purpose of the union strike? illegal workers are preemptive strike-breakers; they shut down the strike and weaken the legal workers' cause, even before the strike has a chance to happen. in a situation like that, what does a working class person do to stand up for their rights?
this is supposed to be where politicians come in, in a representative government that still calls itself a democracy. but the incumbent politicians of the last 25 years, at least, haven't been representative of the people at all, but rather the companies which employ the people. the theory, ideologically, is that 'if the companies prosper, so do the people'; apparently, none of them had read a book called 'the jungle' by upton sinclair; a non-fictional account of the relationship between a company and its labor force, set in america 100 years ago, before the intervention of the government to establish workers' rights, not to mention fierce regulation of the companies' product. regardless of whether or not anyone took 'the jungle' to heart, time has shown that the american worker is not represented in government by his elected official. the result of this labor loophole is a swift, continuous decline in the quality of life for everyone in the lower three economic quarters of the country. not 3/4 as in 75% of the population, but 'lower three quarters' as in 'the 95+% of american citizens (plus untold numbers of illegal immigrants) who make less than certain amount of money in a year'. people who depend an employment to live; not people who inherit a fortune, live off of trust funds or sell pretty pictures of themselves to the stupid masses for multi-million dollar paychecks.

these illegal workers are here because those companies that employ them illegally have lots and lots of money.
money talks, especially to politicians.

illegal workers are here to stay.
they're
a)the latest iteration of hyper-profitable (i.e. "slave") labor
b)added leverage against labor unions and workers' rights.


[K]

6.08.2007

i was doing a little random internet reading just now, and i found a page of relatively interesting essays by someone named A.Y. Siu. there are pieces about this person's christian beliefs (which are fairly insightful), computer topics(mostly linux stuff), education (he/she seems to be an english teacher)and then a multitude of sociological issues. i wasn't able to discern Siu's gender for certain, so i'll be using the generic 'he' for this piece.
the piece that brought me here to write is called "The Slut/Stud Double Standard". it was apparently posted back in september of '04, but i think it's still a relevant topic today, and to be perfectly honest, it galled me enough to want to respond in an email. unfortunately, A.Y. Siu doesn't make an address publicly visible, so i'll have to subject all of you to my response instead.

Siu's essay recognizes the destructiveness of this double standard in modern society, and offers a solution in his conclusion;

A revolution has to happen. Men have to stop giving it up so easily--men have to be desired, to be "conquered," too. Women, in turn, need to take a risk and be more "slutty." We need to achieve a balance through behavior and desire. We have to stop subscribing to the myth that a man must take every opportunity he can to have sex with a woman. We have to stop believing that woman have to "save" themselves any more than men do for some "special person."

i agree that a revolution in sexuality will have to occur if this double standard is to go by the wayside. i agree that men should adopt a higher moral perspective of sex. but i don't think Siu's suggestions for women to "be more 'slutty'" are revolutionary in the least.
he goes on to state;

as long as any promiscuous or pre-marital sex exists, it should be viewed as equally respectable or disrespectable for both sexes, and that can happen only if people start shifting their own personal attitudes and desires.

first, i want to state that i'm not going to condemn pre-marital sex here; i simply have no room to speak. promiscuous sex, to me, is an altogether different situation. i consider it to be an indulgence of the lower brain, and wholly destructive to any kind of higher process such as morality or the betterment of a peaceful society.
that having been stated, i agree whole-heartedly that promiscuous sex should be "equally respectable or disrespectable for both sexes". but i think emphasis should be placed more on the disrespectability‡ of promiscuity for both sexes, and i don't think Siu's suggestion for women reinforces this at all.
what his suggestion ultimately accomplishes is a reflective society where both sexes continue to view sex as conquest and the entire issue gets before it gets better. sadly, i think this is where our society is already heading, judging by shifts in the mores of popular/teen culture. take, for instance, this quote from an article linked in Siu's footnotes.

"I think making love is an emotional connection, a sense of being a part of another person. For me at least -- it's the difference between having a gourmet meal and a taco. Sometimes you maybe want a gourmet meal. Sometimes you just want a taco."

now obviously, this woman's views on sexual liberation are radical, given the content of that article. the quote itself reiterates a concept i've heard from girls my age on several occasions, though. somehow women and men collectively got the idea in their heads that by removing the social elements of sex that have long been considered most important, they could achieve equality and knock down damaging promiscuity stereotypes.

i'm left to wonder if these people have not ever heard the old aphorism 'quality over quantity.'


[K]


‡ - i know, i'm pushing it here with the suffix, but you understood my meaning.

4.14.2007

of real love.

this is a picture of me
and my favorite person in the world
my robot...


just felt like sharing a little ray of sunlight,
in this blog, whose mood is more often than not pretty overcast.

i dearly miss writing for this blog,
but i'm still learning to balance a full-time job with actually living my life.


i will be back soon enough, i promise you this.
in the meantime, my myspace has become the de facto method in which to reach me.
come pay me a visit, if only to see what i could have done for this blog's layout
if i hadn't spent so much time crying about how hard my life was at 18.
lol.


[K].siff

3.13.2007

clutching the guardrail, her pulse quickens and she contemplates what it was that brought her here today. as she ascends, every step is a snapshot from her past; the night they met, all the shows since then, the bus, 'the fixes', and the grimy men's room door she'd seen him walk through thursday night.
each step a memory; the altar is high enough for exaltation, and low enough to remind her how short their time had really been. at the top, she realizes that her hand hurts from gripping the rail so tightly; its offer of security superficial, she accepts nonetheless. she hesitates, wondering whether it would hurt more to hold on too long or to let go and face what she must on this dreary day in october.
he had always wanted rain for his funeral, and she supposed he had gotten it. he had gotten a lot of what he'd wanted lately; most of it would eventually leave him in his current state.
she was stalling; but why? she didn't suppose he could possibly look any more frigthful than he had on all those 'rough nights'; nights when he 'needed something to soften the blows'. she wasn't afraid to see him dead; no, she was much more afraid of seeing him beg for death all those mornings after, of thinking maybe it would be better that way.

stop stalling, it's too late to turn back.

shutting her eyes, she stepped to the edge of the casket, feeling the padded interior on her fingertips.

open your eyes, what are you afraid of?

suddenly seeing him there in that box, she knew precisely what she had been afraid of. that look of peace on his face, the hint of a smile that hadn't graced his lips in months; he wasn't heroine-joe anymore. in fact, he looked more like the stupid punk-rocker boy she'd swooned over in ohio 3 years ago than he had in... 3 goddamn years. having been ashamed of thinking maybe he would be happier dead, it hurt all the more to see that she was right.
just look at him, anyway. he'd insisted in his will that he be buried in that cruddy old rancid shirt. it might have made her laugh, if it hadn't allowed her to see the runs on his arms, the mutilated veins. maybe he'd wanted the world to see what he'd done to himself; or maybe he just liked the way that dirty old thing looked on him. 'at least the scars were harder to pick out through all his tattoos' she thought, actually managing an ironic little smirk. feeling guilty for that bit of mirth, she felt her eyes well up and knew they would stream down to her chin more than a few times before fading like that smile.

in the days since he'd passed, tears had come fairly often. but her heart seemed to be forcing a soft sort of composure upon her, wouldn't allow her the heaving sobs of bereavement.

hold it in, savor it; this pain is all you have left of him.
without it, you're alone again.

2.20.2007

and i'm drowning slowly


survivors of the abortion holocaust.
this disgusts me.

let me make a few declarations about myself, to help put the things i'm about to say in context.
i am not a religious christian; i do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah, who died on the cross for our sins.
i do agree with most, if not all, of the teachings of christ. i think he was probably the greatest man to walk this earth. try to find common ground with me here, rightist christian activists. it may help you stomach the things i'm going to say.
i do not believe that abortion is a black and white issue with one simple answer; if you do believe this, you're probably not thinking it over very deeply. or you're just an idiot.
i do not believe that abortion is an answer to any of our society's problems. i believe it is, instead, a result of our society's problems.
the societal problems of which i speak are ours. not 'theirs'; ours. regardless of social class, ethnicity or geographic location.
all that being said, if you can't stomach what i'm going to say because you disagree with my beliefs, then i'm sorry you couldn't be bothered to see another's perspective on something.


at first glance, the activist organization 'survivors of the abortion holocaust' seems to have a legitimate, eye-opening message:
they state that 'one third of 'our' generation has fallen victim to inuced abortion, and that 'we' are the survivors of a mass genocide. pretty powerful stuff.
feelings and statements of outrage over the 'loss' of brothers, sisters, classmates and friends who never were are commonplace.
obvious parallels are drawn to the holocaust of world war II, probably because it is the greatest, and most accessible example of human loss in the public mind.
they display 'educational exhibitions', including grotesque images of aborted fetuses, in the interest of stopping future abortions.
yes, at first glance, these 'activists' seem to be fighting for a worthy cause.
but the more i read about this cause, the more i disagree with it. there are many aspects of this organization i take issue with, but i'll focus on what i consider to be the most offensive ones.

first, the basis of the 'survivors' claim that '1/3 of 'our' generation has been killed as a result of induced abortion.' is not clearly stated. the closest thing i could find to this claim is a guttmacher institute finding that "In 2003, the abortion ratio was 24%, meaning that about one-quarter of all U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion."(http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/incidence.html); if this is true, then 1/3 of a generation is not a rational statement given the facts. 1/4 is quite a bit less than 1/3, but it's still a terrifying number when you consider that it represents potential human lives. so then why misrepresent the facts?
i take offense to activist organizations who twist facts to their own ends, especially when the unadulterated facts stand on their own.

second, the idea that 'survivors' 'take an active stand on behalf of those who have already been lost' (as many as 50,132,812 as of 2.20.07 @ 7am, according to http://www.survivors.la) goes beyond idealist romanticism, into the realm of irrationalism. there's not rational reason to believe that you could, in good faith, represent someone who was never able to have any opinions or beliefs of their own; someone who arguably never 'was' at all. it's unscrupulous to say that you represent them, in my opinion.
then there's the self-concerned tone of the organization. if there is a legitimate, prolonged psychological impact of being a 'surviving' part of this generation, it has not been observed. if it has been observed, then it has not been cited. i personally never even thought about the abortion issue the way it's presented by 'survivors' until tonight. it would seem to me that 'survivors' is to blame for any sense of loss i feel over all those lives lost due to induced abortion, being the first to have put things into that perspective for me. i'll get to the implications of all these 'disturbing revelations' 'survivors' make for us later on.

perhaps most offensive of all are holocaust comparisons.
my stomach churns at the tremendous insensitivity of comparing raised incidence of abortion since roe v. wade to the selective torture and eventual genocide of 9-11 million non-combatant men, women and children. the self-pitying cries of a 'generation' mourning 'what could have been' simply do not compare to those of the myriad people affected by the nazi holocaust of world war II.
try to imagine how silly you all look to a survivor of the real holocaust; bleeding hearts on your sleeve for lives that never were, claiming to have 'survived' something. we will never know the horror of living each and every day of our youths in mortal fear of our own countrymen, because of ancestry. we will never be subjugated by our own government to the point of starvation and desolation. we will never bear the mark of a hate-driven regime in our flesh. we will never be torn from our families, and kept ignorant of their fates. we will not know the nightmares of seeing our real brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and friends and lovers stacked ten-deep in a pit, naked and skeletal. we will never feel the ashes of our dead fall upon us like a hellish snow.
i realize you are mostly isolated, midwestern kids with your hearts in the right places about abortion, and you probably don't have any perspective on what the holocaust really was. but you're doing our generation a great disservice by being selfish enough to compare yourself to a holocaust survivor. please just stop.

finally, i don't agree with 'survivors' sensationalist tactics. they're not the only ones out there showing pictures of aborted fetuses to teenage girls for shock value, i know. i'm sure it drives some kind of point home to those girls, i just don't know what kind of point that is. you all remember health class in high school, when they showed you that blackened lung, from a dead smoker? and how many of you smoke cigarettes today? a whole lot of you, off the top of my head. so why should i believe that 'survivors' is accomplishing any more with there grotesque shock material?
i don't believe it at all, in fact. i don't even believe that 'prevention' is the intent of showing of this trash. it is my personal opinion that 'survivors of the abortion holocaust', and other organizations like it are acting in a terrorist fashion. now i realize that 'terrorist' is a buzz word these days, used by media outlets to get a specific reactions from the public. but i hope after reading this far you can trust me enough to realize that i would much rather you be informed than 'swayed'. in fact, i'm calling for a school of thought that classifies the news-media itself as terrorist in nature; please, just hear me out.
most definitions of terrorism include only acts which:
create fear or "terror,"
are perpetrated for a political goal,
and deliberately target "non-combatants".
'survivors' show disturbing images to everyday people(non-combatants, if you will) with the specific intent of creating fear, for the purposes of achieving a political purpose; in my mind, that makes them terrorists, not activists. you feel free to disagree with that though, based on your own definition of terrorism.

there's more here, if you'd care to hear it; the 'founder' of 'survivors', jeff white, is a convicted criminal, having served a combined total of 2 years for his activities with another activist group, called operation rescue. he served as the 'national tactical director' of OR, and led his own arm of OR, called OR West. after stepping down in 1999 following an $880,000 judgment against his organization for harassment and intimidation of planned parenthood staff, he now focuses his time and energy on 'survivors'.
you may be familiar with operation rescue, they're a fundamentalist christian group with suspected links to the murders of doctors in florida, kansas and massachusetts. operation rescue also operates a fleet of so-called "truth trucks," large panel vehicles that bear images of aborted fetuses. these "truth trucks" travel around the nation showing what operation rescue calls the "grisly truth about abortion." OR lost its tax-exempt status following charges of improper use of contributions, and illegal endorsements of political candidates. OR is also currently under investigation on charges of money laundering and tax evasion.
all this talk of illegal lobbying, money-laundering, tax evasion, intimidation and even murder perpetrated against non-combatants; you'll have to excuse me calling operation rescue a terrorist organization, too.

as i said before, i try to understand why kids would become involved with a group like this. i would guess that a lot of them are probably hardline christian conservatives, which is a difficulty unto itself; best of luck to you all with that. others seem to be bleeding hearts looking for something to direct their boundless compassion toward, and i consider these to have been victimized by 'survivors'; without 'survivors' figurative holocaust on their minds, they could focus all that heart on something worthwhile; poverty in appalachia, perhaps. i'm not calling any of them 'stupid', it's not necessarily true. so many of them are socially conscious people just looking for something to believe in, and that's incredible. a quote from the 'survivors' website says: "Jesus was an activist - step up and follow in His footsteps!". it saddens me to see yet another 'christian' activist group reducing christ to an uncle-sam figure. jesus was an activist, this is true, and there was substance in his activism. the 'survivors' have no purpose, no goal, just misdirection from criminals and terrorists.
i also don't mean to say that abortion rates in america are not cause for concern; i personally find them pretty scary. it's estimated that 24% of us pregnancies will result in induced abortion. i feel like that high abortion rate is at least partly the result of casual teenage sex becoming more socially acceptable in the us. of that 24%, fewer than 10% are for reasons relating to health risks. that means they all couldn't have prevented, had people just been more sexually responsible. the top 3 reasons for abortion in the US are cited as being
# 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
# 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
# 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
listen, those are all three pretty damn easy problems to solve. if you don't want a kid yet, don't have sex. if you can't afford a kid yet, don't have sex. if he(she) doesn't want a kid, don't have sex. or at least use some kind of contraception, if not two. or three, if you can manage it.
it would seem, in all honesty, that greater than 75% of abortions in the US could have been prevented. except that everyone was just a little too selfish to consider the ramifications of what they were about to do.
far be it from me to cast stones about extra-marital sex; i'm neither a virgin, nor am i married. i was once told by a girl after we'd broken up that i had made her pregnant, and that she was getting an abortion, with or without my permission. fortunately, she was lying, telling me that to hurt me. but that fear in my heart will stick with me forever. so if i seem preachy about all this, just know that it was a fear that changed me forever, and that i just hope you'll all be careful and try to think of more than getting off.


oh, whatever. i'm clicking publish now...

9.15.2006

i am finding that i love her like one of faith should love God.
in its singular intensity, this love is no longer a thing of beauty,
but of tragedy.
at times, i am put to shame by it. all the love, the dedication, the sacrifice
has made my limbs heavy, my spirit weak. i have not merely given my love,
as it is meant to be, but wrung it from myself so violently
that at some point i came to the realization there was simply nothing left.
my fear of not loving her enough has bled me dry, and it's only now i see,
i loved too much.
i know now that she has long seen it as i now do. though it has saved her,
it has also hurt her. it must be an embarrassment to her. it must repulse her.
i think that it may be the very thing that keeps her from seeing me again,
as she once did.
i think it's the reason she shies away from me. she knows what hurts me,
she always has. she loves me enough to keep me from trying to go on
walking with two broken legs.
conjecture of this kind is the oil on the gears of my living mind...
if it is repulsion to her, it is abhorrence to me.
the realization of my failure leads to another,
that the damage i have caused cannot be mended.
this will leave a scar on us both.
i am painfully aware of the absurdity of any hope i've had for us,
for anyone else. the irony of a love that separates seems as resolute
as a bullet to the head, and just as constructive. this resolution feels empty,
this is a love suicide. my heart put to purgation.
it is cold, this feeling,
this knowledge that giving my heart and soul without reservation has
truly, truly eliminated any chance of a storybook ending
or even the reluctant respite affected in a sotted soliloquy.
it has left me outside the reach of others. for i am loved, this is true;
but for all my thrashing about in these waters,
all their clawing at the chains, long gone is the key that opens the lock on
these cement shoes.

this is not regret.
this is atonement.
i cannot rectify this mistake, that is the one detail i have come to rest upon.
but today, for all to witness, i admit to the injuriouness of my zeal.
there can be no absolution, for you all to know that i am no longer ignorant
affords me all the satisfaction of a loveless tryst, an act of vengeance.
of an empty grave.

oh, whatever. i'm clicking publish now...

8.07.2006

now i'm taking you with me


to give you folks some sort of perspective on the game that dragged me away from blogging every day, i thought i'd post up this video of the fight with Razorgore, the first major encounter in a place called Blackwing Lair. i've joined a new group of players, called a guild, today that allows me access to new content, basically. this fight is part of that new content.
Razorgore is a gigantic draconic creature that guards/maintains the hatchery in blackwing lair. in order to progress through the hatchery and on to further hostile encounters, razorgore's got to go down.
yes, it's steeped in nerdy lore, and i'm all about that. deal.

i wanted to be prepared to do a good job my first time out with the new guild, so i looked up and watched several videos of other guilds taking razorgore down. this video actually explains in pretty good detail what my character's specific role will be. if the creator of this video happens by here through backlinks or something, thanks for making it; it was hella helpful.

i haven't really got any real life updates, lol. i'm going to look for a place in emporia for school this week, i'll make a post about that when it happens.


oh, whatever. i'm clicking publish now...