I'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY!

Thursday, October 25, 2007

The lack of negative entries

Don't get me wrong - I definitely haven't stopped writing negative entries, nor do I plan to. For instance, the more I hear people speak of hellary clinton as though she's already president, the more I think, "I hate that bitch." Other things set me off too - if I posted everything that I had an opinion on, I'd have no time to work. And I'd probably feel miserable.

Which is why I haven't posted a lot of stories I've thought of writing about. Partially it's because I'm pretty busy at work. But maybe even more than that is because a lot of them are negative stories, and sometimes I feel as if wasting any time on negativity comes back my way. For instance, I think of someone doing something "asshole-y" and so I blog about it. Well great, if it helps me feel better. But if I'm still stewing about it, then I'm still in that space and I'm wrapped in the negativity of the story. Often, I'd rather not even waste the time to write about something that's irritating because I don't want to give it any more energy.

It's late so hopefully this post makes sense. I'm going to stop writing before I'm really redundant. :-)

Labels:

Those damn holiday parties

So yesterday I looked in my mail slot and saw an envelope... addressed to me. I was slightly excited: "I wonder what it is?" That thought was soon quashed when a co-worker said offhandedly, "Those are the invitations for the Christmas party."

Oh.

So after feeling a little bit of disappointment that I wasn't special with a personalized card, it sunk it: Christmas-fucking-party. I hate those things. Hate 'em. Why? I'm sure you guessed it: because I'm the one there without a date. Ugh.

Last year, fortunately, was okay. A number of my co-workers were dateless, the place was packed, I was hit on all night (mainly by drunk guys, but hit on nonetheless), and the drinks mellowed me out enough that I wasn't completely self-conscious and anxiety-ridden.

But here I am, at another company, and in a couple months another fucking holiday party will be happening. I almost feel like hiding my head under a pillow. Haha. That'd be cute.

But I notice that, as is the case with most things, the feelings I'm having regarding this aren't just about this Christmas party, but also feelings that's apparently lingered from grade school (is high school grade school). The Valentine's Days without gifts (well, that's not true - my best friend used to bring me a card and balloons and flowers, bless her heart, so at least I could pretend they were from a secret admirer). In high school, I never knew who I'd go to dances with and it would usually be a last minute scramble - I'd ask a guy and maybe he'd say yes or maybe not. Maybe I'd end up going and I wouldn't even have a date. (Why go to a dance without a date, you might ask. Because, working in student government, I had to help out.)

Despite how that paragraph probably sounds, I'm not trying to stew in a pity party; rather, I'm trying to explain how those things from before carry on today and I feel the same anxiety/rejection/fear/resentment, etc.

There's always the route of trying to find a date. Oh, how horrible. Most of my guy friends have moved from the area, and the ones who are here... well, I'll skip that. I know for the next month and a half I'm going to look at guys as potential dates. "Hmm, does he look like someone I'd feel okay showing to my co-workers? Yep. Does he have a wedding ring? Nope. Ok, maybe I should try and flirt with him." (Which is a completely different thing - I give huge "don't bother me" signs - everyone tells me I'm very intimidating before they get to know me, but once they know me, they realize I'm pretty harmless.) My fear is that I'll end up talking to some old guy, which is ugh - somehow I often get along better with much older guys (old enough to be my dad, I suppose, but definitely not old enough to be my grandpa), but can you imagine if I brought someone like that to a work party? Holy shit! Or even worse, I won't find someone period. Aye. Even saying that makes my heart feel pained (or beat faster or something).

And to make it better, add having a crush on not one, but two guys at work - both of whom are married! It's not the marriage thing that is really bad - it's the having-to-see-the-wife-stay-by-her-husband-while-I-try-to-ignore-them. (Not like it's ever happened before...) (yes, my voice was trailing off at the end).

Ok damnit, I'm having a motherfucking pity party for myself. I should keep things in perspective - there are people dying in the world and the last thing they care about is a stupid party. But I'm here and I care. :-(

Here are my options:
- go with a guy
- go with a girlfriend
- go by myself
- don't go

Eeks. At this point, I'd possibly even think of finding some really cute girl to be my date (I can't believe I just said that, but there it is; plus, the company is gay-friendly so I don't think it would be perceived overly negatively).

And there is the essence of the fucking dilemma: I'm worried about others' perception of me. It's completely my fear of what people think about me. Ugh. Who cares what other people think?

I care.

I have some work cut out for me. It's not necessarily work to find someone to go to the party with (even if I didn't find someone, I'd more than likely still go). The work might just be to become more comfortable with just being me. Me. Me. Without putting so much credence into what someone might be thinking in their head because they raised their eyebrow slightly higher than they normally do or because the person didn't sit next to me in a meeting.

Whah. (That's not a wail; it's more of an exhale.)

Let's see what happens.

Labels: ,

Friday, October 19, 2007

Skip the apologies, please

So, I'm doing my normal run-through of today's news. I see an article about James Watson, the scientist who, a few days ago, said that Africans were less intelligent than [us]:
Sunday Times Magazine of London quoted Watson as saying that he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

I do wonder who "ours" stands for. Is it Europeans? The British? Americans? People who descended from apes? I'm not sure.

I chose not to read the whole article yesterday when I saw it because I figured there was no reason to needlessly get pissed off about something.

Today, though, I ran into an article about him being suspended from his work. But the thing that made me laugh was his "apology":
"I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said."

Ok, let me break this down into two parts. I'm going to start with the most amusing:

1. He's mortified. He can't understand how he could have said what he was quoted as saying? So is he saying he never said that? That he was misquoted? That he's senile?

If you pay attention to what he said, you'll notice he clearly didn't apologize, nor did he recant what he said. He didn't say he was sorry (he said he was mortified). Didn't say that what he said was wrong (instead, he couldn't understand how he could have said so-and-so). Oh, he's a smart one, all right. His statement, the words he chose, were clearly intentional, and quite clever.

Nonetheless, it was an attempt to fake an apology. Which leads me to the second point:

2. Just skip the apology. It blows my mind how frequently this happens. Someone makes a statement, someone else gets pissed, then the first person apologizes. The first person isn't sorry. He (for the sake of this post, the person will be a male) might be sorry that it created such a fuss. He might be sorry that he got in trouble. But he's not sorry for saying or doing what he said/did. The first thing he said was how he really felt. The apology was to placate people.

It reminds me of being younger: girls, as you might know, can be quite passive aggressive (but to get into that is a completely different post). Nonetheless, I'd see girls make a comment, such as, "You're ugly - just kidding." The just kidding might be accompanied with a sweet smile, a slight tap on the arm, a joking eye roll. But usually the person wasn't "just kidding". The girl just wanted to tell the other person what she thought, but follow the accepted social unspoken social rules.

Similar to when someone makes apologies such as these. I'm tired of apologies. Feel the way you feel. Think the way you think. Believe what you believe. Say what you say. But skip the bullshit apologies afterward. It doesn't make it better. It just makes the person look ridiculous.

Watson, believe what you believe. You have every right to (it's a bunch of bullshit, but you still have that right). But save the apology for something that you really feel sorry about.

Had Watson, when questioned about the quote, flipped off the journalist and said, "Fuck 'em," I would've respected him more. At least he said what he felt. But the half-ass apology just... it's pansy-ish.

I think if people stopped saying what they believed and then apologized for it, maybe we'd be able to have better dialogue. Granted, if people were coming from places of hate, it wouldn't lead to better communication. But when people can be honest in love - or at least, in respect - doesn't it make it better. If I could sit down and talk to someone who I felt racism toward, or someone who felt racism toward me talked to me, and we weren't talking to put the other person down but instead to have a true, open conversation about our beliefs, can't that spawn something beautiful?

How can we solve anything if we pretend it's not there? How can we work on something when we pretend we didn't mean what we first said?

Idealistic? Or could it have some truth in it?

Labels: , ,

Monday, October 08, 2007

Intervention - or sensationalism?

I haven't thought of that aspect too much. Is Intervention playing on the sensationalism of people's obsessions with others' misfortunes? I know that I've found it to be a very compelling series. I know that, like Extreme Makeover (see yesterday's post), I often cry when I watch an episode (although quite possibly for different reasons). No - come to think of it, I think they're similar - seeing life and human emotions played out on screen, connecting to those people with their joy, their pain - it might be reality television, but sometimes, it's real.

That being said, I often feel at the very least uncomfortable while watching the show. I mean, it's not really sugarcoated. They show people shooting up, snorting up, making themselves throw up, cutting, bingeing, boozing, etc. It's intense. They show the old needles, the overused spoons, the clouded eyes, stuffed-up noses, everything. Sometimes I watch, almost with one hand covered over an eye. Sometimes afterward, I'm so disturbed, that I have to talk to a friend the next day to get it out of my system. And, like that crash on the side of the road, I still watch.

Well, that's not exactly true. First of all, I try not to watch crashes on the sides of the road because I know how pissed off I am with slow traffic and I don't want to make it any slower by looking also. Secondly, it's not like the crashes. It would be as if I was watching a crash, then watching the people go to the hospital and get better and then seeing them healed from their injuries.

I haven't watched episodes in a long time. One reason is because they changed the day of the week and I forget to watch Intervention on Fridays. The other part is I don't know how much I can stomach. I'm taking a break.

But as I said at the beginning, I did find this article interesting. And one of the two "subjects" they mention, Laney, was in an episode that I previously watched.

When Reality TV Gets Too Real

On a recent episode of “Intervention,” A&E’s documentary series about addiction, no one was stopping Pam, an alcoholic, from driving.

As she made her way to the front door — stopping first at the refrigerator to take a swig of vodka for the road — viewers could hear a producer for the show speak up.

“You have had a lot to drink,” the voice from off camera said. “Do you want one of us to drive?”

Pam was indignant. “No, I can drive. I can drive,” she mumbled. She then got into her car, managed a three-point turn out of the parking lot and drove off. The camera crew followed, filming her as she tried to keep her turquoise Pontiac Sunfire between the lines.

Perhaps more than any other program on television now, “Intervention” highlights the sticky situations that reality-show producers can find themselves in as they document unpredictable and unstable subjects or situations. In recent years, producers and networks have increasingly pushed the boundaries of television voyeurism in search of another ratings hit.

At times, this has proved problematic for television networks. There have been several lawsuits related to shows like “Big Brother” and more recently, CBS found itself facing accusations that it had created dangerous working conditions for children in its reality program “Kid Nation,” in which children aged 8 to 15 toiled in the New Mexico desert to build a working society on their own.

In the case of reality-TV documentary shows like “Intervention” and the various incarnations of “The Real World” and “Road Rules” on MTV, producers can be witnesses to crimes, raising the question of when they are obligated to step out from behind the camera and intervene.

Sometimes the crimes they film are relatively minor, like underage drinking or fisticuffs. But in other cases, like on “Intervention” and VH1’s “Breaking Bonaduce,” in which the star, the former child actor Danny Bonaduce, got behind the wheel after he had been drinking and bragged how a car crash would make great television, the program’s subjects can put themselves and innocent bystanders at great risk.

And legally, producers are treated like witnesses: they bear no responsibility to intervene.

“The law in the United States doesn’t require you to step in and save people,” said David Sternbach, counsel for litigation and intellectual property matters for A&E Television Networks. “And it doesn’t require you to stop a crime that’s in the works.”

Often, of course, they have good business reasons not to: people on the edge make for good television. “Intervention” is one of A&E’s top shows. This year it has drawn up to two million viewers on its best nights. The premiere of “Kid Nation” attracted 9.1 million viewers but slipped the next week to 7.6 million.

The first season of “Breaking Bonaduce” helped VH1 increase its prime-time ratings in 2005, though they faded in the second season. And a wide following for “Cops,” Fox’s police ride-along reality show, has kept it on the air since 1989.

A&E said “Intervention,” has never been sued. And legal experts said that making a case against it or other documentary programs like it would be difficult because the subjects were being filmed in their own homes, engaging in activities that they would be pursuing regardless of whether a camera crew was there.

“This is their life with me or without me,” said Sam Mettler, “Intervention’s” creator and executive producer. The program takes other steps, like requiring potential subjects to undergo psychological evaluations and keeping a family member of the addict on call 24 hours a day during filming, to avoid being negligent.

To make a case for negligence, legal experts said, the accusing party would need to prove that the reality program created a situation that put its subjects in jeopardy. A “Big Brother” cast member sued CBS, for example, in 2002 after another cast member with a criminal record held a knife to her throat. CBS settled the case for an undisclosed amount.

When the sister of a woman who appeared on ABC’s “Extreme Makeover” committed suicide in 2004, the contestant sued the network for wrongful death and other charges. The contestant, who was competing to win free plastic surgery but lost, claimed that her sister had felt so guilty about mocking her appearance on the program that she killed herself. ABC settled the case for an undisclosed amount last year.

But if a subject on a show like “Intervention” or Fox’s “Cops” series were to injure someone while engaging in illegal activity, a case for negligence would be more difficult to make because producers are merely observing.

“Television producers are not policemen,” said Michael J. O’Connor, whose firm White O’Connor Curry in Los Angeles, Calif., has represented reality shows like “Survivor” and “America’s Next Top Model.” He added: “On a moral level, you get to the point where stepping in seems like it would be something you’d want to do. But from a legal standpoint, third parties causing injuries to other third parties is not something a television program is really responsible for.”

Being absolved of legal responsibility for his documentary subjects, however, does not make shooting the program any easier.

“I’ve had children of alcoholic parents there watching their mother in a drunken stupor, watching their mother pass out, watching their mother throw up,” Mr. Mettler said. “Those innocent children as casualties of their mother’s addiction was just emotionally heart-wrenching. The trauma of that is horrible, just horrible.”

“Intervention,” which ends each episode with an actual intervention, has arrangements with substance-abuse rehabilitation centers across the country that provide free in-patient treatment for addicts on the program.

“Morally and ethically, none of us can feel good watching someone hurt themselves or hurt someone else. And I’m not going to stand by and have someone who is drunk get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone,” Mr. Mettler said.

Mr. Mettler himself has had to step out from behind the camera on a number of episodes to prevent someone from driving drunk. In one case, he followed a crack addict named Tim through a swamp. Tim had crawled into a drainage pipe and threatened suicide, so Mr. Mettler had to talk him out.

And in another episode, Mr. Mettler’s field producers called paramedics after an alcoholic they were filming overdosed on the sedative trazodone. Laney, a wealthy divorced woman who drank half a gallon of rum a day and traveled long distances in limousines because she did not like putting her cat on commercial jets, swallowed the pills while the cameras were off. She told producers what she had done after they saw her chugging a bottle of juice to wash the pills down.

“Our first position is that this is a documentary series, we are there capturing real people in their real lives,” said Robert Sharenow, A&E’s senior vice president for nonfiction and alternative programming. “If there was an immediate danger, that was sort of our line. If the person was putting themselves or anyone else in immediate danger, then we’d cross the line.”

He added: “It’s a very, very delicate balance.”

Sometimes what other people have to say is so much better than me

I have to forewarn: I haven't read all of this article yet. So far, though, at the very least, regardless of whether I agree or don't agree, it's interesting.

Nobody Knows the Lynchings He’s Seen

Frank Rich, Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
Sun, Oct. 7, 2007

What's the difference between a low-tech lynching and a high-tech lynching? A high-tech lynching brings a tenured job on the Supreme Court and a $1.5 million book deal. A low-tech lynching, not so much.

Pity Clarence Thomas. Done in by what he calls "left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony" — as he describes anyone who challenged his elevation to the court — he still claims to have suffered as much as African-Americans once victimized by "bigots in white robes." Since kicking off his book tour on "60 Minutes" last Sunday, he has been whining all the way to the bank, often abetted by a press claque as fawning as his No. 1 fan, Rush Limbaugh.

We are always at a crossroads with race in America, and so here we are again. The rollout of Justice Thomas's memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," is not happening in a vacuum. It follows a Supreme Court decision (which he abetted) outlawing voluntary school desegregation plans in two American cities. It follows yet another vote by the Senate to deny true Congressional representation to the majority black District of Columbia. It follows the decision by the leading Republican presidential candidates to snub a debate at a historically black college as well as the re-emergence of a low-tech lynching noose in Jena, La.

Perhaps most significant of all, Mr. Thomas's woe-is-me tour unfolds against the backdrop of the presidential campaign of an African-American whose political lexicon does not include martyrdom or rage. "My Grandfather's Son" may consciously or not echo the title of Barack Obama's memoir of genealogy and race, "Dreams From My Father," but it might as well be written in another tongue.

It's useful to watch Mr. Thomas at this moment, 16 years after his riveting confirmation circus. He is a barometer of what has and has not changed since then because he hasn't changed at all. He still preaches against black self-pity even as he hyperbolically tries to cast his Senate cross-examination by Joe Biden as tantamount to the Ku Klux Klan assassination of Medgar Evers. He still denies that he is the beneficiary of the very race-based preferences he deplores. He still has a dubious relationship with the whole truth and nothing but, and not merely in the matter of Anita Hill.

This could be seen most vividly on "60 Minutes," when he revisited a parable about the evils of affirmative action that is also a centerpiece of his memoir: his anger about the "tainted" degree he received from Yale Law School. In Mr. Thomas's account, he stuck a 15-cent price sticker on his diploma after potential employers refused to hire him. By his reckoning, a Yale Law graduate admitted through affirmative action, as he was, would automatically be judged inferior to whites with the same degree. The "60 Minutes" correspondent, Steve Kroft, maintained that Mr. Thomas had no choice but to settle for a measly $10,000-a-year job (in 1974 dollars) in Missouri, working for the state's attorney general, John Danforth.

What "60 Minutes" didn't say was that the post was substantial — an assistant attorney general — and that Mr. Danforth was himself a Yale Law graduate. As Mr. Danforth told the story during the 1991 confirmation hearings and in his own book last year, he traveled to New Haven to recruit Mr. Thomas when he was still a third-year law student. That would be before he even received that supposedly worthless degree. Had it not been for Yale taking a chance on him in the first place, in other words, Mr. Thomas would never have had the opportunity to work the Yalie network to jump-start his career and to ascend to the Supreme Court. Mr. Danforth, a senator in 1991, was the prime mover in shepherding the Thomas nomination to its successful conclusion.

Bill O'Reilly may have deemed the "60 Minutes" piece "excellent," but others spotted the holes. Marc Morial, the former New Orleans mayor who now directs the National Urban League, told Tavis Smiley on PBS that it was "as though Justice Thomas's public relations firm edited the piece." On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin, the author of the new best-seller about the court, "The Nine," said that it was "real unfair" for "60 Minutes" not to include a response from Ms. Hill, who was slimed on camera by Mr. Thomas as "not the demure, religious, conservative person" she said she was.

Ms. Hill, who once taught at Oral Roberts University and is now a professor at Brandeis, told me last week that CBS News was the only one of the three broadcast news divisions that did not seek her reaction to the latest Thomas salvos. Mr. Kroft told me that there were no preconditions placed on him by either Mr. Thomas or his publisher. "Our story wasn't about Anita Hill," he said. "Our story was about Clarence Thomas."

In any event, the piece no more challenged Mr. Thomas's ideas than it did his insinuations about Ms. Hill. As Mr. Smiley and Cornel West noted on PBS, "60 Minutes" showed an old clip of Al Sharpton at an anti-Thomas rally rather than give voice to any of the African-American legal critics of Justice Thomas's 300-plus case record on the court. In 2007, no less than in 1991, a clownish Sharpton clip remains the one-size-fits-all default representation of black protest favored by too many white journalists.

The free pass CBS gave Mr. Thomas wouldn't matter were he just another celebrity "get" hawking a book. Unfortunately, there's the little matter of all that public policy he can shape — more so than ever now that John Roberts and Samuel Alito have joined him as colleagues. Indeed, Justice Thomas, elevated by Bush 41, was the crucial building block in what will probably prove the most enduring legacy of Bush 43, a radical Supreme Court. The "compassionate conservative" who turned the 2000 G.O.P. convention into a minstrel show to prove his love of diversity will exit the political stage as the man who tilted American jurisprudence against Brown v. Board of Education. He leaves no black Republican behind him in either the House or Senate.

While actuarial tables promise a long-lived Bush court, the good news is that the polarizing racial politics exemplified by the president and Mr. Thomas is on the wane elsewhere. Fittingly, the book tour for "My Grandfather's Son" began just as word of Harry Dent's death arrived from South Carolina last weekend. An aide to Strom Thurmond and then to Richard Nixon, Mr. Dent was the architect of the "Southern strategy" that exploited white backlash against the civil-rights movement to turn the South into a Republican stronghold.

Mr. Dent recanted years later, telling The Washington Post when he retired from politics in 1981 that he was sorry he had "stood in the way of rights of black people." His peers and successors have been less chastened. One former Nixon White House colleague, Pat Buchanan, said on "Meet the Press" last weekend that it was no big deal for Republican candidates to skip a debate before an African-American audience because blacks make up only about 10 percent of the voting public and Republicans only get about a tenth of that anyway. It didn't occur to Mr. Buchanan that in 21st-century America many white voters are also offended by politicians who snub black Americans — whether at a campaign debate or in the rubble of Hurricane Katrina.

Republicans who play the race card may find that it has an expiration date even in the South. In 2000, Mr. Bush could speak at Bob Jones University when it still forbade interracial dating among its students, and John McCain could be tarred as the father of an illegitimate black child in the South Carolina primary. No more. Just ask the former Senator George Allen, the once invincible Republican prince of Virginia, whose career ended in 2006 after his use of a single racial slur.

Mr. Thomas seems ignorant of this changing America. He can never see past his enemies' list, which in his book expands beyond his political foes, Yale and the press to "elite white women" and "paternalistic big-city whites" and "light-skinned blacks." (He does include a warm mention of Mr. Thurmond, a supporter in 1991, without mentioning that the senator hid away a child fathered with a black maid.) Always eager to cast himself as a lynching victim, Mr. Thomas is far more trapped in the past than the 1960s civil-rights orthodoxy he relentlessly demonizes.

The only way he can live with his various hypocrisies, it seems, is to claim that he's the rare honest, politically incorrect black man who has the guts to tell African-Americans what no other black leader will. Thus he asserted to a compliant Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC News last week that everyone except him tiptoes around talk of intraracial crime and out-of-wedlock births.

This will come as news to the millions of Americans who have heard Mr. Obama, among other African-American leaders whose words give the lie to this bogus claim. But the fact that America's highest court harbors a justice as full of unreconstructed racial bitterness as Clarence Thomas will prove more eye-opening still.

Labels: ,

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Putting it in perspective

So I watched Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Ever watched that show? I probably watch one or two episodes a season. I only saw bits and pieces of this episode, and what happened wasn't the point. What is the point is that it helps put things in perspective. It helps put life, love, family, God, everything in perspective. It definitely helps me get over some bullshit like wasting energy on what someone does with the locks in their cars.

Really, I mean, really, who cares??

Let me put energy in the things that matter.

:-)

Congo - will it be the rape or the gorillas?

Methinks it'll be the gorillas.

Pardon - I might feel kind of cynical (read 'Things that make me go ugh').

I just read this article that says "[Congo] Rebels seize habitat for endangered gorillas".* Earlier today, I saw an article, "Horrific Rape Epidemic Devastating Eastern Congo".** Which do I think will get more coverage? Well, I doubt neither will get much. (C'mon, y'all, it's Africa - who wants to cover Africa?) But between the two stories, which will get the most coverage? I would bet it will be the gorillas. Why?

It's that part of us that feels sorry for animals. Makes us sympathize with animals, particularly baby animals, but will keep us from feeling the same thing with people.

I would love - love, love, love - to be proven wrong. We'll see. I'll check in in a couple days.

(as I'm sure the articles will not be posted for long, but I don't want to post the whole articles, I'll post an opening paragraph from each):

* Rebels have seized an area in eastern Congo that serves as a wildlife habitat for endangered mountain gorillas, threatening one of the last known populations of the animals, conservationists said Sunday.

** Every day, 10 new women and girls who have been raped show up at his hospital. Many have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair.
“We don’t know why these rapes are happening, but one thing is clear,” said Dr. Mukwege, who works in South Kivu Province, the epicenter of Congo’s rape epidemic. “They are done to destroy women.”

Things that make me go ugh

So not more than twenty minutes ago, I went to deposit money at the bank. I'm about to cross a street, but obviously I needed to wait until cars weren't coming so I didn't walk in front of them. This driver in this car, this maroon-colored VW Jetta, seemed to hesitate, as though not sure whether to be polite and let me walk across the street or whether to keep driving. He chose the latter. Cool, no worries. I start crossing the street so he would pass me before I got up to his car. I'm sure many of you have done it - time your walking so you don't hit a passing car. If you're in a city environment, cars are used to it - they know you're timing when you walk to how fast their car is moving. When you're in towns, people sometimes don't know what you're doing - they're wondering if you want to cross in front of them, if they're supposed to stop or continue.

People might have different reactions, but one that I have never received before is someone quickly locking their doors.

Now, let me stop for a moment. First, why would someone lock their doors if they're in a car - obviously if they sped away, I would never catch up with them. Secondly, there was nothing in my demeanour that exhibited threat. Assertive, possibly, but not aggressive. I wasn't even looking at the guy and his chick - I was looking across the street at the bank.

I just heard the click - and the first feeling that went into my head was irritated dismissal. "Fuck 'em."

But as the seconds and the minutes went by, I went from irritation to this weird, irrational type of fury. "See, things like that explain why people want to kill ---." "Things like that make me want to kill ---." "They're scared; I should give them something to be scared of."

Time to let that anger go. No need to be angry at an imbecile. A little scared, pussy-ass bitch who reacts to his own irrational prejudices by being a punk.

FUCK!!!!

Apparently I might need to take some more time to have this anger out of my system.

Labels: ,

Monday, October 01, 2007

Thoughts of the day

I'm pretty sleepy, so I'm not going to expand on these. I'll try to get to all of them tomorrow. The thoughts ruminating through my head today (in no particular order):

- Democrats are PUSSIES
- Hellary - I hate that bitch
- once again, the government tries to get in too much of our damn business
- and other little treasures

Despite the overall (overwhelmingly) negative tone of this summary, I feel pretty damn good. Not that you necessarily care how I feel, but all the same...

Until next time...

Labels: ,