He always makes me feel that way. I’m starting to hate him more than I hate Grover Norquist.
Can someone explain to me, in small words because I’m apparently just not getting it, why it’s wrong to make all law-abiding gun owners bear responsibility for the acts of a few criminals with guns, but it’s perfectly fine to make all law-abiding mentally ill people bear the responsibility for a few criminals with guns? Also, why’s it unconstitutional to keep a list of non-person firearm items but okay to keep a list of all persons with mental illness? It’s because we don’t have lobbyists or an industry association, isn’t it. I still feel like there’s a due process issue in there somewhere, which may be applicable to humans but less so to bits of metal. Hearing actual rational people say things like “not letting privacy laws get in the way of keeping the mentally ill from acquiring guns” is disturbing.
Seriously, this shit has been freaking me, and a lot of other crazy people, out for weeks. I’m trying to keep in mind that our government is too irretrievably broken to actually do anything about this, and that the NRA is opposing background checks anyway, but, and I’m aware that this is a selfish and juvenile reaction to piles of dead children, we paranoid schizophrenics do kind of tend to be, you know, paranoid.
I may need to be talked down, Rachel Maddow style.
His other suggestion, you recall, was to make a list of everyone with a mental illness. Which should be fun. I’m a paranoid schizophrenic, so, you know, I got all crazy paranoid over that for a few days. The other paranoid schizophrenics with whom I chat were kind of freaked too. One of them suggested, I don’t know how far tongue-in-cheek, that perhaps we should all get guns while the gettin’s good so that the NRA would then have our backs when someone tries to put us in a database. Personally, I’m hoping the person who said that was joking, because as we all (should) know, the mentally ill are more likely to kill themselves than anyone else. Which is fucking tragic, and somehow doesn’t actually attract much attention at all.
dsidhe commented on the blog post Bristol Palin Will Explain Opposite Marriage To You
we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home
Wait, is she endorsing having her kid taken away to be raised by a mother/father home? Why wouldn’t she want the best for her child?
Unless, I guess, she is aware that this claim is utter bullshit and in fact what we know is that kids do as well in same-sex parent homes as in opposite-sex parent homes.
I suppose if you’re gonna lie and pretend you wrote this bullshit, you might as well go all out and lie about what’s in the bullshit, too.
dsidhe commented on the blog post Catholic League To Crucify Jew For Vagina Manger Blasphemy
f he does not, we will mobilize Protestants, Jews, Mormons and Muslims to join us in a boycott of his sponsors.
That makes me very happy indeed. Not, “We will ask these people we believe to be hell-bound subhumans to help us out”, but “we will mobilize them” as though they were our little Risk army pieces and we control them and will decide how they are used.
I can only imagine how well that will go over.
I mean, doesn’t the very idea of an organization obsessively focused on breasts sound suspiciously patriarchal?
You may smartass, you little asshole, but yeah, it actually does, when the point of that focus becomes decreeing that some ladybits are innocent and deserve help when they get sick, but other ladybits only want help because they’ve been filthy.
I was pissed when they were slut-shaming us chicks who like to have sex. Now they’re even slut-shaming pussies that are attached to chicks who don’t like to have sex. How is that *not* patriarchal?
*banging head against brick wall*
Okay, that’s the problem here, I guess. You want an actual spokesperson from Planned Parenthood to answer your specific questions, and you’re unprepared to acknowledge anyone else’s comments of any sort as actual answers. Thanks, that clears that right up.
So maybe you could go find a Planned Parenthood spokesperson and ask them. If that’s the only thing you’re going to accept as an answer, go find that.
You know what, wavydavy? I was somewhat surprised to see you leaping in to defend the incredibly condescending initial remark from alan 1tx. Because I had the impression from past comments of yours that you were a reasonable person with whom I would not likely have arguments. But I cannot fathom why you, why alan 1tx especially, but why you, since I have no other impressions of him, would be so baffled as to how utterly condescending and hostile that initial comment of his was, and be so goddamned staggered at people responding with anger of their own. It was a nasty, condescending, Why Don’t You Just Do Things My Way comment, and it pissed off people who get that all the time on this subject.
alan 1tx came in and said, among other things, that abortion is not part of the good things that PP does and is a medical procedure distinct from helping women, that the solution is obvious and that he’s unwilling to sit and think about why it may not actually be something that works but he’d rather we did his research for him and just tell him while he condescends to us, that the problem is caused by PP’s actions and not by the actions of the theocrats, and then topped it all off with a sarcastic little dig about “all those cheap health services for women” as though PP has just forgotten its mission and needed that little reminder so they could stop fussing about this abortion stuff and get back to doing the things that presumably are morally acceptable (although, as we’ve explained, even they aren’t morally acceptable to the anti-choicers.)
Look! His actual comments: “Based on those numbers of services provided, it seems like PP hardly does any abortions at all. Why don’t they just stop that one procedure, then they can stay open, take all the government money and provide all those cheap health services for women?” “I just asked if PP helps women 99% of the time and does abortions 1% of the time, why would they decide to close down rather than give up providing that 1% service?” And this one, where he claims to be trying to avoid provoking anyone: “If they do so much good (low-cost paps, breast exams and contraceptives to keep women healthy), and so few abortions, why not focus on the former, rather than completely close down all the clinics as listed above?”
That’s a pretty good contribution to the regrettable tone of this thread. It’s more passive aggressive than “Fuck off”, but maybe passive aggressive condescension is not something everyone is charmed by.
The vast majority of the hostility, including mine, has been aimed at that remark and those follow-ups. You’ve come in for some yourself by continuing to demand answers that have been given to you, because apparently there’s some format you need those answers in to even be able to accept them as actual answers.
The closest I can pin down the question is, to quote alan 1tx’s bout of condescension up there, “Just wondering why PP would decide to close down rather than change 1% of their service”. It’s probably nasty of me to quote alan 1tx’s incredibly inartful wording, so here’s yours, just for balance: “And, if anyone is still listening, I, too, would like to know a real answer to the original question: why not keep the other services and spin off the abortion part?”
Seriously, the best answer anyone here can give you is the ones we already have given. “Because that one percent is important too, and we should not have to make it easier for the puritans to target and shut down. Because women’s clinics shouldn’t have to try to compromise with people who will immediately demand more compromises while never giving any ground themselves, and they never should have tried. Because all women’s health care should be available in doctors’ offices and all surgical procedures on women should be done in hospitals, just like surgeries on men. Regional outreach clinics should be available in otherwise under-served areas for all medical care, not just pap smears and cancer screenings, but podiatry and cholesterol testing, and for men, women, and children. It should be about location and poverty levels, not about someone’s moral view of the care involved.”
I’m tired of giving ground on this. And I’m tired of dealing with people who think it’s a marginal issue but one they feel compelled to be flippant about whenever it comes up while they’re bored.
I’ll take your word that you consider this a non-trivial issue, and I honestly don’t even care what your position on it is, though I did assume you weren’t a condoms-kill-babies nut. Mind you, if you’d like to explain why “It is really depressing (to me, anyway) to see this blog turn into just another place for screaming and invective directed at those who don’t toe some imaginary party line.” is not an assessment that the availability of a legal medical procedure that is a matter of life and death for some and of self-determination for all is just some kind of imaginary party litmus test, maybe someone here will bother to listen. I’m wondering if I’ve managed to badly miss how privileged you are based on your lack of recognition of the privilege in alan 1tx’s comments, and I’m pretty much done here. Imagine me wiggling my fingers at you, you may assume it is the evil eye or that I think your cats are adorable. I don’t actually care.
Incidentally, I’ve been ranted at here too, mostly when I complain about the fat jokes or the ping-pong ball jokes. It actually is part of the atmosphere here, and I choose to believe it doesn’t mean I’m a bad person because people disagree with me, even if they do so profanely. I assume the conversation will not bring anyone to an amicable consensus, and go do something worthwhile in the real world. I applaud your ability to do the same, and now it’s my turn.
Okay, let me backtrack a minute. Because I just spotted what was getting to me about the “Why the tone” thing.
It looks like this: a couple of the guys here are having this perfectly rational conversation about what are all the options to solve the whole abortion thing so we can move onto something more important like, for example, economic justice. And then these women start in with what to the guys, apparently, looks like we’ve started having a fight with you in the middle of what was simply a dispassionate discussion of the options.
It is an easy example of male privilege that you may not have had these discussions before. There’s always stuff that’s more relevant to your life if you have not been called upon to help make these choices, the aforementioned economic justice, for example. As women involved in politics, I assure you we have. Even just as women whose insurance company directs us to a specific clinic to get treated for a cyst on our ladybits because they have some pressure group demanding they not direct us to a closer clinic, we’ve had these discussions before.
It is an extremely common feature of these arguments that someone will come in and say some version of what you’re saying here, “Why don’t they just do this extremely rational from my perspective thing, it would save everybody so much trouble.” Most of the time, these people are, you know, trolls. They have asked the question before and rejected the answers they are given. They’re not actually there for answers, they are there to make themselves feel reasonable, and to suggest that women are being emotional and stubborn, when the solution is in their hands all along.
Sometimes these people will get treated gently, because it’s obvious that however they’re coming across, they honestly don’t understand something we’ve all spent a long time on. But, if you want to be regarded as an actual questioner who just needs some information, it helps to not, specifically, use the word “just”.
Why don’t they just stop that one procedure, then they can stay open, take all the government money and provide all those cheap health services for women?
Because that “just” there, and coupled with the “they can even” a couple sentences later, is extremely condescending. What it is saying is, “my solution is simple and reasonable, and it is beyond me why you are not smart enough or reasonable enough to take my advice”. And yeah, people who have been having this argument take offense. Want more proof? Go over to Pharyngula and ask “why can’t schools just teach both sides? They can even teach evolution in a separate class”.
I’m sorry if we assumed you were belligerent trolls when instead you were just undiplomatically ignorant. (See? That “just” makes you defensive, doesn’t it.) But either one is pretty annoying, especially if you really cared about what you were asking, you could have found the answers long before now, and you probably wouldn’t regard an issue of life, death, and self-determination for half the population (remember, bringing a pregnancy to term is a choice, too) as “toeing” some “imaginary party line”.
Can you see where that sounds a little condescending and dismissive? Can you understand a little better the feeling that you just got got ambushed with an argument-already-in-progress?
Because there is no reason to believe that the people who would like to see this happen are proposing it in good faith.
Practically speaking: Abortion doctors are easier to identify and kill when they have to work at a clinic than if they’re just one of a large number of OB/GYNs going in and out of a hospital. It is also much, much easier to ignore picketers behaving in thoroughly reprehensible ways outside a women’s clinic. If these fuckers were super gluing closed the doors of actual hospitals, or blocking access to actual hospitals, or setting up a non-medical clinic down the street from a hospital that bore a name very similar to the hospital’s so they could direct patients there instead to keep them away from medical care, while taking personal information they have no intention of keeping private, I think the law would come down on them quite hard. The fact that it’s only happening to a “special interest group” with marginalized specific health issues means that it’s easy to just let it continue to happen, and then everyone feigns shock when someone is actually murdered.
On a moral level, there are women who need abortions to save their lives. Or to save their health. Or because the fetus is already dead. You know these things happen. Why should we make their lives, even if it’s only a few women, more difficult, their access to medical care more time-consuming and risky, their decisions more emotionally fraught, in the name of compromise with people who have shown they are not arguing in good faith?
I’m not willing to do that. I’m not willing to make their lives harder in the hopes that the people who demanded that compromise won’t then move the goalposts and demand another concession, and another, and another. They are very clearly, openly saying that what they want is to make abortion, if not illegal, unobtainable. Some of them are openly admitting they think the pill should be illegal, and it’s not just whackjobs on the streetcorner, these are people with some power to influence policy in this country. Why throw some people to the wolves in hopes the wolves will be sated, when the wolves have already said they will not. Hold the line here before obtaining legal medical care becomes any harder for any more women. Because we are going to have to fight them on this somewhere, so let’s do it here. Personally, I would have preferred to do it before we got to where any billing rep or pharmacist could refuse to help women who are victims of rape get the morning after pill, but hey, as Joe Lieberman put it, they can just go somewhere else, right? Never mind that, as the author of the piece above found, they can’t, even for things that should be as non-controversial as a cancer screening. If we compromise with them here, women die. If we compromise with them on the next point of argument, more women die. They’ve already said they will not accept compromise. Are you over at ALL’s website asking why they can’t compromise? If not, why not? Why do the concessions always have to be from us? Why do the compromises always have to limit a legal medical procedure?
And, really, they wouldn’t accept it. Not even a onto-the-next-battle acceptance. They already seriously believe that their tax dollars support abortions. Actual, surgical abortions, not just the weird condoms-kill-babies thing. Many of them will tell you that their tax dollars directly support abortions, and that PP and the government are just lying when they say that’s not happening. Assuming they’ll even go that far, which in my experience they won’t. Many anti-choicers will assert right out that the law forces tax dollars to pay for abortion on demand. They can’t be swayed by any recitation of any law. They *know* it’s true, and that you’re simply wrong about what the law says.
I did answer that question. So did others.
Why not set up abortion clinics elsewhere? Because it won’t work. Because you are assuming that the people who don’t like abortions are arguing in good faith and would–or even can–be satisfied that their tax dollars are not paying for abortions. There is no evidence to support that, and their own words as evidence that they see the entire debate as a matter of moving the regulations bit by bit to where abortions are unavailable to any woman for any reason regardless of who is paying.
And even then, they’ve already announced their intentions to go after the pill next. The craziest ones–and crazy does not in any way mean “possessing no ability to influence policy”–will admit they’re prepared to go after barrier methods of birth control after that.
Because it won’t work. Because it will do no woman in need of an abortion any good, and you know what? A lot of women have abortions. A *lot*. They’re not some tiny fringe you can safely shuttle off to a back lot and not think about. They’re us, the women you know.
Even in the interest of absolute goddamned humanity, why is it acceptable to shame these women–who, again, are an awful lot of us–into believing they’re some kind of freaks who must be kept away from any other woman needing health care? It’s bad enough we insist they must be kept away from men–you know, people–who need health care in hospitals. We don’t insist people go to special little clinics, even without protesters and violence, to get their gall bladders removed. But this? We’ve made an exception for because it seemed an expedient way to solve an argument based almost entirely on “MY morals say YOUR morals are wrong”.
And as it turns out? It hasn’t solved anything. Doctors are more easily targeted for harassment and violence. Patients are more easily diverted to “crisis pregnancy centers” where they are lied to and have their medical privacy violated, where they receive no actual care, only a ration of shame and misinformation and any sort of delaying tactics the staff there can come up with to make them miss their appointments. Laws are more easily passed to regulate these separate buildings out of existence over the square footage of their supply closets. And women going in to get a fucking pap smear or a cyst looked at or to get a prescription for pre-natal vitamins are forced to deal with incredibly hostile people waving propaganda at them.
How does any of that help? What makes you think any more concessions are going to help? And if this is a compromise, not just a concession, then what does the other side agree to, and how do you intend to enforce that, since our half will inevitably be enforced with more laws? (Remember, crisis pregnancy clinics, which again, do no medicine and which rely on debunked studies and which are not required to comply with medical privacy laws, get government funds. My tax dollars go to telling women that they will get breast cancer, or become sterile, or kill themselves if they have an abortion. PP? Is getting funding for cancer detection cut off.)
Look, I know you think that this can be easily solved, and that you’ve stumbled onto the rational solution and you think that we’re balking entirely out of ideology. And I will defend women who need or want abortions on the basis of ideology, because it’s their decision. But we’ve, believe me, considered these things. Do you honestly think that it just hasn’t occurred to anyone that it might be worth making changes if it will stop the harassment and the violence and the targeted regulation that has the declared intention of putting them out of business?
If you think you have the blindingly obvious solution, and you’re wondering why no one has implemented it, it might be worth considering that the blindingly obvious solution is just as obvious to other people as to you. And that maybe there actually are reasons that it hasn’t been implemented.
Seriously, I want to know, what part of the answers, the very specific and adamant answers, that you have gotten to the question, do you find unsatisfactory? I somewhat apologize for the profanity and the intensity of the replies you’ve gotten, but what you are saying to us is, “It’s so obvious, why are you being so stupid/stubborn?” That may not be what you’re meaning to say, but if we assume that you’re actually asking the questions and wanting the answers, there aren’t a lot of other ways to interpret what you’re saying. And if you’re not actually looking for information, then, based on our past arguments with people who ask these questions, you are very likely just trying to make us look unreasonable for not going along with something that has already been considered. Either way, I don’t think the irritation is out of line. Especially when we are answering and you are not, apparently, seeing those answers.
I knew she was going to be there, I was in pain and inclined to chew on her anyway because I fucking hated her “Your baby deserves life!” sign which she waves at everybody going in or coming out, and I had heard parts of the arguments before.
The condom thing just fucking floored me, though. That is… I can’t even tell you how demented that argument struck me at the time, though I’ve heard versions of it since, and it pretty much did shut me down, so I’m sure she figured she’d won the debate. But you know, “Underpants chicken hemlock cement” isn’t an actual argument either, but it will definitely shut your opponent up long enough for you to declare victory.
Now I just wiggle my fingers at her, both hands, in a gesture she apparently has decided is The Evil Eye. Honestly, it’s the gesture that means “Oh, you’re an adorable kitty, I want to rub your belly” when I use it on my housecats. But it freaks her out, and that’s good enough for me. Apparently, rational debate is not going to help.
Because there’s no evidence that that would be good enough, how about. There’s a woman who pickets a womens’ clinic here, that does not do abortions. They do pre-natal, they do pelvics, they do preventative and treatment for STDs, they do cancer screenings. They prescribe birth control, and according to this woman, and she was fairly frothy about it, that is killing babies just as much as abortions are. So she will keep protesting them until they stop prescribing birth control. Since I was annoyed with her for telling me not to kill my baby when I was just going in to get a fucking cyst looked at, I argued with her.
“So what if they only prescribe the pill for medically necessary reasons, since about a third of the women who take the pill do so for reasons that have nothing to do with contraception, but instead involve irregular periods, severe PMS, cysts, and fibroids? Will you stop picketing them then?”
No, she won’t. Because she’s positive my numbers are wrong and also obviously a lot of those women and their doctors are lying about why they take the pill because obviously they could either do something else to solve those problems or just put up with them, “PMS isn’t that big a deal, when I was a girl nobody complained about their PMS, it’s just something for women to feel like victims about.”
Further, they still do other kinds of birth control, and even, she carefully explained to me–twice, because I had to make her go through it again because I couldn’t believe that the incredibly stupid point she was making was the incredibly stupid point she was trying to make–even condoms kill babies. Howzat? Well, you see, if you teach women that they can have sex without getting pregnant–with condoms, for example–they will have sex secure in the belief that they don’t have to get pregnant when they have sex. And when we “disconnect” sex from pregnancy, then women who accidentally or carelessly do get pregnant will feel they are *entitled* to murder their babies.
She was very happy with that point. We should ban everything but abstinence because letting women have sex without the fear of pregnancy is just going to ensure they kill their babies.
So, yeah, she’ll still be there (for years, I’m not kidding, and she was out there last Thanksgiving, for pity’s sake, Thanksgiving day, they weren’t open, it was cold and raining and she was still picketing some bizarre unintended indirect consequence of entitled sluttiness), until they stop distributing condoms, or offering any other kind of birth control.
And you can say she’s just some random crazy woman, I’m pretty sure she is, having spent a while arguing with her, but she’s not the only one who thinks this way, and it would be foolish as hell to allow the people who have already demonstrated an animus towards women making choices about their bodies and if anything a more pronounced propensity for moving the goal posts, to decide what kind of legal and medically necessary services women are allowed to get where.
There is no evidence they will stop with abortion, and plenty they won’t.
Also, from a purely practical standpoint, if you put the abortion doctors and patients in a seperate clinic, they become that much easier to A) shut down with TRAPP laws and B) target with violence. In opposition to a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.
So, yeah, you’re getting chewed out by people here, who have heard the “Hey, I’ve got a great idea, why don’t they just give in!” notion from people who may well be considerably more disingenuous than you are.
When you say–even in earnest desire to find a solution–things that lying assholes say to make the targets of their social disapproval look like big unreasonable meanies, you’re going to get some of the “You are not the first person to say this and the last eight who did were sneering while they did so” blowback.
I’m sorry if that seems unreasonable. But this goes into the not-negotiating-with-terrorists category, and before you object remember Eric Rudolph, because “terrorism” is not an exaggeration.
Krvaric Capital, the conservatives-only wealth-management firm operated by local GOP Chairman Tony Krvaric
I’m not the only cynical bastard here thinking “affinity fraud”, am I.
dsidhe commented on the blog post Rick Santorum Is In A Frothy Lather About The Google
I kind of doubt Google would bother with a mean-but-not-legally-actionable prank on Biden back when he was in Congress or when he was a candidate for President or anything else. (As vice president? I also kind of doubt they’d bother with it, but Mr Santorum? You’re not the Veep, if you hadn’t noticed. I mean, someone appears to have been google bombing Mike Gravel with “crazy”, which is a more apt analogy, and they haven’t bothered with that.)
Also, Mr Santorum, cheer up. The gays may be being nasty at you, but no one has yet compared your wife, the person you love most, to a dog. No one has suggested that your marriage is in some tangible way invalid, that your love is inhuman and sinful and non consensual, and that you are a danger to your children merely by existing and that the law must take them away from you.
In the war of nasty insults and real world consequences based on same, gays still can’t get married or adopt kids in most places. DOMA is still in place. Congresspeople still feel free to suggest being gay is the same as fucking animals or children, and some of them make money by convincing gay people desperate to stop feeling like society’s easy targets–or the parents of gay teens, having bought the lies that gay is a choice or a sin or a personality disorder–that they can become straight. Those “ex-gay” people still kill themselves with some regularity because they can’t do it. Other gay people are bullied or beaten to death at the hands of people who believe all the hateful things Rick Santorum and others have said about them. On the other hand, we get to snicker about a mean joke on an asshole who insults us with some regularity.
Rick Santorum, meanwhile, gets to fundraise off of how much The Homosexual Activists hate him, and has a ready-made excuse to not win an office he was never going to win anyway. On the other hand, if his kids want to google search him, they have to learn how to use the – key.
Dan Savage is truly History’s Greatest Monster.
Oh, we’ve moved well beyond letting the first responders die. Have you seen Cantor’s latest? I believe we will now be instructing them to piss on fires to put them out and save lives with The Power Of Their Minds. Equipment is for elitists, obviously.
I’m starting to wonder if this has another goal in addition to just plain fucking meanness of spirit, maybe the GOP are hoping the cops and fire departments will be forced into doing more beefcake calenders to buy the stuff they need.
I know. Occasionally I feel compelled to comment on it too, but there’s really nothing to be done other than register an occasional protest.
For the record? Making fun of Sarah’s looks is not only lazy and pointless (considering her fans will take it as evidence that you hate her for no other reason than you’re big mean jealous misogynists, but few things are going to rally them around her more than unfair attacks on her. I fucking hated my dad, but when people said things about him I thought were over the line, I defended him for all I was worth. Years of that and you’re becoming more, not less, fond of whoever it was that deserved your scorn in the first place. So mocking Sarah for anything other than actual idiocy is counterproductive. You’re just making them send her more money.) but it also sideswipes everybody else who does not happen to be a supermodel.
You want to taunt a large group of people for being in some way too ugly to be in public? Try people whose ugliness matters. Call her out for the ugliness that is her public policy, and instead of also making people with celluite feel bad, you might make people like Newt Gingrich feel bad. Two birds with one stone, and they both deserve it!
Anyway, obviously nothing we say here will cause you guys to stop making fun of the woman’s looks, if anything it makes some people double down, and to be fair I am not unsympathetic to the “Holy shit, they think that’s sexy and they make fun of other women for not being that attractive” impulse. But I still need to at least get it on the record from time to time. I’m happy you do too, Matthew.
Juries are funny. Even if the person on trial has confessed on the stand to skullfucking puppies, the jury is smart enough to kill a little time before they come back in and demand the bailiff shoot him on the spot. They’re supposed to be deliberating, after all. And it does them no harm to look like they at least looked at the paperwork, but man are you going to hear a lot of shit if people think you decided wrongly and too fast.
And in my experience, there’s frequently going to be one jackass who thinks the puppies had it coming and is determined to hang the jury so he can re-enact his favorite movies in his head and have a more dramatic story to tell his buddies.
Even the time we were unanimous in finding for the defendant and then asking the judge if he could call everybody involved–both parties, their lawyers, all the witnesses–idiots and advise them to seek professional help, we wasted at least twenty minutes debating whether “fucking idiots” would be appropriate. Because, you know, we wanted to look like some thought went into it. (For the record, the judge sympathized but declined.)
Everyone in Washington restaurants should be eyeing the room looking for politicians they oppose, snapping photos of any expensive wine on their tables, and then — perhaps emboldened by their own wine consumption — march over and have an argument with them?
No. Obviously, it’s crazy behavior to act as though politicians who make policy have any impact on real people’s real lives. This is like going up to a basketball player and telling him what a lousy game he played the other night. Because politics is a spectator sport, and people who get drunk and worked up about it are basically political hooligans who are ruining the game for those rational people who know it’s all about the stats and the showboating.
Obviously the rude lady was drunk. Or maybe mentally ill. Can you imagine? It’s like she thinks Paul Ryan is sincere or something, like she thinks it’s going to actually have an effect on her life when he cuts the budget for things like bridges and food inspection. And we all know that’s just delusional. He’s just talking shit! It’s all a game! And the rubes are taking it seriously, can you imagine?
Thanks, gang. You’d be amazed what a little validation at the right time can do.
StringonaStick, I know. I hate to admit it, but it’s not optimism so much as it is a feedback loop of fairly useless rage since I’m not even functional enough to get jobs where I will inevitably pick some ethical fight and quit. I’m sort of depressed it’s not my superpower, I could be Union Maid or something, although I can’t sing, so there’s that.
That was where my jaw dropped too. Not that I haven’t heard it before, I have. But I still can’t fucking believe it, every time.
I used to be a motel maid. It’s hard fucking work, *productive* hard fucking work. If you waste twenty minutes, someone’s room doesn’t get clean and they don’t pay the hotel. You go Galt from that and someone’s cleaning their own toilet. Meanwhile, the captains of industry, if their time is so goddamned valuable, should really be delegating more, or even just making more fucking phonecalls. Because, really? Your time on the tarmac is such a drain on the economy but you still have to actually go? Very plausible, and I certainly don’t think you’re just trying to sneak in a golfing trip or some time with the mistress.
I do not begrudge you what you do with your time, even if you are wealthy. But I’m gonna want to see some proof that what you are doing with your time is worth your salary-per-minute if that’s the argument you’re using to steal minutes from *my* life by making me wait longer so you can cut in front of me.
The other maids were in their forties and fifties, mostly. Women with in nearly all cases at least one other job, sometimes two. They had kids and grandkids they were caring for. Some had kids and parents they were caring for. Every minute they spent on a fucking bus because they weren’t paid well enough to own a car and because rich people resent paying taxes for more frequent and efficient mass transit was a minute they did not spend with their families. The overlords may not feel those minutes were valuable, but they and their kids sure did, especially when you consider they weren’t likely to live as long as the CEO due to things like chemical exposure and shitty if any health care.
Then one day the motel owner–I swear this is a true story–makes the houseboys wash his car because he doesn’t have time to take it to the car wash. When the houseboys are busy doing servile non-work stuff, they are not doing their actual work stuff, and the maids spend more of those precious minutes at work running dirty linens to the laundry so they can get their own jobs done.
And the next day I’m out of a job, it may have been a mutual decision in that I’m not sure if I managed to quit first or they fired me first, for singing “L’Internationale” as I do rooms and referring to the owner as an unethical prick when he decided to personally lecture me on my lack of professionalism. The conversation kind of took on a life of its own, and it is occasionally good to remind maggots like this that some people actually can and will walk away from a job with too much unpaid bullshit.
I was born on Labor Day, what can I tell you. And when I watch people whose entire fortune is founded on deliberately stealing as many minutes as possible from the lives of customers and employees alike complain that their own choices cost them their highly compensated time, I hear tumbrils.
And to be frank this asskisser’s extraordinary claim that CEOs would be doing something to *justify* their exceptionally overcompensated time if they just weren’t stuck in an airport somewhere, should have us demanding by torchlight to see their cures for cancer.
Oh, man. Hopefully they’ll find the infection and figure it out. My family on two feet and four will be sending good thoughts your family’s way, and those of us who pray will do so.
That is not where i thought you were going with that.
Excellent feint, well played.
- Load More