Last night, an un-indicted co-conspirator in Topixland passed on the contents of a personal message concerning this Ferrerman, to me, that he had received, possibly erroneously. In the PM, one idiot was advising another idiot that a gray box poster known as *Dr Fill* was most certainly Ferrerman. The idiot knew this because: "Yep, a suburb of Chicago, talking vile sexual talk to women he doesn't know and an obsession with spanking can only mean Ferrerman." To the non-citizens of Topixland, this is what is known as *proof*. The PM'er went on to declare: "You know that Dr Fill is Ferrerman, right?" That is known as *conclusive proof*.
Sigh. As if it weren't tough enough to be a Ferrerman (well, OK, I do make it look easy...) now I need to deny for the umpteenth time that I'm someone else? Puh-leeze! I don't even read these suspects. The Ferrerman brand is kinda important to me. Dedicated non-readers know this. Those with anti-Ferrerman sentiment should know this as well. I mean- do they really want to hate an anonymous, grayboxing troll like Dr Fill, a Slavewannabe, a Mr Wadds or any other poster some idiot was sure Ferrerman REALLY is when there is a perfectly good Ferrerman to hate?
Sheesh, I might as well be that cocksucker Sam, if that's the case.
No one should be that cocksucker Sam.
Do I graybox- post unregistered? Sure. I'm doing it right now on the Chicago Forum, fooling no one but my intended target, Sublime, because he's pretty easy to fool. My Ferrerman style is very easy to spot. I'm not exactly hiding. Over there, in that part of Topixland, i'm the reason the denizens of AmyAbbyville are afeared of Ferrermen. As a courtesy to my former neighbors there, I tend to post undercover so as not to frighten them too much. There's just something about Ferrer.... Men want to be him and women want to be spanked by him.... I think even they like what I say and how I say it. It's just that they wish it wasn't that cute little boy in the avatar. If you ever saw the film, "High Plains Drifter", it's kinda like that. Marshal Jim Duncan....a reminder that the town sat back in cowardly silence while the Marshal took on the outlaws.... AmyAbbyville- a town without pity....
In Topixtown, he who refuses to admit he posts unregistered gets to cast not only the first but, all the stones. The above admission that I do, indeed, graybox is conclusive evidence that I am all those and any other posters that any cocksucker might think I am. After all, I did just confess, just not in so many words is all.... But, any fucking idiot knows that I did confess....
That's the way Topix works. Much of life works that way too. I'm like the first girl to get breasts in the sixth grade. I'm a slut. I'm putting out. Everyone knows this....
I'm also kinda presidential. The moment he got elected, Barack Obama became "The worst president EVER!" to some people. Well, since Jimmy Carter at least. Astute observers might notice that you can't be the worst ever before you even do anything. Starting with a convuluted premise and working ass-backwards to prove it, is not a good political model. It's kinda stupid. But, they are appealing to the lowest common denominator of voters. And- IRONY ALERT- I do believe that every one of my Topix detractors happens to be some degree of republican! I see a pattern developing here.
In any territory of Topixland, who you are isn't as important as who others think you are. Never minding that your accuser likely has multiple identities his/herself, you are who they think you are, living the sad life that they know you are living because, well, someone said so! And since a huge river called Denial runs through Topixland, you would say different, now wouldn't you?
They say that if you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by. I think I'll just sit here and watch the river flow.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Taking what they're giving
Recently we saw a piece on the news about a factory in China where our iphones, Xbox's and other electronics we pay hundreds of dollars for are made. The workers live on site and are paid 31 cents an hour.
Thirty one cents an hour does not translate to a living wage in any country. Perhaps it was a princely sum in the 19th century here when a loaf of bread might have been a dime and a glass of beer was a nickel but, nowhere in the world is that a fair wage, at today's prices. Oh well- that's the communists for ya! But, if not for that, those Xbox's would cost a thousand dollars. Maybe more. We couldn't afford them! Tough for them, good for us. And besides, though it may seem like slave labor because they are stacked in dormitory rooms, forbidden to talk to their roommates and heavy netting is stretched across the atrium of the compound to keep them from falling to their death in suicide attempts, they're getting paid. So, it's not like it's slavery....
The accompanying link tells the story of a journalist, Mac McClelland, who went to work in a warehouse to find out what it was like for the wage slaves in that aspect of American life. You and I might know how it is for us but, how the other half lives and works is sometimes lost on us. It does affect us, especially if we don't know or care to know about it. One of the things that has stuck with me since I read it is the prison-like questioning the workers had for each other when they would ask why a co-worker was 'here'.
'How did you fuck up to wind up here? What did you do?'
What might have once been described as an entry-level job is now a dead-end job for those trying to hang on in life, the flotsam and jetsam of American workers. A FB friend who is now a teacher read the article and told me she had worked in a warehouse while in college. "It wasn't like that then...." A good democrat, she was horrified at the story. I've never worked in a warehouse myself but, as I posted elsewhere, it seems the moment GW Bush was given the presidency, a memo must have went out that the party was over for the American worker. This didn't happen over-night. Not all evil does. But, as the news is filled with stories of thieving Union workers, pensions and lazy, over-paid teachers and snow-plow drivers, you can see who watered the seeds. That GOP politicians are calling for the abolishment of minimum wage and child labor laws- which they claim are killing the economy- is, in America, fucking abhorrent. In China, it's policy. It appears we are following their business model, one they ironically learned from our 19th century great-grandfathers.
Please read the story.If you're at work, don't let the boss catch you crying...
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor
Thirty one cents an hour does not translate to a living wage in any country. Perhaps it was a princely sum in the 19th century here when a loaf of bread might have been a dime and a glass of beer was a nickel but, nowhere in the world is that a fair wage, at today's prices. Oh well- that's the communists for ya! But, if not for that, those Xbox's would cost a thousand dollars. Maybe more. We couldn't afford them! Tough for them, good for us. And besides, though it may seem like slave labor because they are stacked in dormitory rooms, forbidden to talk to their roommates and heavy netting is stretched across the atrium of the compound to keep them from falling to their death in suicide attempts, they're getting paid. So, it's not like it's slavery....
The accompanying link tells the story of a journalist, Mac McClelland, who went to work in a warehouse to find out what it was like for the wage slaves in that aspect of American life. You and I might know how it is for us but, how the other half lives and works is sometimes lost on us. It does affect us, especially if we don't know or care to know about it. One of the things that has stuck with me since I read it is the prison-like questioning the workers had for each other when they would ask why a co-worker was 'here'.
'How did you fuck up to wind up here? What did you do?'
What might have once been described as an entry-level job is now a dead-end job for those trying to hang on in life, the flotsam and jetsam of American workers. A FB friend who is now a teacher read the article and told me she had worked in a warehouse while in college. "It wasn't like that then...." A good democrat, she was horrified at the story. I've never worked in a warehouse myself but, as I posted elsewhere, it seems the moment GW Bush was given the presidency, a memo must have went out that the party was over for the American worker. This didn't happen over-night. Not all evil does. But, as the news is filled with stories of thieving Union workers, pensions and lazy, over-paid teachers and snow-plow drivers, you can see who watered the seeds. That GOP politicians are calling for the abolishment of minimum wage and child labor laws- which they claim are killing the economy- is, in America, fucking abhorrent. In China, it's policy. It appears we are following their business model, one they ironically learned from our 19th century great-grandfathers.
Please read the story.If you're at work, don't let the boss catch you crying...
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor
Friday, February 24, 2012
Government Insideher
I don't like Rick Santorum at all. I don't think most people do. He looks nervous whether he's at a debate or in an interview, like he thinks everyone just googled his name or something. But, this side of Ron Paul, he's certainly the most sincere of the GOP candidates. He's his own worst enemy and the reason he won't get the nomination.
A Santorum presidency would be like an American Catholic Taliban. Having a wife and kids, he can't ever run for Pope. Instead, he must settle his sights on the presidency and try to run America as if he were Pope. No one in the republican party really wants that. I don't think they're really all that into Catholics. When JFK was running for president, there was a fear that he would be taking orders from The Vatican. I'm sure people in the party might not-so quietly wonder whether Romney might take orders from Utah as they are not comfortable with his Mormonism, whoever is running that relatively new religious show. I have heard that he's planning to take away our coffee his first day in office....
But, Santorum wants to do more than that coffee thing I just made up and that is why he won't get the GOP nomination. I think the higher-ups in the party might be thinking he takes this stuff too seriously and might be a bit worried about that. Romney is the presumed candidate because he looks like a candidate and acts like a candidate. Don't listen so much to what he says but how he says it. Politicians rarely answer questions directly. There's always factors, the primary factor being, "What does this group of people want to hear?" They have to tailor their *beliefs* to the audience of the moment. If he had stayed in the race longer, Herman Cain might have found himself addressing a Klan rally and promising to ship himself and all his people back to Africa....if he got their votes. That's politics.
Sincerity aside, Santorum is not a viable candidate even in these days when republicans tell us we are really looking for family values and guidance in the form of small government. We're not. They make a lot of noise about the small government thing but, that's to keep us from realizing how big they actually want government to be. Does liberty get anymore individual than a woman's body? A man's too? How about our minds? That is the usual progression of things.
The common misremembrance of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson but actually made by Gerald Ford is, "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything you have."
So too is a government big enough to be small enough to slither inside a woman's body just to keep an eye on things. We do not need such talibangelical thinking in our White House.
First they came for my uterus but, I was not a woman so I did nothing....
A Santorum presidency would be like an American Catholic Taliban. Having a wife and kids, he can't ever run for Pope. Instead, he must settle his sights on the presidency and try to run America as if he were Pope. No one in the republican party really wants that. I don't think they're really all that into Catholics. When JFK was running for president, there was a fear that he would be taking orders from The Vatican. I'm sure people in the party might not-so quietly wonder whether Romney might take orders from Utah as they are not comfortable with his Mormonism, whoever is running that relatively new religious show. I have heard that he's planning to take away our coffee his first day in office....
But, Santorum wants to do more than that coffee thing I just made up and that is why he won't get the GOP nomination. I think the higher-ups in the party might be thinking he takes this stuff too seriously and might be a bit worried about that. Romney is the presumed candidate because he looks like a candidate and acts like a candidate. Don't listen so much to what he says but how he says it. Politicians rarely answer questions directly. There's always factors, the primary factor being, "What does this group of people want to hear?" They have to tailor their *beliefs* to the audience of the moment. If he had stayed in the race longer, Herman Cain might have found himself addressing a Klan rally and promising to ship himself and all his people back to Africa....if he got their votes. That's politics.
Sincerity aside, Santorum is not a viable candidate even in these days when republicans tell us we are really looking for family values and guidance in the form of small government. We're not. They make a lot of noise about the small government thing but, that's to keep us from realizing how big they actually want government to be. Does liberty get anymore individual than a woman's body? A man's too? How about our minds? That is the usual progression of things.
The common misremembrance of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson but actually made by Gerald Ford is, "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything you have."
So too is a government big enough to be small enough to slither inside a woman's body just to keep an eye on things. We do not need such talibangelical thinking in our White House.
First they came for my uterus but, I was not a woman so I did nothing....
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Four More Years!
Lately it seems that Barack Obama is running unopposed for his second term as president. There are still four GOP pretenders in the mix but they don't always seem to be running against him.
Rick Sanrorum seems to be going against JFK to be the first Catholic president of the United States and has an eye on staving off the sexual revolution of the 60's that brought us the pill, abortion and orgasms. Good luck with that, Rick.
I'm not sure but, Newt Gingrich might also be running against JFK, trying to one-up him on the space program by never minding putting a man on the moon, Newt will have Moon colonies in his second term! Wow. That is bold. And with Civil Rights on the table of the time, methinks that Newt might be looking to shelve that. He doesn't ever actually say that but, well, golly he comes close.
Mitt Romney is running against FDR. He wants to get rid of all those socialist programs that Roosevelt gave birth to and I'm thinking he would like to try his hand at being a World War-time president.
Ron Paul seems to be opposing George Washington in his life-long quest to become Father Of Our Country.
Well, OK, it seems like that's what these knuckleheads are up to. When they're not running against the past, they do pay lip service to the actual current race to become the guy who will lose to Obama. Things aren't looking good there, though. As Bill Maher recently put it, " I love that guy!
So, that's why their running against the past. It's all they've got. I truly think they secretly want to lose again like they did in '08. Four years ago, John McCain didn't really want to be the guy to un-fuck eight horrible years of Bush but, he and they had to field a team and put on a show. It was expected of them. The easiest thing to do was lose and then rally the troops to denigrate the winner and sabotage him at all costs. Mitch McConnel made this clear very early into Obama's first term when he declared that his only goal was to make Obama a one term president. Only goal! It was already the worst recession since The Great Depression and this was his priority. Lord, I know he's from Kentucky but I didn't think he was that Southern. It is exactly like the Southern attitude after the Civil War; the attitude of we didn't really lose and we're not really a part of all this and we will rise again....
Now, you can argue that 2012 would be a good time to regain the White House because Obama has- against the odds- improved things despite their worst efforts. But, that's the double-edged sword of duplicity. Any intelligent person knows that the GOP has done nothing to deserve the White House. Why change horses in mid-stream when the lead horse is doin a fine job of getting you to the other bank?
They still think NOT taxing rich people is the way to go and that getting rid of abortion and gay marriage is the way to fix the economy? Puhleeze. Save that shit for the peanut gallery of Topix and choir of Foxnews. The people are not having any of that. We're better than that and we'll prove it in November.
Rick Sanrorum seems to be going against JFK to be the first Catholic president of the United States and has an eye on staving off the sexual revolution of the 60's that brought us the pill, abortion and orgasms. Good luck with that, Rick.
I'm not sure but, Newt Gingrich might also be running against JFK, trying to one-up him on the space program by never minding putting a man on the moon, Newt will have Moon colonies in his second term! Wow. That is bold. And with Civil Rights on the table of the time, methinks that Newt might be looking to shelve that. He doesn't ever actually say that but, well, golly he comes close.
Mitt Romney is running against FDR. He wants to get rid of all those socialist programs that Roosevelt gave birth to and I'm thinking he would like to try his hand at being a World War-time president.
Ron Paul seems to be opposing George Washington in his life-long quest to become Father Of Our Country.
Well, OK, it seems like that's what these knuckleheads are up to. When they're not running against the past, they do pay lip service to the actual current race to become the guy who will lose to Obama. Things aren't looking good there, though. As Bill Maher recently put it, " I love that guy!
So, that's why their running against the past. It's all they've got. I truly think they secretly want to lose again like they did in '08. Four years ago, John McCain didn't really want to be the guy to un-fuck eight horrible years of Bush but, he and they had to field a team and put on a show. It was expected of them. The easiest thing to do was lose and then rally the troops to denigrate the winner and sabotage him at all costs. Mitch McConnel made this clear very early into Obama's first term when he declared that his only goal was to make Obama a one term president. Only goal! It was already the worst recession since The Great Depression and this was his priority. Lord, I know he's from Kentucky but I didn't think he was that Southern. It is exactly like the Southern attitude after the Civil War; the attitude of we didn't really lose and we're not really a part of all this and we will rise again....
Now, you can argue that 2012 would be a good time to regain the White House because Obama has- against the odds- improved things despite their worst efforts. But, that's the double-edged sword of duplicity. Any intelligent person knows that the GOP has done nothing to deserve the White House. Why change horses in mid-stream when the lead horse is doin a fine job of getting you to the other bank?
They still think NOT taxing rich people is the way to go and that getting rid of abortion and gay marriage is the way to fix the economy? Puhleeze. Save that shit for the peanut gallery of Topix and choir of Foxnews. The people are not having any of that. We're better than that and we'll prove it in November.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Pushing away from the patriotic table
The attached video says it all better than I can. We can appreciate- to an extent- that there is a need to stretch the world's food supply. Let's just not kill ourselves in doing so.
It's very telling that the Europeans and Japanese are ahead of us in food testing and unwilling to rubber stamp every scientific *breakthrough* that comes along each day in regard to our food. It's also very telling that the GOP-types systematically dismiss everything the Europeans do as 'socialist', 'backwards' and-ironically- 'progressive'. I just don't get how progressive could be a dirty word.
There's big bucks in corporate farming. New advances in chemicals and food engineering can be patented and licensed and there's money to be made on the paperwork involved in all that. Look at Monsanto and their love of litigation. It's not grandpa's farm anymore. Nor Maggies....
I'm of that generation that had ZERO children that had food allergies. We ate whatever we wanted without fear. A young Ferrerman could eat a PB & J, stick his fingers in another kid's mouth, with no fear of killing that child via cross-contamination. Today, there are probably kids in your child's class who would get frightfully ill- or die- from ingesting a food with peanuts in it.
The GOP, or at least the teaparty arm of it, wants the good ol' days back. They want to go back to various eras in American history when life was 'simpler'. This usually manifests in pre- Civil Rights, pre- Roe v. Wade, pre-FDR etc. etc. I mentioned they hate progress, didn't I? Regulation of industry inhibits corporate profits just as Unions, minimum wage and child labor laws do. They are against anything that might cost rich people money. It's as simple as that. Curiously, it's the progress of science that is causing all this chaos in our food chain and it's something I'm gonna guess our glorious founding father's- many of whom were farmers- would abhor this. They were old fashioned in their farming methods, having their slaves tend to the crops with hand tools, horses and were largely dependent upon the weather for irrigation. Insects were always a problem but, the cure (whatever it was) was not worse than the cause. I'm gonna guess they rolled with the occasional worm in the apple.
Progress is not supposed to kill us. Our food is not supposed to kill us. The ridiculous rise in food allergies and cancer rates can only be the result of under-regulated chemicals and genetically modified foods. We need to be more European in our thinking, backwards as they may be....
Please take 18 minutes and listen to Robyn.
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxMileHigh-Robyn-OBrien-Patri#.T0MS1lY_n0A.facebook
It's very telling that the Europeans and Japanese are ahead of us in food testing and unwilling to rubber stamp every scientific *breakthrough* that comes along each day in regard to our food. It's also very telling that the GOP-types systematically dismiss everything the Europeans do as 'socialist', 'backwards' and-ironically- 'progressive'. I just don't get how progressive could be a dirty word.
There's big bucks in corporate farming. New advances in chemicals and food engineering can be patented and licensed and there's money to be made on the paperwork involved in all that. Look at Monsanto and their love of litigation. It's not grandpa's farm anymore. Nor Maggies....
I'm of that generation that had ZERO children that had food allergies. We ate whatever we wanted without fear. A young Ferrerman could eat a PB & J, stick his fingers in another kid's mouth, with no fear of killing that child via cross-contamination. Today, there are probably kids in your child's class who would get frightfully ill- or die- from ingesting a food with peanuts in it.
The GOP, or at least the teaparty arm of it, wants the good ol' days back. They want to go back to various eras in American history when life was 'simpler'. This usually manifests in pre- Civil Rights, pre- Roe v. Wade, pre-FDR etc. etc. I mentioned they hate progress, didn't I? Regulation of industry inhibits corporate profits just as Unions, minimum wage and child labor laws do. They are against anything that might cost rich people money. It's as simple as that. Curiously, it's the progress of science that is causing all this chaos in our food chain and it's something I'm gonna guess our glorious founding father's- many of whom were farmers- would abhor this. They were old fashioned in their farming methods, having their slaves tend to the crops with hand tools, horses and were largely dependent upon the weather for irrigation. Insects were always a problem but, the cure (whatever it was) was not worse than the cause. I'm gonna guess they rolled with the occasional worm in the apple.
Progress is not supposed to kill us. Our food is not supposed to kill us. The ridiculous rise in food allergies and cancer rates can only be the result of under-regulated chemicals and genetically modified foods. We need to be more European in our thinking, backwards as they may be....
Please take 18 minutes and listen to Robyn.
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxMileHigh-Robyn-OBrien-Patri#.T0MS1lY_n0A.facebook
Monday, February 20, 2012
Colors
Flipping channels, I saw a report on Oakland street gangs and how their territory is important to them and must be defended at all costs. One side wears blue, the other red. Both sides must stop the other, especially if it means killing. Oh.
The next channel was about life in prison for newcomers. Kids today must not watch as much TV as I do or they simply do not get the progression of gang life leading to prison gang life. There are the rules laid down by the warden and then there are different rules laid-out and strongly enforced by the various gangs. Oh.
These are societies inside of societies with societies of their own. Oh.
Earlier this morning I was looking at the film "Fight Club" on TV. I've seen it before and only caught the second half this time around. I likened the Edward Norton character to my Topix stalker because, well, he's often talking to himself and the rest of us are just watching his insanity unravel, wondering if he'll figure things out before the credits roll. It's doubtful.
I'm still bemused at what people think is important in life. Whether it's nut jobs trying to win Topix or people of color trying to win their sad streets, it's all so pornographic. And, of course, no one actually wins as no one gets out of here alive to enjoy their victories forever and ever, amen.
But, people have to try and the history of humankind is that some people just have to try ever so much harder than anyone else no matter how ugly it makes them.
I take politics kinda seriously. One reason I do is because others don't and, oddly enough, some that don't are the politicians themselves. If a politician really REALLY cares about gay marriage or contraception, he needs to get out of politics. Those things are just plot devices that keep the story moving along. Men blowing each other or women trying to not get pregnant (blow jobs are a thought there....) do not actually shape nations or even affect (effect?) oil prices. They are just smoke and mirrors of things they cannot control, to distract us from the other things they cannot control, like the price of oil and the general economy.
So, when I hear Santorum go on about such things, I know he's no serious threat to lead this country. Frankly neither is Mitt or Newt or any of them who promise that they'll do everything...on their first day.... Sheesh, peak too soon, why don't ya.
At some point they might as well be standing out on their street with their red colors declaring that anyone sporting blue will die. It makes as much sense.
The next channel was about life in prison for newcomers. Kids today must not watch as much TV as I do or they simply do not get the progression of gang life leading to prison gang life. There are the rules laid down by the warden and then there are different rules laid-out and strongly enforced by the various gangs. Oh.
These are societies inside of societies with societies of their own. Oh.
Earlier this morning I was looking at the film "Fight Club" on TV. I've seen it before and only caught the second half this time around. I likened the Edward Norton character to my Topix stalker because, well, he's often talking to himself and the rest of us are just watching his insanity unravel, wondering if he'll figure things out before the credits roll. It's doubtful.
I'm still bemused at what people think is important in life. Whether it's nut jobs trying to win Topix or people of color trying to win their sad streets, it's all so pornographic. And, of course, no one actually wins as no one gets out of here alive to enjoy their victories forever and ever, amen.
But, people have to try and the history of humankind is that some people just have to try ever so much harder than anyone else no matter how ugly it makes them.
I take politics kinda seriously. One reason I do is because others don't and, oddly enough, some that don't are the politicians themselves. If a politician really REALLY cares about gay marriage or contraception, he needs to get out of politics. Those things are just plot devices that keep the story moving along. Men blowing each other or women trying to not get pregnant (blow jobs are a thought there....) do not actually shape nations or even affect (effect?) oil prices. They are just smoke and mirrors of things they cannot control, to distract us from the other things they cannot control, like the price of oil and the general economy.
So, when I hear Santorum go on about such things, I know he's no serious threat to lead this country. Frankly neither is Mitt or Newt or any of them who promise that they'll do everything...on their first day.... Sheesh, peak too soon, why don't ya.
At some point they might as well be standing out on their street with their red colors declaring that anyone sporting blue will die. It makes as much sense.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Testing, testing....
For all intents and purposes, I am a democrat. I've got a few complaints about that but, that statement alone will be taken waaaaaay out of context so, I probably won't go into great detail as headlines will certainly read: FERRERMAN HATES BEING A DEMOCRAT!!!! Because that's surely what I meant...
Debate 101, I guess that is. It's actually very easy these days to be a democrat and a liberal too. Oh sure, everything you think, say and do is wrong but, that does make it easy. It's actually very easy to be a republican or teapartier too. All you have to do to be an effective one of those is to realize that everything liberals think, say and do is wrong.
Just about every day a new crisis comes around and gets the media in a frenzy. Sometimes there are several frenzies going on at once. Currently (as we never mind the economy and jobs) we need to mind that Barack Obama is waging a war on Christianity by forcing the Catholic church to offer contraception via insurance to their parishioners, 98% of whom use contraception despite the church's decree that they NOT do this. The Pope, having no control over his people, apparently does not want the government exercising control over his people either even though that is not what Obama is doing anyway. So, you can see why it's a HUGE crisis. We have a separation of church and state built into our Constitution and- by golly- if government comes near to crossing that line, another government needs to be elected to stop that other government from doing that by government decree, of course. Perhaps an official government decree that we are a Christian nation would solve that? Ya know, it does say "In GOD We Trust" on our money. Technically it shouldn't but, back in the 1950's, Democrats were trying really hard to ram communism down our throats and, well, that stopped that! Now, it follows, that they should take on the Catholic church because....well, I don't know. But, no less a Southern Baptist than former governor Mike Huckabee has declared that "(now) we are ALL Catholics" and Obamacare must be stopped. Not sure if Mitt Romney sees it this way or if Huck considers his Mormon self an also Catholic. Whatever, at least for now we are a Catholic nation.
You know what I think? I think it's just another lame attempt to stop Affordable Healthcare using any means necessary. I think if Huck really cared about Catholics, he'd actually be one. I think he's just pissed that Obama is president and will most likely earn re-election again in '12.
Drug testing welfare recipients is also a current whine celebre of the GOP these days. In case they can't convince Obama to eliminate welfare and other communist social safety nets, at least he could make it harder for those elitist lazy people to mooch off the taxpayers as they have been doing since FDR was running the country. They figure that, if you don't use drugs, you should have no problem taking a drug test. That would seem simple enough. In fact, the state of Florida already tests welfare recipients. Being fiscally conservative, they require that potential recipients pony up the cost of their test up-front. If you pass, you get reimbursed. If you don't pass, you get nothing. So in theory, the program pays for itself. You break even with the cost of the tests and you save gazillions of dollars by weeding out the dopers.
Not exactly. Only 2% of the recipients have failed the test. As of last week, I heard the program was $200,000 dollars in the hole. If you don't think that's a lot of money, consider that they had $200,000 MORE before when they didn't do the drug testing.
Who can you blame for this? Is it the people's fault for not smoking enough dope? If only poor people would do more drugs we could eliminate welfare! Those lazy 98% bastards just aren't helping!
I have a lot of experience with drug tests. I've taken several and always passed. Didn't even study! I'm not a drug-testing genius. I simply don't use drugs. It can be just that easy.
However, working commercial construction as I have, all the stoners I've worked with have passed drug tests too. There's a bunch of ways to pass, depending on your drugs of choice. I've known guys who simply quit smoking weed a month before a test and drank tons of water to boot. Some were able to submit someone else's pee, others used over the counter products developed to mask drug use. There's a lot of ways to fool the tests and I'm sure doper scientists have been working hard on new ways since my last test several years ago.
The thing is, those boys and girls passed the tests that I passed and there they were, smoking a joint at breaktime. What purpose did the tests serve? I think it was just to find out the 2% who aren't smart enough to pass the test. It did nothing to eliminate drugs from the work place. Sheesh- look at our prisons- you can get any drugs you want in prison, all within walking distance of your cell. If prison itself is not a deterent, how could poverty be? People are gonna get high. The Libertarian in me respects their right to do this. I may not smoke weed anymore but, if I came across some trippin' weed and didn't have to be anywhere for the rest of the evening....
While we're at testing people for drug use as a requirement for employment or welfare benefits, why stop there? Because drugs are illegal, those who have failed tests have commited crimes. Why not put them in jail? If you crunch the numbers on that due process thingy, it costs a whole bunch of billions of dollars to arrest and prosecute people for drug use. A simple test could save those billions by having them shipped off to a privatized prison somewhere as soon as they fail, where they can learn to just say "no".
Drug testing moms and dads who have fallen on hard times isn't going to help the children of those parents. It won't put food in their bellies. Despite any anecdotal evidence of 'welfare queens' you may offer up, no one is getting rich collecting welfare. It simply doesn't pay that well. Neither does unemployment and that has also been suggested as another 'gimme' that people should have to be drug tested for. As if losing your job weren't sad enough, smoking a joint to escape your misery should jeopardize that financial windfall too? Sheesh. The same people who think teachers are 'overpaid' because they only work nine months out of the year, think a corporate CEO works for his salary and million dollar bonus. What the fuck are they smoking? It's also been suggested that drug testing be a requirement to vote. Hmmm.... have they thought that one through?
So, I guess I'm a democrat and a liberal so that you may have the right to be a republican asshole. Let's face it: without us, you'd only have yourselves to complain about. And who would listen?
Debate 101, I guess that is. It's actually very easy these days to be a democrat and a liberal too. Oh sure, everything you think, say and do is wrong but, that does make it easy. It's actually very easy to be a republican or teapartier too. All you have to do to be an effective one of those is to realize that everything liberals think, say and do is wrong.
Just about every day a new crisis comes around and gets the media in a frenzy. Sometimes there are several frenzies going on at once. Currently (as we never mind the economy and jobs) we need to mind that Barack Obama is waging a war on Christianity by forcing the Catholic church to offer contraception via insurance to their parishioners, 98% of whom use contraception despite the church's decree that they NOT do this. The Pope, having no control over his people, apparently does not want the government exercising control over his people either even though that is not what Obama is doing anyway. So, you can see why it's a HUGE crisis. We have a separation of church and state built into our Constitution and- by golly- if government comes near to crossing that line, another government needs to be elected to stop that other government from doing that by government decree, of course. Perhaps an official government decree that we are a Christian nation would solve that? Ya know, it does say "In GOD We Trust" on our money. Technically it shouldn't but, back in the 1950's, Democrats were trying really hard to ram communism down our throats and, well, that stopped that! Now, it follows, that they should take on the Catholic church because....well, I don't know. But, no less a Southern Baptist than former governor Mike Huckabee has declared that "(now) we are ALL Catholics" and Obamacare must be stopped. Not sure if Mitt Romney sees it this way or if Huck considers his Mormon self an also Catholic. Whatever, at least for now we are a Catholic nation.
You know what I think? I think it's just another lame attempt to stop Affordable Healthcare using any means necessary. I think if Huck really cared about Catholics, he'd actually be one. I think he's just pissed that Obama is president and will most likely earn re-election again in '12.
Drug testing welfare recipients is also a current whine celebre of the GOP these days. In case they can't convince Obama to eliminate welfare and other communist social safety nets, at least he could make it harder for those elitist lazy people to mooch off the taxpayers as they have been doing since FDR was running the country. They figure that, if you don't use drugs, you should have no problem taking a drug test. That would seem simple enough. In fact, the state of Florida already tests welfare recipients. Being fiscally conservative, they require that potential recipients pony up the cost of their test up-front. If you pass, you get reimbursed. If you don't pass, you get nothing. So in theory, the program pays for itself. You break even with the cost of the tests and you save gazillions of dollars by weeding out the dopers.
Not exactly. Only 2% of the recipients have failed the test. As of last week, I heard the program was $200,000 dollars in the hole. If you don't think that's a lot of money, consider that they had $200,000 MORE before when they didn't do the drug testing.
Who can you blame for this? Is it the people's fault for not smoking enough dope? If only poor people would do more drugs we could eliminate welfare! Those lazy 98% bastards just aren't helping!
I have a lot of experience with drug tests. I've taken several and always passed. Didn't even study! I'm not a drug-testing genius. I simply don't use drugs. It can be just that easy.
However, working commercial construction as I have, all the stoners I've worked with have passed drug tests too. There's a bunch of ways to pass, depending on your drugs of choice. I've known guys who simply quit smoking weed a month before a test and drank tons of water to boot. Some were able to submit someone else's pee, others used over the counter products developed to mask drug use. There's a lot of ways to fool the tests and I'm sure doper scientists have been working hard on new ways since my last test several years ago.
The thing is, those boys and girls passed the tests that I passed and there they were, smoking a joint at breaktime. What purpose did the tests serve? I think it was just to find out the 2% who aren't smart enough to pass the test. It did nothing to eliminate drugs from the work place. Sheesh- look at our prisons- you can get any drugs you want in prison, all within walking distance of your cell. If prison itself is not a deterent, how could poverty be? People are gonna get high. The Libertarian in me respects their right to do this. I may not smoke weed anymore but, if I came across some trippin' weed and didn't have to be anywhere for the rest of the evening....
While we're at testing people for drug use as a requirement for employment or welfare benefits, why stop there? Because drugs are illegal, those who have failed tests have commited crimes. Why not put them in jail? If you crunch the numbers on that due process thingy, it costs a whole bunch of billions of dollars to arrest and prosecute people for drug use. A simple test could save those billions by having them shipped off to a privatized prison somewhere as soon as they fail, where they can learn to just say "no".
Drug testing moms and dads who have fallen on hard times isn't going to help the children of those parents. It won't put food in their bellies. Despite any anecdotal evidence of 'welfare queens' you may offer up, no one is getting rich collecting welfare. It simply doesn't pay that well. Neither does unemployment and that has also been suggested as another 'gimme' that people should have to be drug tested for. As if losing your job weren't sad enough, smoking a joint to escape your misery should jeopardize that financial windfall too? Sheesh. The same people who think teachers are 'overpaid' because they only work nine months out of the year, think a corporate CEO works for his salary and million dollar bonus. What the fuck are they smoking? It's also been suggested that drug testing be a requirement to vote. Hmmm.... have they thought that one through?
So, I guess I'm a democrat and a liberal so that you may have the right to be a republican asshole. Let's face it: without us, you'd only have yourselves to complain about. And who would listen?
Friday, February 17, 2012
YOU!
Like a lot of elitists, I get the New York Times home-delivered to my computer each day. The damn kid that delivers it usually misses the porch and I have to retrieve it from the bushes but, at least that 44 year old kid is working for a living and not mooching.
Recently, two-term presidential sure thing, Newt Gingrich referred to President Obama as "The Food stamp President". Evidently, a lot of people believe that, due to his socialist/Muslim agendacies (sic- MY NEW WORD!!!) Obama wants EVERYONE to be on welfare and to pay for this welfare, he wants to tax the living shit out of job creators. 'Redistribution of wealth' is what they call it. With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder our nation's job creators have been creating jobs overseas for the last 40 years! They saw this coming and even various iconic republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and a couple of George Bush's could not stop the socialist juggernat that Barack H. Obama was going to be.
Also evidently, more people are using government social services than ever before. Some argue that Obama makes this easy for them and that- again- he encourages people to do this. That, they might add, is THE reason so many people are 'on the dole' with their hands out. They are lazy and they want it this way. There are, in this Obama administration, more people than ever recieving government assistance. So, there you go. End of story. This has got to stop! Sums it all up, quite nicely. Damn moochers!
Not so fast. There is a recession going on. It's been in all the old-fashioned newspapers and those home-delivered to the 'net. It's been on the nightly news since about 2007 as well. Your neighbors have probably mentioned it. There are five year old children who have known nothing but recession in their young lives. It's, by most accounts, the worst economy since The Great Depression of the 30's.
And that just might be why there are so many more Americans recieving government assistance. As Paul Krugman points out in the link to follow, the saftey net didn't get bigger, more people fell into it.
You take away that saftey net and we're in to numbering Great Depressions like Great Wars.
The GOP wants you to believe that, once you take away welfare, unemployment compensation and the like, people will get off their lazy asses and work. Even better, take away Unions and minimum wage laws and you will make it easy for everyone to work. It's that simple!
It's that stupid. People, are that stupid. The article also notes that 40+% of people who have received social security, unemployment and medicare believe they "have not used a government program". They are like the B-list actor, Craig T. Nelson who told Glenn Beck that, in his hard times he was on welfare and unemployment but "nobody helped (him)!"
Well, by "nobody" I guess he meant everybody?
We are everybody whether we own up to it or not. No matter how Ayn Randian you may fancy yourself to be, you did not get to be such an effete son of a bitch all by yourself. You had help. The architect doesn't own the building anymore than the steelworker. Struttin around like you own the place just makes you look stupid, even if you do own the place.
If you are a republican or a teabagger or you simply exist amongst them in a red or a blue state, even if you haven't been hurt too much by this recession, it behooves you to be an everybody and think about everybody. This one will end. A lot of smart people are saying it's getting better every day. More people are working than at this time last year and yada yada. We've always had recessions and we always will. The only thing we the people can control is how horribly severe they are. We can control this by being an everybody and looking out for eveybody. There are 300+ million of us here. That's a lot of everybodies! When there are not enough jobs for everybody (and you are a body) you have to consider how you would want to be treated by those body's that have while you have not. Would YOU like to be on the receiving end of: "Fuck you, you're on your own!"?
Now, you might think that will never happen to you because, well, you are you! Or because you have weapons and a stockpile of candied yams and you can string a troutline and you know that squirrels is good-eatin'. Or, you're rich and you've got gold and that'll get you a loaf of bread in hard times. I think there are people, rich and not, who not-so- secretly desire Armeggedon. The Apocylpse could be fun. Who really knows until we get there? You are you and whether a socialist-liberal teacher instilled that in you in some elitist public school or your stock portfolio tells you you are you, you ARE special because you are you! Should anyone tell you different? Well, it depends on who you are, I guess.
I'll tell you this: if you don't care about others because they are not you, fuck you!
I feel better now. How 'bout you?
Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman
Recently, two-term presidential sure thing, Newt Gingrich referred to President Obama as "The Food stamp President". Evidently, a lot of people believe that, due to his socialist/Muslim agendacies (sic- MY NEW WORD!!!) Obama wants EVERYONE to be on welfare and to pay for this welfare, he wants to tax the living shit out of job creators. 'Redistribution of wealth' is what they call it. With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder our nation's job creators have been creating jobs overseas for the last 40 years! They saw this coming and even various iconic republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and a couple of George Bush's could not stop the socialist juggernat that Barack H. Obama was going to be.
Also evidently, more people are using government social services than ever before. Some argue that Obama makes this easy for them and that- again- he encourages people to do this. That, they might add, is THE reason so many people are 'on the dole' with their hands out. They are lazy and they want it this way. There are, in this Obama administration, more people than ever recieving government assistance. So, there you go. End of story. This has got to stop! Sums it all up, quite nicely. Damn moochers!
Not so fast. There is a recession going on. It's been in all the old-fashioned newspapers and those home-delivered to the 'net. It's been on the nightly news since about 2007 as well. Your neighbors have probably mentioned it. There are five year old children who have known nothing but recession in their young lives. It's, by most accounts, the worst economy since The Great Depression of the 30's.
And that just might be why there are so many more Americans recieving government assistance. As Paul Krugman points out in the link to follow, the saftey net didn't get bigger, more people fell into it.
You take away that saftey net and we're in to numbering Great Depressions like Great Wars.
The GOP wants you to believe that, once you take away welfare, unemployment compensation and the like, people will get off their lazy asses and work. Even better, take away Unions and minimum wage laws and you will make it easy for everyone to work. It's that simple!
It's that stupid. People, are that stupid. The article also notes that 40+% of people who have received social security, unemployment and medicare believe they "have not used a government program". They are like the B-list actor, Craig T. Nelson who told Glenn Beck that, in his hard times he was on welfare and unemployment but "nobody helped (him)!"
Well, by "nobody" I guess he meant everybody?
We are everybody whether we own up to it or not. No matter how Ayn Randian you may fancy yourself to be, you did not get to be such an effete son of a bitch all by yourself. You had help. The architect doesn't own the building anymore than the steelworker. Struttin around like you own the place just makes you look stupid, even if you do own the place.
If you are a republican or a teabagger or you simply exist amongst them in a red or a blue state, even if you haven't been hurt too much by this recession, it behooves you to be an everybody and think about everybody. This one will end. A lot of smart people are saying it's getting better every day. More people are working than at this time last year and yada yada. We've always had recessions and we always will. The only thing we the people can control is how horribly severe they are. We can control this by being an everybody and looking out for eveybody. There are 300+ million of us here. That's a lot of everybodies! When there are not enough jobs for everybody (and you are a body) you have to consider how you would want to be treated by those body's that have while you have not. Would YOU like to be on the receiving end of: "Fuck you, you're on your own!"?
Now, you might think that will never happen to you because, well, you are you! Or because you have weapons and a stockpile of candied yams and you can string a troutline and you know that squirrels is good-eatin'. Or, you're rich and you've got gold and that'll get you a loaf of bread in hard times. I think there are people, rich and not, who not-so- secretly desire Armeggedon. The Apocylpse could be fun. Who really knows until we get there? You are you and whether a socialist-liberal teacher instilled that in you in some elitist public school or your stock portfolio tells you you are you, you ARE special because you are you! Should anyone tell you different? Well, it depends on who you are, I guess.
I'll tell you this: if you don't care about others because they are not you, fuck you!
I feel better now. How 'bout you?
Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
When I was a kid....
Like it or not, these are future old people's good ol' days. There's a ten year old right now clicking away on his XBOX who is going to be fifty-something and loooooong for those halcyon days of yesteryear when that crappy little box amused children before time travel was perfected and his grandson could now simply think of a time in history and any warring armies he chose could be transported to his backyard for live-action battle.
Jimmy! DO NOT have The War Of The Roses in the living room! I am NOT cleaning up all that blood again! Take it OUTSIDE!
Of course, we all want to be ten years old again. Children of The Great Depression have been known to look back on that time with fond remembrance. It was most likely a time when you had nothing but, neither did your neighbor. You probably thought everyone had nothing as there was no television to show you what you were missing. If you are poor today, you probably still have a TV and are aware that there are Kardashians amongst us. You probably hate them. They surely take all that hate to the bank.
A ten year old of any era lives in a small, ten year old world where gas prices don't matter. That's for grown-ups to worry about. If you're a grown-up though, and you can't grasp that everything was cheaper when you were a kid and that nothing will ever be that cheap again then, WELCOME TO THE GOP! Everything you need to know about economics can be learned watching Fox *news*.
Things were cheaper under GW Bush. We need to get someone like him back into the White House so that things can be cheaper again. Its that simply folks! What part of Barack Obama is a not-so-secret Muslim do you NOT understand?
In the threads I regularly read that gas was $2 a gallon when Bush left office. I guess in some parts of the country it was. It was up and down during his eight year reign of terror and I will be the first to tell you that he had nothing (much) to do about that. Presidents, despite former presidential wannabe Michele Bachman's promises, do not set the price of a gallon of gasoline. Republicans secretly know this and this is why they did not support her recent effort to become president. Well, OK, they don't like her either was probably the biggest reason. The prospect of a gay first lady was a bit too FDR/Eleanor to them and they just couldn't see Marcus Bachmann as the man behind the woman.
But, ya know, gasoline was 17 cents a gallon in 1933, at the height of the depression, when FDR was president. Why stop at $2 when you could set your sights on that? If you want a guy who is still around, how 'bout Jimmy Carter and 70 cents a gallon? Even more recently, Bill Clinton, at $1.11 at gallon! Alert readers might notice these figures are lower than $2 and that those are all democrat presidents. In 1970, while Richard Nixon was president, gas was 36 cents a gallon. Do you want him back?
At any price per gallon, we still had millionaires. I cite the Clampett's of Beverly Hills (formerly of Arkansas) of my childhood as an example. Despite what you may hear, there is NO shortage of millionaires in this country. There are a bunch. Many more have gone on to be billionaires, Some of those billionares are oil men. According to my calculations, you make more money charging more for your product than you did when you charged less. Do the math yourself. No one at Exxon or BP wants to sell gasoline at two dollars a gallon. They do better at twice that price. No one at Exxon wants electric powered cars either. Simply, you can't drill for electricity. You could make money on it but, it's not a finite source of energy that you can easily manipulate the price of like oil is. We're always running out of oil until we find new, vast quantities of it that are on our property, not some America hating Arabs land. If only we could drill baby drill in Alaska.... Just a few years ago the tar sands in Canada were not cost effective to extract and ship off to China. Now, in GOP circles, it is cost effective. Not only that, helping our Canadian friends move all that high-dollar oil through a pipeline that crosses American rivers and aquafiers so that oil can be refined and sold on other continents is an American thing to do! Imagine that.
Ya know, if our future ten year olds are teleporting ancient soldiers to fight battles in their backyards, I sure as hell hope their parents are not still driving to work in SUV's powered by $20 a gallon gasoline because its the patriotic thing to do....
But, that's my 20th century logic speaking. look at my avatar. What does that kid know?
Jimmy! DO NOT have The War Of The Roses in the living room! I am NOT cleaning up all that blood again! Take it OUTSIDE!
Of course, we all want to be ten years old again. Children of The Great Depression have been known to look back on that time with fond remembrance. It was most likely a time when you had nothing but, neither did your neighbor. You probably thought everyone had nothing as there was no television to show you what you were missing. If you are poor today, you probably still have a TV and are aware that there are Kardashians amongst us. You probably hate them. They surely take all that hate to the bank.
A ten year old of any era lives in a small, ten year old world where gas prices don't matter. That's for grown-ups to worry about. If you're a grown-up though, and you can't grasp that everything was cheaper when you were a kid and that nothing will ever be that cheap again then, WELCOME TO THE GOP! Everything you need to know about economics can be learned watching Fox *news*.
Things were cheaper under GW Bush. We need to get someone like him back into the White House so that things can be cheaper again. Its that simply folks! What part of Barack Obama is a not-so-secret Muslim do you NOT understand?
In the threads I regularly read that gas was $2 a gallon when Bush left office. I guess in some parts of the country it was. It was up and down during his eight year reign of terror and I will be the first to tell you that he had nothing (much) to do about that. Presidents, despite former presidential wannabe Michele Bachman's promises, do not set the price of a gallon of gasoline. Republicans secretly know this and this is why they did not support her recent effort to become president. Well, OK, they don't like her either was probably the biggest reason. The prospect of a gay first lady was a bit too FDR/Eleanor to them and they just couldn't see Marcus Bachmann as the man behind the woman.
But, ya know, gasoline was 17 cents a gallon in 1933, at the height of the depression, when FDR was president. Why stop at $2 when you could set your sights on that? If you want a guy who is still around, how 'bout Jimmy Carter and 70 cents a gallon? Even more recently, Bill Clinton, at $1.11 at gallon! Alert readers might notice these figures are lower than $2 and that those are all democrat presidents. In 1970, while Richard Nixon was president, gas was 36 cents a gallon. Do you want him back?
At any price per gallon, we still had millionaires. I cite the Clampett's of Beverly Hills (formerly of Arkansas) of my childhood as an example. Despite what you may hear, there is NO shortage of millionaires in this country. There are a bunch. Many more have gone on to be billionaires, Some of those billionares are oil men. According to my calculations, you make more money charging more for your product than you did when you charged less. Do the math yourself. No one at Exxon or BP wants to sell gasoline at two dollars a gallon. They do better at twice that price. No one at Exxon wants electric powered cars either. Simply, you can't drill for electricity. You could make money on it but, it's not a finite source of energy that you can easily manipulate the price of like oil is. We're always running out of oil until we find new, vast quantities of it that are on our property, not some America hating Arabs land. If only we could drill baby drill in Alaska.... Just a few years ago the tar sands in Canada were not cost effective to extract and ship off to China. Now, in GOP circles, it is cost effective. Not only that, helping our Canadian friends move all that high-dollar oil through a pipeline that crosses American rivers and aquafiers so that oil can be refined and sold on other continents is an American thing to do! Imagine that.
Ya know, if our future ten year olds are teleporting ancient soldiers to fight battles in their backyards, I sure as hell hope their parents are not still driving to work in SUV's powered by $20 a gallon gasoline because its the patriotic thing to do....
But, that's my 20th century logic speaking. look at my avatar. What does that kid know?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Posting Dead
I sometimes see a reference to a poster from the past and wonder what happened to them. Is it like gradeschool or highschool where they moved away and you just didn't know at the time? Did they just sorta grow up and out of the silliness of Topix and move on to bigger, better and more tangible things than posting on the internet?
Maybe. I think many died quietly in their sleep though. Well, someone's sleep.
Many of us refer to the people on the threads as "imaginary people" even those which we know exist in real life. For most of us, real life gets in the way of getting together with people who tend to be several states or even an ocean away.
Some people, however, are so imaginary as to actually be imaginary.
Huh what, Ferrerman?
I'm quite certain that some of the most notorious, nefarious, jerk-faced, assholes on the threads don't actually darken any doors in real life. They are figments of someone's imagination, of an actual person somewhere in America for sure, but, not actual people themselves.
Angelique770 used such posters to rally the troops, get the settelers to circle the wagons. Before Ferrerman, there had to be boogeymen to attack and strawmen and straw-women to help defend. This is pretty old school stuff. It goes on every day in politics, why not in a virtual community? Frankly, it spices things up, makes the threads more interesting and keeps them from all being "Hello! How are you? I'm fine!" all the fucking time.
You gotta have conflict. If there is no conflict, make some up!
It's kinda funny that people spend time and bandwidth hating characters but, before there was the internet, we had books for this purpose. Nasty, violent characters are far more interesting than members of the upright citizens brigade. Most any actor would rather play the antagonist than the protagonist who has to play by the rules. Blend the two and the protagonist becomes that much more interesting.
On the threads, nasty people die off like a soap opera. Sometimes they return like evil twins. (Ferrerman note: Just like the movies, black characters get killed in the first scene. There are no good roles for Blacks on Topix! Well, maybe in the African-American threads. But, I don't know because I'm afraid to go there!)
But, just like the soaps, the reason these people die off is often because they got written out of the script. Someone might have gotten bored with them or simply wanted to create a new character or more interesting conflict. There are some desperately lonely people out there. What they might be lacking in real life, they can have on the net. I don't think these people are necessarily creative. How hard is it to be a disagreeable asshole, over and over again? Personally, I don't know. Despite the number of fucktard rethuglicans who will tell you different, I'm really only an asshole to assholes. I bully the bullies. Everybody else gets the dick jokes and spankings. I'm quite comfortable in my posting skin doing any of those things.
But, enough about me. I'm as certain as I can be in a mixed-up, jumbled-up, virtual world that certain famous trolls are figments of certain people's imaginations. I base this on necessity being the mother of invention and idle hands being the Devil's work shop. It's comical and rather sad but, some of the most hated people on the threads do not exist. You may get a PM from them but you are really talking to their creator, helping perhaps, to formulate a new plot line. I know this because I regularly get PM's from some of these people. I'm sure the creator giggles in delight when I respond, never minding that I reveal no information. Well, nothing that I didn't want to reveal anyway.... Though since I drove a herd of cattle and several semi-trucks through A770's stories a few years back, I pretty much let a lot of this conspiracy stuff slide until I started getting barraged by PM's from a particular poster. This guy was always getting banned. There was never a good reason why he was getting banned. People from the clique fought with him but, I never saw him violate the Terms Of Service. Yet he kept getting *banned*, killed off by Topix and having to create new avatars practically every week. This raised a big, red flag. This person wasn't so much pumping for information as he was feeding me information. Most of it was stupid too. The idea was to direct me, this way and that. It got old real quick. Annoying.
It caused me, though, to again look in other directions. Liars always slip up. They seem to want to be caught. One of the persons responsible for all this chicanery clearly uses a proxy server. about a month ago I noticed that he was trolling his adversary *from* his enemy's fictitious hometown.
Well now, the plot thins instead of thickens. A little bit of showing off, showed the hand instead.
You gotta be careful who you *meet* on the internet. That's Internet 101. But, you gotta be careful too about who you hate as well. You could realistically be wasting time hating someone who exists solely in the dark heart of someone else. Over the past few months I've seen this person trolling others, usually for having pro-Ferrerman sympathies. It's easy for me to spot these things because when you have someone who has dedicated their life to having you as an enemy, you tend to pick up a few things about them. You just have to pay a little attention because freaks like that are paying a lot of attention to you.
"Keep your posting friends close and torment your enemies", I always say. And don't trust ANY new avatars as far as you can throw them. Sage advice from an actual Ferrerman.
Maybe. I think many died quietly in their sleep though. Well, someone's sleep.
Many of us refer to the people on the threads as "imaginary people" even those which we know exist in real life. For most of us, real life gets in the way of getting together with people who tend to be several states or even an ocean away.
Some people, however, are so imaginary as to actually be imaginary.
Huh what, Ferrerman?
I'm quite certain that some of the most notorious, nefarious, jerk-faced, assholes on the threads don't actually darken any doors in real life. They are figments of someone's imagination, of an actual person somewhere in America for sure, but, not actual people themselves.
Angelique770 used such posters to rally the troops, get the settelers to circle the wagons. Before Ferrerman, there had to be boogeymen to attack and strawmen and straw-women to help defend. This is pretty old school stuff. It goes on every day in politics, why not in a virtual community? Frankly, it spices things up, makes the threads more interesting and keeps them from all being "Hello! How are you? I'm fine!" all the fucking time.
You gotta have conflict. If there is no conflict, make some up!
It's kinda funny that people spend time and bandwidth hating characters but, before there was the internet, we had books for this purpose. Nasty, violent characters are far more interesting than members of the upright citizens brigade. Most any actor would rather play the antagonist than the protagonist who has to play by the rules. Blend the two and the protagonist becomes that much more interesting.
On the threads, nasty people die off like a soap opera. Sometimes they return like evil twins. (Ferrerman note: Just like the movies, black characters get killed in the first scene. There are no good roles for Blacks on Topix! Well, maybe in the African-American threads. But, I don't know because I'm afraid to go there!)
But, just like the soaps, the reason these people die off is often because they got written out of the script. Someone might have gotten bored with them or simply wanted to create a new character or more interesting conflict. There are some desperately lonely people out there. What they might be lacking in real life, they can have on the net. I don't think these people are necessarily creative. How hard is it to be a disagreeable asshole, over and over again? Personally, I don't know. Despite the number of fucktard rethuglicans who will tell you different, I'm really only an asshole to assholes. I bully the bullies. Everybody else gets the dick jokes and spankings. I'm quite comfortable in my posting skin doing any of those things.
But, enough about me. I'm as certain as I can be in a mixed-up, jumbled-up, virtual world that certain famous trolls are figments of certain people's imaginations. I base this on necessity being the mother of invention and idle hands being the Devil's work shop. It's comical and rather sad but, some of the most hated people on the threads do not exist. You may get a PM from them but you are really talking to their creator, helping perhaps, to formulate a new plot line. I know this because I regularly get PM's from some of these people. I'm sure the creator giggles in delight when I respond, never minding that I reveal no information. Well, nothing that I didn't want to reveal anyway.... Though since I drove a herd of cattle and several semi-trucks through A770's stories a few years back, I pretty much let a lot of this conspiracy stuff slide until I started getting barraged by PM's from a particular poster. This guy was always getting banned. There was never a good reason why he was getting banned. People from the clique fought with him but, I never saw him violate the Terms Of Service. Yet he kept getting *banned*, killed off by Topix and having to create new avatars practically every week. This raised a big, red flag. This person wasn't so much pumping for information as he was feeding me information. Most of it was stupid too. The idea was to direct me, this way and that. It got old real quick. Annoying.
It caused me, though, to again look in other directions. Liars always slip up. They seem to want to be caught. One of the persons responsible for all this chicanery clearly uses a proxy server. about a month ago I noticed that he was trolling his adversary *from* his enemy's fictitious hometown.
Well now, the plot thins instead of thickens. A little bit of showing off, showed the hand instead.
You gotta be careful who you *meet* on the internet. That's Internet 101. But, you gotta be careful too about who you hate as well. You could realistically be wasting time hating someone who exists solely in the dark heart of someone else. Over the past few months I've seen this person trolling others, usually for having pro-Ferrerman sympathies. It's easy for me to spot these things because when you have someone who has dedicated their life to having you as an enemy, you tend to pick up a few things about them. You just have to pay a little attention because freaks like that are paying a lot of attention to you.
"Keep your posting friends close and torment your enemies", I always say. And don't trust ANY new avatars as far as you can throw them. Sage advice from an actual Ferrerman.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Resistance Is Futile
There was a time, not that long ago, when I was fairly certain I would never own a computer. I thought the internet was all pornography and rumors.
Well, of course, it is but, what are you gonna do? The telephone is pretty neat too but the natural progression of that was telemarketers and drunk-dialing exes so, you have to take the good with the bad.
I lived out of state and my family encouraged me to get a computer so that we could better keep in touch via e-mail. That sounded very artificial and perfunctory to me compared to snailmail. I recalled writing- typing- a letter to a woman in New Orleans that I loved very much, on my Brother Word Processor and her anguished, pained reaction to receiving that wonderfully crafted but typed missive. She was hurt by my use of my new toy. She wanted my crappy penmanship as much as she wanted me. I felt bad. I had liked seeing my words printed out neatly for a change. I thought she would appreciate too. It looked like being published to me. It looked antiseptic to her. The love was there but, it was like reading a newspaper to her.
I had that in mind when I later learned of the internet and e-mail. Why sacrifice intimacy for immediacy?
Love is the singer not the song.
Slowly though, I warmed to the idea of a computer. I used to go over to a buddy's house and we'd golf on his Playstation. Tim showed me his computer and all he could do on that and told me that once I got one, I'd probably never play Tiger Woods Golf again. Well, I doubted that. We looked at some pretty funny porn clips he had collected. Porn's not supposed to be funny but, people can say the darnedest things while having sex. The availability of porn was not much of a sell to me. It just reaffirmed my thought that the internet was all porn and lies. He showed me a 'chat room' next. People from all over the world were 'on-line', some on camera and they were all his 'friends'.
What the fuck were these people doing? THIS is 'conversation'? He could type to these people or actually converse one on one with them. I remember a very pretty blonde drinking a glass of what I thought was water. Tim told me it was moonshine and that the girl was a bad alcoholic. No one who drinks like that looks like that. More internet lies, I guessed.
"Talk to her", Timmy said. Sheesh, I lost my shyness around women after highschool but, talk to a woman on the internet? Typing was an option, he pointed out.
Hard to believe that the guy who is- by all accounts- THE most charming bottom-spanker on on the internet- was once all thumbs trying to 'talk' to a pretty girl via a keyboard. I felt like I was twelve again!
So, uh, how are you....
The chat rooms themselves were not a selling point either. I just couldn't see having '400 friends' like Tim said he had and 'talking' to these virtual strangers as if I knew them. Silly. Neither of those things made me rush out and get a computer. Tim offered to go with me to pick one out whenever I changed my mind. He said we could e-mail and even chat if I did. Yeah....him and his wife already wore me out with texts on the cell phone, I should give them another tool to do that? I didn't think so.
Alert, dedicated, non-readers have already surmised by now that I did eventually get a computer. I'm kinda glad I didn't back then. I'm kinda glad because I saved myself from getting one of those bulky, complicated one's with the tower thingy doohickey thingamajigs instead of this nice laptop I am using even as we...speak. I HAVE A BLOG! I am on Topix instead of chat rooms with good looking drunk chicks and, yes, I have seen pornography. It's there any time you want it! And it's more disgusting than I had even imagined! I found it via google which is pretty neat and not just a directory for porn. I've got a head for trivia and google helps reaffirm what I already know and find what I don't know. It beats the snot out of encyclopedias even if people regularly trash Wikipedia. I Facebook! I don't e-mail as much as I would have though but that's because everyone I know is on FB and none of those people are offended by electronic communication in the form of personal messages. It's really fast, ya know. It's been about three years now and I'm learning new stuff, slowly but surely. I've got friends whom I love and care about whom I might not ever meet but, that's OK. That's normal now.
And I don't know how I ever lived without it.
Well, of course, it is but, what are you gonna do? The telephone is pretty neat too but the natural progression of that was telemarketers and drunk-dialing exes so, you have to take the good with the bad.
I lived out of state and my family encouraged me to get a computer so that we could better keep in touch via e-mail. That sounded very artificial and perfunctory to me compared to snailmail. I recalled writing- typing- a letter to a woman in New Orleans that I loved very much, on my Brother Word Processor and her anguished, pained reaction to receiving that wonderfully crafted but typed missive. She was hurt by my use of my new toy. She wanted my crappy penmanship as much as she wanted me. I felt bad. I had liked seeing my words printed out neatly for a change. I thought she would appreciate too. It looked like being published to me. It looked antiseptic to her. The love was there but, it was like reading a newspaper to her.
I had that in mind when I later learned of the internet and e-mail. Why sacrifice intimacy for immediacy?
Love is the singer not the song.
Slowly though, I warmed to the idea of a computer. I used to go over to a buddy's house and we'd golf on his Playstation. Tim showed me his computer and all he could do on that and told me that once I got one, I'd probably never play Tiger Woods Golf again. Well, I doubted that. We looked at some pretty funny porn clips he had collected. Porn's not supposed to be funny but, people can say the darnedest things while having sex. The availability of porn was not much of a sell to me. It just reaffirmed my thought that the internet was all porn and lies. He showed me a 'chat room' next. People from all over the world were 'on-line', some on camera and they were all his 'friends'.
What the fuck were these people doing? THIS is 'conversation'? He could type to these people or actually converse one on one with them. I remember a very pretty blonde drinking a glass of what I thought was water. Tim told me it was moonshine and that the girl was a bad alcoholic. No one who drinks like that looks like that. More internet lies, I guessed.
"Talk to her", Timmy said. Sheesh, I lost my shyness around women after highschool but, talk to a woman on the internet? Typing was an option, he pointed out.
Hard to believe that the guy who is- by all accounts- THE most charming bottom-spanker on on the internet- was once all thumbs trying to 'talk' to a pretty girl via a keyboard. I felt like I was twelve again!
So, uh, how are you....
The chat rooms themselves were not a selling point either. I just couldn't see having '400 friends' like Tim said he had and 'talking' to these virtual strangers as if I knew them. Silly. Neither of those things made me rush out and get a computer. Tim offered to go with me to pick one out whenever I changed my mind. He said we could e-mail and even chat if I did. Yeah....him and his wife already wore me out with texts on the cell phone, I should give them another tool to do that? I didn't think so.
Alert, dedicated, non-readers have already surmised by now that I did eventually get a computer. I'm kinda glad I didn't back then. I'm kinda glad because I saved myself from getting one of those bulky, complicated one's with the tower thingy doohickey thingamajigs instead of this nice laptop I am using even as we...speak. I HAVE A BLOG! I am on Topix instead of chat rooms with good looking drunk chicks and, yes, I have seen pornography. It's there any time you want it! And it's more disgusting than I had even imagined! I found it via google which is pretty neat and not just a directory for porn. I've got a head for trivia and google helps reaffirm what I already know and find what I don't know. It beats the snot out of encyclopedias even if people regularly trash Wikipedia. I Facebook! I don't e-mail as much as I would have though but that's because everyone I know is on FB and none of those people are offended by electronic communication in the form of personal messages. It's really fast, ya know. It's been about three years now and I'm learning new stuff, slowly but surely. I've got friends whom I love and care about whom I might not ever meet but, that's OK. That's normal now.
And I don't know how I ever lived without it.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Laws made to be broken
Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional the other day in California. Conservatives are pissed on all their usual levels, for all the usual unusual reasons. It's that BIG GOVERNMENT thing again. The people of California had voted against gay marriage by voting for marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. The people had spoken.
Then a judge stepped in and said: "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." Evidently, this was in direct conflict with THE PEOPLE who felt the status of gays and lesbians in California should be lessened and classified as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.
With many exceptions, conservatives generally despise government and courts getting in to the people's business. They like to remind us that one of those constitutional amendments states: "Congress shall make no laws...." then they trail off a bit because it gets boring after that and the point is simply that Congress has no business making laws and, it says so right there. You know, like the 2nd Amendment clearly states: "....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" which clearly means you can have all the fully automatic weapons you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want. Like reading the Bible, they just sort of skim it for the parts they like.
So, many conservatives are offended that the popular vote of the people was overturned by a court. Kinda like Gore v. Bush in 2000....which they were OK with....
They would prefer that absolutely everything be decided by the individual states via popular vote. Many would also like to revisit landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and pretty much any decision that involved Civil Rights. Ron Paul is big on this. He doesn't think the government should legislate Civil Rights because that infringes on individual rights. In a nation of 300+ million people, we are all so personally special that we should get a trophy and a ribbon for everything we do. Wait- that's democrats, isn't it? The republicans feel that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become millionaires. They can if they want to and government should not inhibit that or promote others over others in any way. That's for THE PEOPLE to decide!
Sheesh. These fuckers are insane.
Had Civil Rights- primarily for Black folks but ultimately for ALL of us- been put to a vote, Civil Rights might not have made it. Certainly if it had been left up to individual states the Southern states would have voted against it and several so-called *Yankee* states might have surprised folks too. Would that have made it "right"? How 'bout if slavery had been put to a vote back around 1860? I think you might know how that would have turned out. Could you really look at a vote deciding to enslave other human beings and say: "Oh well, the people have spoken"?
Well now, Ferrerman, can you look at a decision like Roe v. Wade and in good conscience say: "Oh well, killing babies is a good thing, the SC has spoken...."
Well, no, because that's not what the SC said. It wasn't a Federal endorsement of baby-killing. It was about women having control over their own bodies and lives. Personally, I wish no woman would ever get an abortion. The usual cases of rape and incest apply, of course but, my problem is with the alleged *pro-lifers* that dictate that women and men should not have contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. You could virtually eliminate abortion with education and contraceptive availability. People being people and begatting like they do, things are bound to happen. But, education and availability can prevent much of that. If you don't like a law that says women can get abortions, you must also understand people who would be against a law saying that they cannot.
Don't call yourself a *champion of individual liberty* if you endeavor to deny people their own individual liberties, simply because they *offend* you or the church that does your thinking. Try walking in the other fellas shoes a bit. What if it were put to popular vote that White people should be enslaved and a population of Black and Hispanic folks in the majority decided that was fine by them?
There's really nothing wrong with gay people marrying. Why would you care? It doesn't affect the air you breathe or the water you drink. The sun will still shine. Oil companies haven't even found a way to raise gasoline prices because of it. It really doesn't matter. It shouldn't be up to the courts OR popular vote. It should just be.
It is though, because some people who cherish individual liberties more than some other folks need to deny other folks their individual liberties, in the name of freedom. There oughta be a law against that.
Then a judge stepped in and said: "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." Evidently, this was in direct conflict with THE PEOPLE who felt the status of gays and lesbians in California should be lessened and classified as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.
With many exceptions, conservatives generally despise government and courts getting in to the people's business. They like to remind us that one of those constitutional amendments states: "Congress shall make no laws...." then they trail off a bit because it gets boring after that and the point is simply that Congress has no business making laws and, it says so right there. You know, like the 2nd Amendment clearly states: "....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" which clearly means you can have all the fully automatic weapons you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want. Like reading the Bible, they just sort of skim it for the parts they like.
So, many conservatives are offended that the popular vote of the people was overturned by a court. Kinda like Gore v. Bush in 2000....which they were OK with....
They would prefer that absolutely everything be decided by the individual states via popular vote. Many would also like to revisit landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and pretty much any decision that involved Civil Rights. Ron Paul is big on this. He doesn't think the government should legislate Civil Rights because that infringes on individual rights. In a nation of 300+ million people, we are all so personally special that we should get a trophy and a ribbon for everything we do. Wait- that's democrats, isn't it? The republicans feel that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become millionaires. They can if they want to and government should not inhibit that or promote others over others in any way. That's for THE PEOPLE to decide!
Sheesh. These fuckers are insane.
Had Civil Rights- primarily for Black folks but ultimately for ALL of us- been put to a vote, Civil Rights might not have made it. Certainly if it had been left up to individual states the Southern states would have voted against it and several so-called *Yankee* states might have surprised folks too. Would that have made it "right"? How 'bout if slavery had been put to a vote back around 1860? I think you might know how that would have turned out. Could you really look at a vote deciding to enslave other human beings and say: "Oh well, the people have spoken"?
Well now, Ferrerman, can you look at a decision like Roe v. Wade and in good conscience say: "Oh well, killing babies is a good thing, the SC has spoken...."
Well, no, because that's not what the SC said. It wasn't a Federal endorsement of baby-killing. It was about women having control over their own bodies and lives. Personally, I wish no woman would ever get an abortion. The usual cases of rape and incest apply, of course but, my problem is with the alleged *pro-lifers* that dictate that women and men should not have contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. You could virtually eliminate abortion with education and contraceptive availability. People being people and begatting like they do, things are bound to happen. But, education and availability can prevent much of that. If you don't like a law that says women can get abortions, you must also understand people who would be against a law saying that they cannot.
Don't call yourself a *champion of individual liberty* if you endeavor to deny people their own individual liberties, simply because they *offend* you or the church that does your thinking. Try walking in the other fellas shoes a bit. What if it were put to popular vote that White people should be enslaved and a population of Black and Hispanic folks in the majority decided that was fine by them?
There's really nothing wrong with gay people marrying. Why would you care? It doesn't affect the air you breathe or the water you drink. The sun will still shine. Oil companies haven't even found a way to raise gasoline prices because of it. It really doesn't matter. It shouldn't be up to the courts OR popular vote. It should just be.
It is though, because some people who cherish individual liberties more than some other folks need to deny other folks their individual liberties, in the name of freedom. There oughta be a law against that.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Half-time, America
Without a doubt, the best commercial from last night's Super Bowl was Clint Eastwood's Chrysler spot. Many viewed it as a campaign commercial for President Barack Obama. I don't know that Clint intended it that way but, I don't know that he didn't either.
Clint Eastwood is a republican and a conservative but, he's not crazy. He's a ridiculously successful actor, director and producer. This means he has tons of money. I have no idea of his tax situation but, I'd bet he has really fine accountants making sure he pays as little as legally possible. I remember seeing an interview with him where he talked about politics. He said something akin to: "Everyone's a democrat until they make that first $100, 000...."
That's actually an axiom that's been around awhile. In a similar vein, it's like the one about young people being idealistic (and liberal) until they mature and get out in the 'real world'. It's presumed that, when one grows up, one righteously becomes self-serving and- if one has a brain in one's head- completely fucking despises poor people who deserve nothing but to be picked clean by vulture capitalists. This, they might add, is the greatest country in the world and if you are poor, it's because you are lazy, stupid, liberal and lazy again.
Yikes. $100k can buy a lot of craziness. In these difficult times though, folks are going crazy for a lot less. (See the 'millionaire' genius's on Topix and elsewhere on the internet)
Clint simply meant that once someone starts making some pretty serious money, they want to hang onto as much as they can. Well, of course! You and I both would and we know that.
As an actor, I'm sure Clint wants as much money as he can get for a film. However, as a producer/director I'm certain he wants to spend as little as he can. Well, ain't that life? We all want, want, want until it's time to give people what they want. Then we see it differently. From Clint's perspective however, he is widely respected (and perhaps feared) as a guy who gets excellent movies made at or under budget. I've never heard that he's cheap with actors either or chintzy on the amenities that go with film-making like feeding the actors, providing trailers or whatever. It's just that, instead of shooting a scene 50 times because there is a gazillion dollar budget so- why not?- he goes with the first take if he likes it. He tends to use many of the same actors, cinematographers etc all the time because they are good at what they do and they are familiar with what he wants. He's just smart and knows what he is doing.
So, has Mr. Eastwood had a change of heart in his old age and become a democrat? I don't think so. I believe he's an old school conservative still and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that, as of the commercial, he be called a 'RINO' (republican in name only) by this new breed of ruthless cons but, I bet none will say it to his face.
It sure did seem like an endorsement of Obama. I'm sure Clint has looked at the current field of republican contenders and seen no hope there. "Half-time in America" sure sounds like he's endorsing Barack Obama as THE quarterback to get us out of this mess, THE man we need to work with, not against. The GOP did not want to bail out Detroit. They felt Detroit should fail on it's own. Detroit wasn't too big to fail like the Wall Street bankers who got us into this mess were.
General Motors and Chrysler are on the rebound. The bail-out worked. Thus, the city and people of Detroit are on the rebound too, as is the country. The country didn't fall apart overnight and it won't recover overnight or on Newt Romney's first day in office, despite claims of such. Clint knows this. He hasn't been wrong since "Bronco Billy" (and I think that film made money just the same). As an old cowpoke, he knows you don't change horses mid-stream. As a director, he knows you don't keep shooting a scene over and over because you can. Smart man.
Here's the proof if you missed it:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120205/BUSINESS0103/302060003/Chrylser-Super-Bowl-ad-Clint-Eastwood-halftime
Clint Eastwood is a republican and a conservative but, he's not crazy. He's a ridiculously successful actor, director and producer. This means he has tons of money. I have no idea of his tax situation but, I'd bet he has really fine accountants making sure he pays as little as legally possible. I remember seeing an interview with him where he talked about politics. He said something akin to: "Everyone's a democrat until they make that first $100, 000...."
That's actually an axiom that's been around awhile. In a similar vein, it's like the one about young people being idealistic (and liberal) until they mature and get out in the 'real world'. It's presumed that, when one grows up, one righteously becomes self-serving and- if one has a brain in one's head- completely fucking despises poor people who deserve nothing but to be picked clean by vulture capitalists. This, they might add, is the greatest country in the world and if you are poor, it's because you are lazy, stupid, liberal and lazy again.
Yikes. $100k can buy a lot of craziness. In these difficult times though, folks are going crazy for a lot less. (See the 'millionaire' genius's on Topix and elsewhere on the internet)
Clint simply meant that once someone starts making some pretty serious money, they want to hang onto as much as they can. Well, of course! You and I both would and we know that.
As an actor, I'm sure Clint wants as much money as he can get for a film. However, as a producer/director I'm certain he wants to spend as little as he can. Well, ain't that life? We all want, want, want until it's time to give people what they want. Then we see it differently. From Clint's perspective however, he is widely respected (and perhaps feared) as a guy who gets excellent movies made at or under budget. I've never heard that he's cheap with actors either or chintzy on the amenities that go with film-making like feeding the actors, providing trailers or whatever. It's just that, instead of shooting a scene 50 times because there is a gazillion dollar budget so- why not?- he goes with the first take if he likes it. He tends to use many of the same actors, cinematographers etc all the time because they are good at what they do and they are familiar with what he wants. He's just smart and knows what he is doing.
So, has Mr. Eastwood had a change of heart in his old age and become a democrat? I don't think so. I believe he's an old school conservative still and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that, as of the commercial, he be called a 'RINO' (republican in name only) by this new breed of ruthless cons but, I bet none will say it to his face.
It sure did seem like an endorsement of Obama. I'm sure Clint has looked at the current field of republican contenders and seen no hope there. "Half-time in America" sure sounds like he's endorsing Barack Obama as THE quarterback to get us out of this mess, THE man we need to work with, not against. The GOP did not want to bail out Detroit. They felt Detroit should fail on it's own. Detroit wasn't too big to fail like the Wall Street bankers who got us into this mess were.
General Motors and Chrysler are on the rebound. The bail-out worked. Thus, the city and people of Detroit are on the rebound too, as is the country. The country didn't fall apart overnight and it won't recover overnight or on Newt Romney's first day in office, despite claims of such. Clint knows this. He hasn't been wrong since "Bronco Billy" (and I think that film made money just the same). As an old cowpoke, he knows you don't change horses mid-stream. As a director, he knows you don't keep shooting a scene over and over because you can. Smart man.
Here's the proof if you missed it:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120205/BUSINESS0103/302060003/Chrylser-Super-Bowl-ad-Clint-Eastwood-halftime
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Liars figure
Recent statistics cite that half of marriages result in divorce. The breakdown is this: You are married, Ferrerman is divorced. That's 50%.
This is shocking but, no, not really given that Ferrerman is such a jerkface and, well, you are not.
This is a common theme in the threads, made more common by the fact that other posters are not quite as honest as Ferrerman. I know tons of divorced people that are not me. One is my ex-wife. Others are personal friends and thousands more are people I read about. It really is a fact (I guess) that one out of two marriages ends in divorce. So, really, except to a few truly stupid people in the threads, I am not the only person in the world who has failed at marriage.
I might also add that failure really shouldn't be the operative word here. I am no longer with the insane bitch. Sounds like WINNING to me!
So, yes, I won a divorce from my ex. It's curious to me that certain people in the threads might choose to exploit that but, I have to remind myself that these people are trying to depose a dictator in Barack Obama and trying ever so hard to win an election. This is just a stupid, frankly bitchy way to go about it. I'm certain it's nothing personal even though it sure sounds like it.
Anyways, I get that a lot. I get that from people whose own marriages are either unknown to me or kinda well documented. Let's take, for example, the raging, flaming heterosexual that I shall refer to as "Sublime". Now, here's a cat who has regaled untold hundreds of people on the internet with the details of his and the wife's spouse-swapping adventures. Like a lot of sanctioned cheaters, they are convinced this extramarital activity enhances and strengthens their marriage. Oh. I would have guessed gettin' some strange was not a good thing in a marriage and often a contributing factor in the decline of one. With a lot of couples it's "Don't ask, don't tell". Who knew that having a note from your spouse was permissible?
Well, don't try that stunt at home, kids. I mean, it's kinda risky if you think about it. Most people date before marriage and after rather than during. To each their own.
I'm pretty darn open and honest here as well as on the threads but, no one knows everything about me. Some think they do- I've got a mother, you know. But I don't bare my soul here or there. Frankly, I like to keep people guessing. That's why the ladies calls me "Two Nines" is an example. I may actually carry a .45. A little mystery is a good thing.
My enemies must all have wonderful marriages, I guess, whether they are playing the field or making Mitt Romney look like a newlywed. Hey- good for them says I. They must have every reason to be proud and boastful or they wouldn't compare their success to Ferrerman's not-so-secret shame.
Maybe I set the bar too low?
Maybe they don't stand too tall.
This is shocking but, no, not really given that Ferrerman is such a jerkface and, well, you are not.
This is a common theme in the threads, made more common by the fact that other posters are not quite as honest as Ferrerman. I know tons of divorced people that are not me. One is my ex-wife. Others are personal friends and thousands more are people I read about. It really is a fact (I guess) that one out of two marriages ends in divorce. So, really, except to a few truly stupid people in the threads, I am not the only person in the world who has failed at marriage.
I might also add that failure really shouldn't be the operative word here. I am no longer with the insane bitch. Sounds like WINNING to me!
So, yes, I won a divorce from my ex. It's curious to me that certain people in the threads might choose to exploit that but, I have to remind myself that these people are trying to depose a dictator in Barack Obama and trying ever so hard to win an election. This is just a stupid, frankly bitchy way to go about it. I'm certain it's nothing personal even though it sure sounds like it.
Anyways, I get that a lot. I get that from people whose own marriages are either unknown to me or kinda well documented. Let's take, for example, the raging, flaming heterosexual that I shall refer to as "Sublime". Now, here's a cat who has regaled untold hundreds of people on the internet with the details of his and the wife's spouse-swapping adventures. Like a lot of sanctioned cheaters, they are convinced this extramarital activity enhances and strengthens their marriage. Oh. I would have guessed gettin' some strange was not a good thing in a marriage and often a contributing factor in the decline of one. With a lot of couples it's "Don't ask, don't tell". Who knew that having a note from your spouse was permissible?
Well, don't try that stunt at home, kids. I mean, it's kinda risky if you think about it. Most people date before marriage and after rather than during. To each their own.
I'm pretty darn open and honest here as well as on the threads but, no one knows everything about me. Some think they do- I've got a mother, you know. But I don't bare my soul here or there. Frankly, I like to keep people guessing. That's why the ladies calls me "Two Nines" is an example. I may actually carry a .45. A little mystery is a good thing.
My enemies must all have wonderful marriages, I guess, whether they are playing the field or making Mitt Romney look like a newlywed. Hey- good for them says I. They must have every reason to be proud and boastful or they wouldn't compare their success to Ferrerman's not-so-secret shame.
Maybe I set the bar too low?
Maybe they don't stand too tall.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
And so on and so on....
I noticed last night that my stalker had, searching far and wide, found an obscure thread where someone had posted gray-boxed as "Ferrerman" with a Portland, Oregon ISP. Stalker Spam linked the thread for all concerned to read, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that-
Well, I don't know what he was trying to prove. I have got to start smoking crack if I am going to be able to decipher all of this.
I mentioned this to my friend and co-conspirator, Hegel. We've both been thinking that Spam and A770 would hook up eventually, united in their mutual obsession with Ferrerman. A770 had made the post as Ferrerman, from Portland, nearly three years ago.
It got me to thinking and I told Hegel, that realistically, with just a few links you could prove that any poster is another poster. Spam does this all the time, linking me with people I've never even heard of, definitively proving that I am also that poster. It doesn't matter how far fetched an association may be. A viscious, pro-conservative Obama-hating nut job could really be Ferrerman in disguise because, as any idiot on Topix can tell you, that is how you win friends and influence people to get your candidate in office. Um, Ferrerman wouldn't go that far (well, not for very long....) because creating characters to battle idiots on Topix isn't part of the Ferrerman game plan. There's just no point in being anyone else but me. I don't like Topix that much nor do I take it that seriously.
On Topix, the proof isn't in the pudding. It's whatever you want to believe it to be. And if you can get another or others to believe it, there you go! But, where are you when you get there? Spammy posts these things as if they were the answers to the mysteries of life. It's like Obama getting around to releasing his long form birth certificate, on his terms. No matter what, thousands of assholes will remain unconvinced and thousands more assholes will be more convinced because, isn't it odd that he took so long? Why didn't he do it the moment they demanded it? Why doesn't anyone do anything that a stalker/troll demands? They must be trying to hide something....
Like it or not, that's the way Topix works for some people. The Topix Terms Of Service have been so watered-down in the last couple years that they now simply state: "Remember 6th grade? It's like that." I'm probably not kidding.
I'm not one of those that feels flattered by trolls. That creepy guy and his sister go on, day in and out, how charmed and bemused they are by having there own personal trolls. That's pathetic in it's own right. Not to pick on them though as hundreds of others do that. All you have to do to be considered a troll is to disagree with some arrogant asshole and have the nerve to post where they post, which happens to be the extremely public venue known as....Topix. I hope that doesn't over simplify things.
I don't consider A770 and Spam to be trolls. They're stalkers. Trolls give up after awhile. Stalkers never quit. Both make no bones about wanting to know everything about my personal, real life. Both think I'm stalking them, I guess because nearly everywhere they post, right before they post, I have made a post that happens to fit with them denigrating me, for that very post!!!! I have no idea how I do that. Something tells me, they'll tell me....
...and then they'll tell others....
Well, I don't know what he was trying to prove. I have got to start smoking crack if I am going to be able to decipher all of this.
I mentioned this to my friend and co-conspirator, Hegel. We've both been thinking that Spam and A770 would hook up eventually, united in their mutual obsession with Ferrerman. A770 had made the post as Ferrerman, from Portland, nearly three years ago.
It got me to thinking and I told Hegel, that realistically, with just a few links you could prove that any poster is another poster. Spam does this all the time, linking me with people I've never even heard of, definitively proving that I am also that poster. It doesn't matter how far fetched an association may be. A viscious, pro-conservative Obama-hating nut job could really be Ferrerman in disguise because, as any idiot on Topix can tell you, that is how you win friends and influence people to get your candidate in office. Um, Ferrerman wouldn't go that far (well, not for very long....) because creating characters to battle idiots on Topix isn't part of the Ferrerman game plan. There's just no point in being anyone else but me. I don't like Topix that much nor do I take it that seriously.
On Topix, the proof isn't in the pudding. It's whatever you want to believe it to be. And if you can get another or others to believe it, there you go! But, where are you when you get there? Spammy posts these things as if they were the answers to the mysteries of life. It's like Obama getting around to releasing his long form birth certificate, on his terms. No matter what, thousands of assholes will remain unconvinced and thousands more assholes will be more convinced because, isn't it odd that he took so long? Why didn't he do it the moment they demanded it? Why doesn't anyone do anything that a stalker/troll demands? They must be trying to hide something....
Like it or not, that's the way Topix works for some people. The Topix Terms Of Service have been so watered-down in the last couple years that they now simply state: "Remember 6th grade? It's like that." I'm probably not kidding.
I'm not one of those that feels flattered by trolls. That creepy guy and his sister go on, day in and out, how charmed and bemused they are by having there own personal trolls. That's pathetic in it's own right. Not to pick on them though as hundreds of others do that. All you have to do to be considered a troll is to disagree with some arrogant asshole and have the nerve to post where they post, which happens to be the extremely public venue known as....Topix. I hope that doesn't over simplify things.
I don't consider A770 and Spam to be trolls. They're stalkers. Trolls give up after awhile. Stalkers never quit. Both make no bones about wanting to know everything about my personal, real life. Both think I'm stalking them, I guess because nearly everywhere they post, right before they post, I have made a post that happens to fit with them denigrating me, for that very post!!!! I have no idea how I do that. Something tells me, they'll tell me....
...and then they'll tell others....
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Timing the '55 Chevrolet
You never know about life. How many people meet, fall in love and then meet someone else, right in the middle of all that? How many men were born to play baseball but happened to be born in the 17th century- in Europe- when and where there was no baseball? We may never know. A caveman may have envisioned the '55 Chevrolet but, totally lacking the tools to build one, may have sighed and concentrated on simply chipping away at a stone until he created the wheel. Pretty neat accomplishment for the time, just the same.
Timing. Even today, life is often about timing.
Conservatives of today want to shrink government down to a size where it can easily be drowned in a bathtub. That's odd phrasing for people who are fervently anti-abortion as it conjures up the metaphor about throwing the baby out with the bathwater but, politics makes for ironic metaphors.
Suddenly, THE most important thing to do is not only totally suffocate government but, have a democrat president do it! How's that for timing?
The country elected Barack H. Obama to be president, in the Fall of '08. The very moment this happened, conservative pundits and idiots on the internet declared him, "the worst president EVER!".
Or, at least since Jimmy Carter. They started with the premise that, even though he hadn't taken office yet, he was the worst and they built on that. One of the reasons they figured he was the worst was that he didn't want to do many of the things their party wanted to do. Well, DUH! Sometimes I wonder if they get the gist of this two party system. Lord knows it's confusing at times and both parties often act the same and they certainly dress the same but, essentially: one party *represents* working people and the other represents the people who make gazillions of dollars gambling with the money of those that work.
We go through this every time a democrat gets in the White House. Some 70 years ago, in the midst of The Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted social programs that kept the American citizens afloat until WWII came along and got everyone working at killing Nazi's and Japs or in support of those doing the killing. This was very good timing, all things considered. FDR's policies helped pave the way for other democratic policies geared towards making life better for what would later be termed, "The 99%"- also known as the folks who do all the sweating, bleeding and dying in this country. They also actually built the aforementioned '55 Chevy, I might add, with the aid of the technology of other working men whose timing had been such that they happened to be born in a time when such things were becoming increasingly more possible. And, yes, the monied capital of the 1% did indeed help make this possible but, if you were working on a '55 Chevrolet would you want the president of GM helping you or a guy named Frank who actually built the motors?
In the past 70 some years, conservatives have had a whole bunch of republican presidents and opportunities to undo everything that FDR and other democrats have done. The timing was certainly there! Why do they wait until there is a "D" in the White House to demand things get done? Is that an example of good timing? Obviously not. Late in the 20th century they had a 12 year run in power with Ronald Reagan serving two terms and old man Bush serving one. Twelve years! This was plenty of time to create a perfect, republican world. They didn't do it though. More recently- just three years ago- they had eight years of the Bush kid to create this perfect, republican world. They didn't do it. What were they waiting for?
Barack Obama, I guess. Neverminding the bad timing of expecting a democratic president to undo the social progress they forgot to eliminate while they had the chance, how about minding the complete fucking idiocy of that? This is like living with your ex-wife and her new husband and giving her and him lovemaking tips and suggestions on how they can better get along. "Yeah, this is what I would have done... but, I forgot! You guy's should try this...." There's a reason some people aren't together anymore and yes, many of us do learn from our mistakes but, go get your own girl, dude. Most people make the same mistakes again anyway but, at least they try and generally do it with other people. Kudos to those that work on their marriage while they are married! That's good timing.
I wish that the republicans/conservatives would move on. At least wait their turn. The break up with Bush was bitter but, the new guy is a keeper and actually doing a fine job considering the emotional and financial mess Bush left us. Newt Romney....and Paul Santorum all tell us now that on their first motherfucking day, they will undo the carnage of Barack Obama and 70 years of socialist/communist/ fascist democratic (spit now) progressive policies and NOW we are supposed to believe them. I guess this time, they really mean it?
Believe them? They've had the better and worse part of 70 years to fix the car- they don't even know how to drive...
Timing. Even today, life is often about timing.
Conservatives of today want to shrink government down to a size where it can easily be drowned in a bathtub. That's odd phrasing for people who are fervently anti-abortion as it conjures up the metaphor about throwing the baby out with the bathwater but, politics makes for ironic metaphors.
Suddenly, THE most important thing to do is not only totally suffocate government but, have a democrat president do it! How's that for timing?
The country elected Barack H. Obama to be president, in the Fall of '08. The very moment this happened, conservative pundits and idiots on the internet declared him, "the worst president EVER!".
Or, at least since Jimmy Carter. They started with the premise that, even though he hadn't taken office yet, he was the worst and they built on that. One of the reasons they figured he was the worst was that he didn't want to do many of the things their party wanted to do. Well, DUH! Sometimes I wonder if they get the gist of this two party system. Lord knows it's confusing at times and both parties often act the same and they certainly dress the same but, essentially: one party *represents* working people and the other represents the people who make gazillions of dollars gambling with the money of those that work.
We go through this every time a democrat gets in the White House. Some 70 years ago, in the midst of The Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted social programs that kept the American citizens afloat until WWII came along and got everyone working at killing Nazi's and Japs or in support of those doing the killing. This was very good timing, all things considered. FDR's policies helped pave the way for other democratic policies geared towards making life better for what would later be termed, "The 99%"- also known as the folks who do all the sweating, bleeding and dying in this country. They also actually built the aforementioned '55 Chevy, I might add, with the aid of the technology of other working men whose timing had been such that they happened to be born in a time when such things were becoming increasingly more possible. And, yes, the monied capital of the 1% did indeed help make this possible but, if you were working on a '55 Chevrolet would you want the president of GM helping you or a guy named Frank who actually built the motors?
In the past 70 some years, conservatives have had a whole bunch of republican presidents and opportunities to undo everything that FDR and other democrats have done. The timing was certainly there! Why do they wait until there is a "D" in the White House to demand things get done? Is that an example of good timing? Obviously not. Late in the 20th century they had a 12 year run in power with Ronald Reagan serving two terms and old man Bush serving one. Twelve years! This was plenty of time to create a perfect, republican world. They didn't do it though. More recently- just three years ago- they had eight years of the Bush kid to create this perfect, republican world. They didn't do it. What were they waiting for?
Barack Obama, I guess. Neverminding the bad timing of expecting a democratic president to undo the social progress they forgot to eliminate while they had the chance, how about minding the complete fucking idiocy of that? This is like living with your ex-wife and her new husband and giving her and him lovemaking tips and suggestions on how they can better get along. "Yeah, this is what I would have done... but, I forgot! You guy's should try this...." There's a reason some people aren't together anymore and yes, many of us do learn from our mistakes but, go get your own girl, dude. Most people make the same mistakes again anyway but, at least they try and generally do it with other people. Kudos to those that work on their marriage while they are married! That's good timing.
I wish that the republicans/conservatives would move on. At least wait their turn. The break up with Bush was bitter but, the new guy is a keeper and actually doing a fine job considering the emotional and financial mess Bush left us. Newt Romney....and Paul Santorum all tell us now that on their first motherfucking day, they will undo the carnage of Barack Obama and 70 years of socialist/communist/ fascist democratic (spit now) progressive policies and NOW we are supposed to believe them. I guess this time, they really mean it?
Believe them? They've had the better and worse part of 70 years to fix the car- they don't even know how to drive...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)