Whaddaya MEAN You've Never Heard of Me?!?

Dear Nazis,

Congratulations! American apathy and misplaced aggression have created an environment that has allowed you emerge proudly from your hidey holes. You white supremacists have always had a wealth of pride, but ya'll don't even wear masks anymore. You present yourself as 'bravely' unafraid of the repercussions of your bullshit--which can only mean that you either think most people agree with you, or that the few who DO agree with you are powerful enough to protect you from those who don't. Good for you!
Take heed though, because whatever WWII books you've been reading--you clearly haven't quite made it to the end. Spoiler Alert: Hitler went out like a bitch. A #Cyka, if you will (and you know you will). Hitler's is one of the only suicides we can call "weak" and "candy-ass" and borne of "pure selfishness."

Now that you know about Hitler's cowardly suicide, his tacit deathbed realization that he'd been wrong all along, you can knock off that crazy bullshit and devote your time to other things. Right? RIGHT?!?
With that in mind, here's a list of things Nazis can do now that they know following Hitler is a huge fucking waste of time (because I just told them). Get ready for fun, Nazis!!

1. Charity Work. You love white people? Awesome. Charities that help white people include homeless shelters, halfway houses, drug treatment centers, mental health centers, food banks, blood drives, or just lending an elderly neighbor a hand with yard work or household repairs.
You're likely to find that helping the people you support is more fulfilling than trying to hurt the people you don't. Bonus: You'll also be less likely to do prison time.

2. Read. No offense, but a lot of you white supremacists have appalling grammar. I heard somewhere that anyone who wants to live in America should learn English. Well, you've been gifted 13 years of tax-payer funded education (you wacky socialist, you!). Still, you don't have it down yet if your misspelled, unpunctuated, 7-dots-in-an-ellipses Tweets are any indication. Take some time and get your proficiency up to say, a 6th grade level.
After all, the best way to feel superior to and smarter than others is to gain wisdom and knowledge, then apply what you learned to your life. You can do it!!!

3. Church. Or more appropriately: Catechism. You guys talk a lot about god this and god that, but you missed the memos on community, loving your fellow man (regardless of skin pigmentation) feeding the poor, and giving comfort to the weak and afflicted. If you still haven't found morality after attending church for a year, talk to an atheist or TST member. They can help.

4. Crafts. Everybody loves crafts. Glue popsicle sticks to make a swastikkka that will send your friends into a Furher. Use dry pasta and glitter to create a Dakow diorama that will give your great grandparents flashbacks. Paint your toy train to look like...I'm not finishing that sentence because, ew. Anyway, staying inside to craft keeps you from going out and seeing all the people you're frightened of you're against.

5. Send away your DNA for testing. This serves several purposes. First, most of you will learn that you have African ancestors. Second, most of you will learn that you have Latino, Asian, Middle-Eastern, or other non-lily-white ancestors. When you get your results, they must be read aloud at the next Klan meeting, Nazi rally, or white supremacy bake sale (you guys do that, right?). Finally, the rest of us might be able to figure out if virulent hate is ever passed genetically.

6. ISIS. If all else fails, and you really want to pretend that your violent sadism is part of a deeply felt, god-sent religious agenda, Congratulations! You feel the same way as ISIS. You hate American freedoms (like speech, and existing without being murdered by the Klan) and are against Democracy, the Free Market, Religious Freedom, and everything written on the Statue of Liberty. Lucky you! There's a group in place already fighting for those ideals, and they fear hate women almost as much as you do!
Bonus: Vlad Putin is also down with ISIS, and I hear he knows the 45th POTUS.

You're welcome.

Taking a break from my usual complainy-pants ways to post about things that are going on in the world that I actually like. Here goes:

Patton Oswalt is engaged. This makes me very happy.

HBO leads the Emmy nominations, and Netflix is next.
This bodes well for people who enjoy quality television, if any.

Free drones. H and I (well, they're mine, but H is better at flying them) have gotten a total of four free drones for review. The most recent one is hella tiny. Like, hilariously so.

View post on imgur.com

Jim Jeffries show is pretty good. He looks good in a suit too. If I was merely moderately good looking and had a TV show, I'm not sure I'd bring in Brad Pitt. Or are they having an affair now too?

Still looking at dogs. Want to find a low-energy guard dog that isn't drooly and won't have a bunch of expensive health problems. Sorry, Bull Mastiff.

I think my sister-in-law might be my favorite person in the world. I totally hope she comes to live with us.

Still writing over to the Radish. This serial story seems to be going well, though this is not at all what I'm used to. Few things make me feel more like a horror writer than actually writing horror. I guess that's how it's supposed to be, right?

TV I'm going to try to get caught up on soon:
Glow
Fargo
Fear the Walking Dead

I'm going to be completely selfish in this post. What's new, right?

I am far too young to have lost so many classmates to early death. Sure, I'm almost 50, (well, turning 47 this year, so closer to 50 than 40) and that's a lot more time than a lot of people get. Hell, it might be more time than most people get. I haven't looked it up.

At this point, I went to school with people who died and left behind young kids. Cancer, brain tumors, AIDS, accidents, and a bunch of suicides. Come to think of it, I think I know of more suicide deaths from my peer group than accidents or violent crimes.

Feeling the death of another classmate today.
He was a good guy, never a dick to anyone online--which is a major achievement in my world, since most of the people I know online are the occasional penis-for-brains.
Jim left behind friends and family who are devastated by the loss. I can't even imagine it.

As many of you know, my greatest fear is H dying. When something really frightens me, I sit down and try to think up all the worst case scenarios and figure out what I'd do if they happened. I've figured out zombies, alien invasion, fire, plague, nuclear war, my mom showing up here, and a militia takeover of the state. Damn glad I know people in the militia now.
But when I try to think through what I'd to if H died, all I can see is me sitting in my good chair, staring into space and waiting for someone to notice that they haven't seen me around in a while. Then I'd die. That's not supposed to get your attention or make you feel bad for me. It's rather a crushing defeat to know that after 17+ years with H, that I literally have no idea how I'd manage to live and function without him. Hilariously, most of the people I know have ONLY known me with H. Aside from family and a few classmates I talk to on FB, "Wednes and H" are the only way we exist for them.
So yeah, I have no idea how people pick themselves up and get over it. I'd probably just send messages to Patton Oswalt every day until his agent's assistant's social media manager told me to stop.


As for the rest of life, working on Hellish Calling and dealing with the Radish site not working well, or maybe me not knowing how to work it. Either way, it's slow going.

Heated discussions with outspoken feminists often make me more angry and frustrated than trying to talk sense into DJT apologists. Maybe it's because I expect more from those who claim to be "woke." Maybe it's because I presume that "being reasonable" means thinking pretty much like I do.

A blogger I enjoy posted on Facebook comparing Bill Cosby's treatment in re: his many rapes, with Bill O'Reilly and his allegations of sexual harassment. Their claim was that these two men were being treated differently from each other, and that the explanation for this was, of course, racism.

I don't mind saying that this seems like bullshit to me. No, I'm not denying that racism is alive and well, or that it often finds its way into the legal system. Of course it does. That's not why this claim doesn't work for me.

Point 1: Cosby drugged and raped at least 40 women while O'Reilly is accused of sexual harassment. If there are allegations of inappropriate touching or anything physical, I am not aware of them.
When commenters brought this up, we were told that these distinctions don't matter.
Um, what? Of course it matters. It matters in terms of criminal law, and it matters in the event of civil lawsuits. What a person does absolutely matters.
Example: Murdering your spouse is well, murder. Beating your spouse, while completely fucked, is not murder. So if two people do these things, one is a murderer and one isn't. Ergo, them not being charged with the same crime has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that they committed different crimes.

Point 2: No one has been charged with anything, meaning nothing has been adjudicated. How can one make a claim that one person is being punished more severely than the other when neither has been punished by the law?
Yes, Cosby has been formally charged. Again, he raped a bunch of people. Depending on the state, O'Reilly's harassment may or may not result in criminal charges. But we do know that he paid women off to avoid civil lawsuits.

Point 3: Much has been made of the unofficial punishments for these men. Public shaming, reruns taken out of syndication, unfavorable press and memes, etc. These men are no doubt experiencing different reactions from their fan bases. But does anyone really think that's solely because of race?
Do we think Bill O'Reilly's audience is made up of radical feminists who will ride him out of town on a rail for being shitty to women? No. it's made up of men who probably think if women don't want to hear him masturbating on the phone, they shouldn't wear skirts or high heels to work. O'Reilly has always been an arrogant blowhard who appeals to wannabe arrogant blowhards.
Meanwhile, Cosby has always presented himself as a kind of moral arbiter, as far back as the Fat Albert show. When you spend decades pretending to be a model husband, father, industry professional, and community leader, you have much farther (further?) to fall. Again, this is not racism. It's the difference between a fan base of crotchety old men versus sitcom-loving American families.

Ascribing motives to strangers is always tricky territory. But what really chaps my ass is this idea that dissenting comments should be deleted. Thinking that rape and harassment are different doesn't make me "part of the problem," nor does it mean I'm trivializing sexual assault. Bullshit accusations like that are why some people think they dislike feminists and feminism.

On my own page, I invite discussion from pretty much anyone. If someone proves that they're unable to discern facts from fevered dreams, persist in name calling or verbal abuse after being warned, or are spouting racist, sexist, or delusional nonsense, they get banned. It's pretty rare. I never delete comments though, because people should own the shit they say online. Taking it down gives them a free pass to pretend it never happened. Plus, I'm not afraid of words, ideas, thoughts, or language even when I strongly disagree with them. I don't mind saying that cowardly bullshit like that pisses me off. Shutting down conversations is the thing that keeps us from connecting with each other and finding common ground.
Obviously, people can run their own pages how they like. But I don't think I'll ever understand the concept of posting something (ie: inviting discussion) and then deleting every comment you don't agree with. That's just preening and posturing. It's not interacting with your readership, and it's certainly no way to consider things in a new way.

In a sense, this exchange illustrates why I didn't call myself a feminist for a long time. I equated feminism with people bitching about comedians not being sensitive enough, or pretending that their offense means every joke they don't like can never be told again. Like deleting comments, saying people shouldn't joke about things is saying "I refuse to have my opinions challenged." Or more confrontationally put, "I'm too afraid to consider that I might not be 100% right on this issue." That's nothing to feel proud or smug about.

In other news, my time at Livejournal is done. They won't allow cross posting since I don't agree to their TOS, and I don't.

It's no secret that I take issue with some of the messages in Disney movies. I hate how 90% of the time, everyone looks exactly like what they are. Heroes are attractive, villains are ugly (exception for Snow White's Evil Queen), fat people are jolly, women have crazy-long hair. And until recently, with minimal exception, the girl stories end with a wedding, while the boy stories end with a coronation. Okay, not Pinochio, and not Jungle Book. But come on.

So...Beauty and the Beast is being retold, and parents and chicks are going goo-goo for it.

I don't mind telling you that I have never understood the appeal of this story.
An old man steals a rose from a giant, wealthy-looking estate. He gives it to his daughter. We find out that the estate is owned by a beast. Literally, a hairy cloven-hooved person with a foul temperament and a distaste for all people.
What's his problem? Well, one night an old lady came to him for help. He refused to help her. So she cursed him with ugliness.
Later, the girl stays with the beast, and they end up falling in love. That somehow breaks the spell and the beast turns into a hero--by which I mean he becomes handsome.

Really? I mean...REALLY?

Sometimes Beast breaks the spell by finding it in his heart to love a beautiful young woman who is also the sweetest, kindest person who ever lived. Sounds like she wouldn't be particularly difficult to love, right?
Sometimes the amazing part is that the woman falls in love with beast. Because what woman could possibly love an ugly person with a foul temper (insert Melania Drumpf joke here)?

So at best, this is a story about a dickish man who was mean to an old lady, but learned to be kind to a hot young girl.
At worst, it's a story about an abusive relationship where the woman gradually accepts that this is probably the best she'll do. Or maybe it's a story about how loving an awful man long enough will change him into someone better.
Do women really need the message that if you stay with a mean, abusive man long enough, he'll eventually become the person you want him to be? Are you fucking kidding me? Is Disney kidding all of us?

Seriously...until Twilight (which is similar, thematically) this was the worst story ever in terms of the lessons it teaches young women. I mean, Cinderella is pretty bad. And most Disney women do sit around waiting for someone to rescue them (until very recently). But this one seems far worse than even the usual Disney fare.

Am I missing something? What is it about this story that people respond to?
Is it the music? The talking clock?
Why does anyone like this? Why would anyone let their kid near it?
I'd really like to know.

We all have that one friend who doesn't seem to have any idea of their value. That person with a couple of amazing skills and talents, the one who is always there for you when you need them. The person who tolerates unacceptable romantic partners because they're afraid no one else will want them. The person who stays at a shitty job where they're not appreciated--because who knows what might happen at a new place? The person who believes every terrible things asshats say about them because they sound like things they already fear about themselves. That person.

And you, as their friend, think things like "How can they not know how awesome they are? It's so obvious."

Let me ask you something. How often do you tell this person how amazing you think they are? In fact, how often do you tell anyone how amazing they are--for reals?

Personally, I've been known to say things like, "That guy is an asshole, and you can and should do much better," when I should be saying something more like, "Can you help me understand why you think [X, Y and Z behaviors] are okay. You would never do that to someone, and I'd never do that to you. So why is it okay for him?"

I say things like, "Don't you know how amazing you are?" I could be far more specific, like "You've always made time for me when I needed to blather on about nothing, you listen without judgment, you always make me feel listened to and cared for."

Kids, I don't think most of us know our true value. Part of that is from fucked up parenting, a lifetime of being bullied or shamed, mental and emotional issues, or just being surrounded by assholes. But the result of us not knowing our value doesn't just make our lives worse--it whispers in our ear that no one cares what we think anyway.

We don't tell each other the truth about how we feel for a variety of reasons I won't bother to list here. But fear--the fear that we'll be mocked, that no one will care what we have to say, that we'll sound stupid--that's one of the big ones. We're afraid of how we might look to others, so we keep our heads down and our mouths shut about our feelings--even our feelings for good friends. As I've said many times--I'm really good at telling people what I THINK, but what I FEEL is mostly saved for close friends.

So I'm making it a point to tell people not just that I love them, but why. I want the people in my life to know all the ways they impress me. They should know how much they have meant to me over the years, and how much they continue to mean today. I want valuable people to know their value. Or at the very least--to have told them how valuable they are to me. I mean, you can give people information but you can't make them believe it.

Anybody interested in joining me as I embark on what could end up a journey into embarrassment and silliness? This week, pick out a few people and tell them everything about them that you find amazing. It'll make them feel good, and probably you'll end up feeling good too.

Kindness: It's gluten free, low in calories, organic, and readily available.

When I was a kid, if you really wanted to talk to one of your idols, it was a long process. You had to find their fan mail address, which could be very difficult if not impossible. Then you had to hand write a letter, find a stamp, get it mailed (at a mailbox), and wait...and wait...and wait...for a response that might never arrive. When I was a kid I wrote letters to Charles Schulz, Donald J Sobel, Dr Suess, Judy Blume, and a bunch more. I got a few letters back, though they're trapped at my mom's house. When I was about 11, I even wrote a fan letter to Scott Baio. He had a PO Box in Studio City for fan mail, which I found in a Tiger Beat mag. I never got even a form letter back. As a kid, I was sad about that. But now that I know what a gross, womanizing, Drumpf-loving goon is in RL, that sting is gone.

The point is that we only wrote to celebs we really liked a lot. It took a lot of effort and time. We did it because we were fans, and we wanted our heroes to know it.

But now...
Anybody with access to a computer or smartphone can Tweet at celebs in real time. Roughly half of said Tweets are complete asshole fodder. Telling people they suck and should kill themselves is Level One for a lot of these clowns. Unlike occasional stalker behavior from deranged fans (that no one really talked about until the girl from My Sister Sam was murdered by one such nutcase), modern celebs often get daily beratings. Robin Williams's children were hounded off Twitter within 2 days of their father's suicide. Those dicks that harassed Sandy Hook parents for "lying about their kids existing" started on Twitter. Twitter hosts murder threats, rape threats, doxxing (though I hear they're better about removing stuff like that now), and a bunch of other things we used to think only criminals thought about.

Much like men who want to show their dicks to virtual strangers (remember when that was a crime committed by a random pervert wearing a long trenchcoat with nothing underneath), stalking via the Internet is more popular (and less criminalized) than ever. Ditto hate speech. Anybody else find it insane that posting a pic of a nipple can get your Facebook account deleted, but threatening to murder the POTUS or calling him the N-word won't get you blocked from Twitter unless the feds get involved? I'm a staunch supporter of Free Speech, but with great power comes all the stuff Spiderman's Uncle Ben talked about.

And like LSD, the internet amplifies and distorts the shit we see and do every day. While we all know that the internet is incredibly helpful overall--it also allows some of the worst behavior on the planet to be widely seen, or even applauded. The immediacy of social media and the ease with which we're able to communicate with people the world over is being squandered, taken for granted, not truly considered for the opportunity that it is. A lot of that is due to people who live as if the Internet has always been there--for youngsters, it has. I started a Livejournal in 2002, in my early 30's. If that blog was a kid, they'd be old enough to have a smartphone and be on Facebook. Yikes!

Not sure what my overall point is. We can use the internet for good or bad, to help people or bring them down. We can use it to educate, inform, or to spread misinformation either deliberately or through apathy or ignorance. Is there a way to encourage people to make better online choices? Or at least, is there a way to truly hold people accountable (at least morally) for the things they say and do online? No, I'm not saying we should curtail speech. Wednes don't play that. But it's obvious that plenty of online assholes are only being assholes online because of the anonymity the internet affords them.

For now let me just ask--if you're only on Twitter to let female singers know that their asses are big, or to tell Jonah Hill that he's a "faggy asshole," maybe take some time to work on RL interpersonal skills before trolling total strangers. If you wouldn't say it in front of your three best friends or your favorite grandparent, don't say it to Lady Gaga. Besides, no one should ever insult Lady Gaga. She's amazing!

A year or so ago, I bought myself a cameo necklace from Etsy. It was one of those super cheap dealies where the item ships from somewhere in Asia and takes 6 weeks to arrive.

It wasn't a face cameo, it was of a human heart. Lots of veins, plus those giant arteries that lead out of it on top. It was awesome. But see, when it arrived, the heart was upside down.

Bummed, I wrote to the seller to explain and ask for an exchange for one that was assembled correctly. But the language barrier was insurmountable, and I decided it wasn't that big a deal. I tossed it in a drawer and didn't think about it.

Last week, I was cleaning out said drawer and found the cameo. At that moment, I was suddenly very taken with the upside down heart. For the rest of the afternoon I tried to come up with some reason why it would be appropriate to have an upside-down cameo of a human heart.

I didn't think of a reason.
Ultimately, I decided that simply liking it that way was enough.
The proper term for that is, I think: Wabi Sabi.

Been thinking about Political Correctness, because that's something I do a lot. It began as a great idea, and despite a few who have used it as an excuse to be what I call Word Bullies, it's still a good idea. Living in a liberal town and having almost entirely progressive friends, it's easy for me to forget how much racism, sexism, and general fuckery there is to be had in the world.

And then it becomes an election year, and it all comes flooding back.

Here's the thing about PCness (ha!), that I think it's important to remember. If you think of social change as a pendulum, we can say that the conversation has swung way far in the direction of sensitivity. But that's because we spent a long-ass time on the other side of things.

The further you go back in America's history, the more atrocities we see encouraged or at least tolerated by the government. Colonists were seeking freedom--religious and otherwise. But they first order of business was tricking, murdering, and stealing from the natives who were already here--and didn't murder or rob us when we got here. (Yeah, I know most of you aren't related to original colonists, but without them there still might not be predominantly white people here). Then slavery, witch trials, religious tests not just for government, but for tons of jobs, and general acceptance in your community. Even since the Great Depression, we've gone from having KKK members all over government and police departments to...having much less of that. In our grandparent's lifetime, lynchings happened with regularity, marital rape wasn't considered possible because it was the husband's right and the police shouldn't be involved--ditto most domestic assaults including child abuse.

So yeah, we're finally swinging back the other way. Now I don't approve of passing moral judgements on people because of jokes that fell flat, insensitive comments, etc. In general, I don't think people should lose their jobs for being racist (exceptions for teachers, cops, and other jobs where that can compromise your duties). I don't believe in Hate Crimes Legislation, if only because we should punish people for their actions, not their thoughts. I think people can say something stupid or thoughtless and yet not necessarily be branded Racist For Life.

You know how in the spring when you start opening the windows and letting in natural light? One of the first things you notice is how friggin' filthy your house got. So you figure you'd better at least vacuum and dust a few things. But the more stuff you clean, the more you notice the cobwebs and cat hair and collection of milk ring caps under every goddamn shelf. And before you know it, you're scrubbing out your kitchen cabinets, moving shelves, dusting behind the microwave--vowing to get rid of every last bit of dirt--it's not gonna hide from YOU, by Zod.

Well, that's what's happening to Political Correctness. It's not enough to just get people to stop using racial slurs at parties or slapping secretary's asses at the office. PCness (giggity!) wants to ensure that whether you're a racial or religious minority, a chick, have a disability or a mental illness, are gay or fat or super skinny or trans or atheist or you pass out if you eat gluten--that you're free to live your life without taking a constant barrage of shit for it. And that's a good thing. Trigger Warnings too, are a way to be respectful to people who are dealing with things that you may not be. Complaining about them because you personally don't need them makes you kind of a dick. Being kind and respectful isn't a hardship--or if it is, you might just want to examine your own sense of self-importance instead of blaming people for the inconvenience of deserving basic human courtesy.

So while most of my PC-related posts are about how stifling language is dangerous and counterproductive, I do think it's important that we remember that there's a reason all this is happening.

Been thinking a lot about online trolls. The point of trolling, when it began, was what trolls used to call "causing emotion." Essentially, the "joke" was that people got mad at stuff that wasn't real. Why wasn't it real? Because it was on the internet.
When someone says something that isn't true, you weren't supposed to call them a liar anymore, according to trolls. Sure, they said something that was knowingly false, and for the purpose of making you believe it. But it was a prank, a TROLL. And hahaha, because by believing something that a person told you--you "fell for it." Yep, you've been trolled. Even in the early days of the internets, trolling was just lying and then pretending it was a joke. You know, because advancing the idea that no human should ever trust another is side-splittingly hilarious, or something.

Later, "troll" became a catch-all phrase for assholes who spread assholery online for their own assholish reasons. Women talking about their own rape trauma--troll trots over to a women's health forum to call other members "sluts and teases." Gay chatroom for suicidal kids is trolled by trolls that say "Do it, Fag, nobody cares about you anyway!" Hahahaha--TROLLING! Isn't that funny? *eyeroll* It's the internet version of a drive-by. No accountability, no real reason for it. Just fuckery for its own sake. Aside from the fact that I don't see the humor in being shitty to strangers for no reason--I have to wonder about the mental stability of a person who thinks such a thing is clever, chuckleworthy, or even a good use of their time.
Sure, misogyny, racism, sexism, homophobia are already huge issues in society, and would be even without the internet. Duh. But this sort of trolling smacks of nihilism that asserts that communication is useless, ideas are dumb, and all the good the internet can do should be interrupted by useless dickheads so desperate to create a ripple in the virtual water that they hurl not just stones--but intense hatred, vile threats, and general evil intent. But HAHAHA! Because "trolling!"

At one point, it seemed like clever people might take trolling back. There was a movement to troll in ways that were funny, witty, and not meant to terrorize anyone, or encourage any suicides. But alas, it didn't last.

From where I'm sitting, modern trolls can be translated thusly:
--You care about something, and that is dumb.
--I said something that wasn't true and you believed me, and that is dumb.
--I don't agree with you [vulgarities, threats, insanity], and that is dumb.
--People are enjoying something--we'll see about THAT.
--People are improving a situation--we'll see about THAT.
--Something terrible has happened, but I don't care because it wasn't me.
--Actually witty trolling that isn't meant to belittle or harm anyone.

Even trolling on behalf of outright anarchy would make more sense to me than trolling with the intent of hurting strangers on purpose. You know, people who basically say, "Hey, I'm a fucking asshole. If people are upset because of a fucking asshole, that's their problem." People who think that way should probably just commit themselves to a mental institution and not come out until they're better. But they won't, because they're assholes. Maybe a fun troll would be to SWAT them, except instead of a calling SWAT, call the nice young men in their clean white coats to come and take them Awaaaaaaay (to the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time).
No, that won't happen.
But it's a beautiful dream.

"They're Coming to Take me Away Lyrics" (Watch on YouTube)

It's always a drag when I try to have a civil disagreement with feminist-activists, and have to end up explaining that no, I'm not okay with racism, I'm not cool with sexism, but I do think it's okay to tackle these subjects via humor that is not always politically correct.

It's a bigger drag when I'm accused of being "part of the problem" because I disagree that artists are morally or ethically wrong because they approach subjects in a way that leaves a few individuals offended.

Comedy is supposed to be offensive at times. That's not to say that racist, homophobic, or other hateful humor should be celebrated. But the fact that a joke might make you wince, groan, or roll your eyes isn't necessarily indicative of an amoral comedian who thinks your pain is hilarious. If you're so offended that you can't stand to hear more--by all means, turn it off. Nobody is making you watch. Feel free to shout from the rooftops how offended you are. But, if you can, let's not leap to the conclusion that anyone who would dare offend you is a terrible person who doesn't deserve an audience...or oxygen.

Nobody has to find Amy Schumer funny if they don't want to, or Lena Dunham, or Daniel Tosh, or any other funny writer. I don't like Jeff Dunham; I think Larry the Cable Guy embodies much that is wrong with America, and that the best joke Jeff Foxworthy ever told is the one where he got famous. And yet, somehow, I'm able to live my life even knowing that these celebrations of stupidity exist.

Silencing artists is not the best, second best, or 53rd best way to end oppression, or hate, to give the disenfranchised a lift, or to improve anything ever. If fighting for social justice means so much to you (and it probably should), do something tangible about it rather than just tearing down artists because you're angry that people like them even after they've offended little ol' YOU. No artist is obligated to be all things to all people. You are not entitled to a world where no one is ever offended. Even if that could exist, it would be boring to the point of madness, and would likely never evolve or move forward. Discomfort spurs us to action. Being comfortable spurs us to apathy. If we didn't have air conditioners or TVs, I bet a lot more of us would be politically and socially engaged. But that's a topic for another day.

None of this is meant to say that people shouldn't complain when they're offended. They should if they want to. And just as everyone has the right to talk about being offended, so does everyone have the right to offend. I'm sick to fucking death of those who think any hint of offensiveness is morally and/or ethically wrong. Or worse, this idea that if someone is offended, that a) the speaker shouldn't get to speak anymore, and b) the intent of the speaker "doesn't matter." If someone has misinterpreted something, of course intent matters.

In the end, I think there really are people who complain just to demonstrate how very aware they are--even though said complaining is the kind of obstinate, accusatory pompousness that doesn't lead to a discussion or to the finding of common ground. It's not helpful to anyone, and should probably just stop. But it won't. Because the people who engage in it, for all their self-righteousness and feigned empathy, won't even consider examining their own behavior.

I was watching Hannibal (the show) recently and was quite taken with the brooding sexiness of Will Graham. That Hugh Dancy is an attractive guy. But when he's clean shaven and smiling, eh? Not as good IMO.

This got me thinking about the popular archetype of the attractive broken guy all the ladies want to fix (or gay men, whatevs). There are plenty of guys like this on TV: Jon Snow, Sawyer from LOST, every other TV cop (Stabler, Mike Logan, Tim Bayliss, etc). I was trying to figure out how far back that goes and who started it.

I'm not super old--but as far as I can tell it goes back to James Dean. The sad kid who nobody understood, was sexy and needed a nice lady to hold him and stay with him and tell him that he's good. What is it about us that attracts us to such men? Is it that we're also damaged and want to be around someone as damaged as us--if not moreso? I mean, hanging out with a broken guy allows us to put our energy into "fixing" him (which we probably call "helping him") instead of looking inward and dealing with our own shit.

Uh oh, I just became aware of a RL parallel in my early years of dating. Almost exclusively, I dated broken men all through my teens and 20's. Life-wise, I can't be the responsible sane one in any relationship. Objectively, I am neither of those things.

And yet...this brooding male archetype is wildly popular. So it can't be just me. How much further back does it go? Did people look at Caligula and say "Aw, he just needs to find the right girl?" I mean, even Hitler had a girlfriend--one who suicided herself right along with him. People love Severus Snape even though he's a complete prick--it can only be because he's so dark...and so sad.

As Rod Serling would say--there's not a lesson here. We're just taking a look into a broken thing in our world and wondering WTF.

EDIT: Sarah pointed out a glaring error in my thinking here. I'm embarrassed to have not thought of Edward Rochester. That's one of my fave roles for dudes, and can reveal intense acting chops a'la Orson Welles, Ciaran Hinds, Michael Fassbender et al. My bad.

I've been thinking a lot about cops lately, and the problems many of us have with them. Aside from the multiple unpunished murders of unarmed civilians, I learned recently that in many places, cops are legally allowed to have sex with prostitutes before arresting them. This is, I am told, done in the name of "gathering evidence." When you read the article, you'll note that the cop who pointed out to the press that this is legal and "by the book" lost his job--while the one who fucks prostitutes while being paid by taxpayers did not.

Let's look at that. Prostitution is a crime. Paying a prostitute for sex is a crime. So this means it's okay for a cop to commit a crime in order to stop a "more serious" crime. How serious could the crime be if cops are legally allowed to commit it? How long does it take for a cop to find a prostitute, have sex with her, then arrest and book her for the crime of engaging in sex with him? How might that time be better allocated into things that actually help citizens?

Honestly, unless you have a spouse who cheats with pros, I defy anyone to explain to me a way in which their life has been adversely affected by prostitution. Aside from sex trafficking, abusive pimps, and other bi-products of the black market--I don't even know why prostitution is illegal in the first place.

The NYPD went on a half-assed work stoppage recently. It seems their widdle fewwings were hurt when the mayor said he has given his son tips on how not to be shot by police. This petulant tantrum of a work stoppage came in the form of--and I'm not kidding--only making arrests that were "necessary." Arrests went down 66%, leading some to conclude that well over half of all arrests made by the NYPD are total bullshit. Couple this with stop and frisk stats, and you've got a pretty ugly picture being painted. Remember, this work stoppage was intended to be a "screw you" to the mayor--and a tacit admission that the city budget relies heavily on fines levied on these bullshit "crimes" that cops have since admitted are Not Necessary.

I realize that the typical stereotype of any cop on the job more than say 5 years is that they're angry, racist, drunk, and if they're still married--that the marriage is hanging on by a thread. I bet there are things we can do to make things easier on cops that don't involve giving them a free pass to beat or kill civilians, or to get busy with hookers as part of the work day. I don't know what though. I confess, I'm ignorant of how most cops live each day. I'm also ignorant of the rules they follow in order to get the job done.

But I shouldn't be.

I think citizens should be able to get a copy of current police codes of conduct. I want to know what they're told during training, and what the specific rules of their jobs are. After all, cops are paid via tax dollars which come from citizens--even citizens who have at some point, broken a law. See, if you work, you pay taxes. That should give you a say in how you're governed and under what rules. Then we can know for sure whether using minority mug shots for target practice is something every cop supports. I bet it isn't.

Why don't we have access to a list of the rules cops are expected to follow? Some will no doubt argue that if we know the rules, criminals will find ways around them. Like maybe prostitutes will stop having sex with clients if they know one might be a cop, or something. But see, that would mean that cops rely on citizens not knowing the law in order to catch them committing crimes. How is that fair? How can there be secret laws and rules that citizens aren't aware of that can be used against us?

I'll ask again--why can't citizens have--for the asking--a copy of the rules that all police follow. Like the Freedom of Information Act, all we should have to do is ask, and we should be sent a copy of the rules governing cops in our city, county, and state. This should be current and unabridged.

What I don't know is how to go about making this happen.
Open to suggestions.

Humidity is my kryptonite. I've always known this, but like many things, people kept telling me that the swelling, muscle cramps, backaches, and other symptoms I had would magically disappear as soon as I lost weight. Even as a young kid--like jr high and early high school I complained about shortness of breath, pains while running (or even speed walking) and was pretty much ignored. Turns out, some of that was from severe sleep apnea that was making me literally insane from lack of sleep. I also had terrible allergies that kept me from breathing freely basically between spring in Halloween.

All summer I'd been feeling physically tired and achey. Even when it was cool, it was humid as shit. I was terribly cranky and uncomfortable--changing my diet didn't fix it. Glucosamine, extra yoga, nothing seemed to help. Yesterday, I woke up feeling physically awesome and realized it's because the humidity plummeted. I began to ask myself why the hell I was still living in a state surrounded by water when humidity makes me so damn uncomfortable.

We're poor as hell, but we're looking toward moving to Colorado as soon as we can manage it. Granted, that probably won't be for another two or three years unless one of my many projects takes off.

Why Colorado? It's dry there, doesn't carry all the foolishness associated with places like Nevada or Utah. Pueblo Colorado was once the random information capitol of the world, since that's where you used to could send away for informational pamphlets before there was an internet.
There are 1,500 Ghost Towns in Colorado. That is fucking incredible, and I want to visit every last damn one of them. Michigan has less than 100 and they all suck.
Colorado has a pretty high cost of living in most places. I hear they're also kind of short on water. For some reason, they also seem to have a higher percentage of violent crime than the country at large. I wonder what's up with that? Radiation from the Stanley Hotel? Ha! Anyway, the money I'd save from growing my own pot would probably offset a lot of that.
Seriously though, I would feel awesome living in a low humidity place. H's job is such that he can transfer to pretty much anyplace--probably for a better wage. I work from home, of course, so that wouldn't matter.

Wouldn't that be neat?

Watched a couple of movies this week since I've been feeling so sad about the world I actually live in.

You're Next was tremendous fun, if not particularly scary. Family squabbles, creepy masks, and rampant douchebaggery made this blood-soaked funfest a total treat.

Occulus was much more serious, and really quite scary. Katee Sackoff gave a stunning and strong performance as the mom who...well, I won't spoil it. But the casting of this one went a long way toward bringing truth and real terror to what could have been a simple haunted object film.

However...I KNOW I've read a story about a haunted mirror with a small crack in the corner. I know that a guy sees it in some kind of curio shop and doesn't believe the guy who tells him it's haunted. Terror and sundry hijinks ensue. That's all I remember, and it's driving me crazy that I can't place the story. Early Stephen King? One from the Clive Barker collections? Tonally, it could have even been Ray Bradbury, but I'm damned if I can remember.

This is gonna drive me crazy.

Been reading articles (and comments--oops!) about shelters for women and children. Apparently, some nobs think they're "sexist" because they only cater to women and children, when way more men are homeless blah blah blah.

For those who are blissfully ignorant as to how these shelters work, a women & children shelter with a secret location is for people who are fleeing from abuse. The secret location is so their abusers can't fucking find them, and therefore not abuse them and the children. It's emphatically NOT "a bunch of feminists who want to keep men out because they think we're all rape-happy." Though now that they bring it up, I can see why someone fleeing from abuse may not have to deal with strangers telling them how pretty they look when they cry. (I have seen this happen in a "regular" homeless shelter.)

If your #NotAllMen fixation is so keenly developed that you actually feel cheated that men aren't allowed in secret-location domestic violence shelters--my suggestion would be to keep spouting that bullshit. Once women everywhere want to smack the shit out of you, you might actually have a valid claim to stay at one of the shelters (and boy howdy, are they luxurious!) you lament.

I've mentioned before that I've given volunteer time and stuff to local shelters, both for the general homeless population, and in what we used to call "battered women's shelters." I don't tend to mention that I've actually stayed at a women's shelter, as a client, when my (now ex, obvs) boyfriend was too dangerously unstable and threatening even for me. I cannot overemphasize the fear, the feelings of failure and embarrassment, the complete and utter shame people feel when they have to turn to such a place. Wait, did I say "people," because I meant "me." I felt terrible fear, shame, humiliation, and as if I had failed everyone who ever believed in me. I can only imagine that it's 100x worse when children are involved.
In addition to that, shelter living is not sitting around all day "living off the government." People staying in any shelter are required to have, or be actively seeking (with proof) a job. They have to pitch in with cooking (try making spaghetti and salad for 50 people and tell me if it feels like work) and cleaning, and must work with a caseworker to get a safe housing plan in place. There are rules, regular drug screens, mandated counseling, and if you break those rules you have to leave no matter how dire your situation.

Women and children who need these shelters often have different needs than the homeless population at large. It is not hyperbole to say that some are fleeing for their lives. Check out the stats on how many women are killed by partners after leaving them. No, one group isn't "better" than another, nor are some "more deserving" of help than others. Every human being deserves a safe, warm place where they can sleep without fear of vermin or violence.
If you honestly have a problem with that, I'd suggest that rather than focusing on the "breaks" others get that you don't--that you take a good long look at whatever ugliness inside you makes you see victims of abuse and say "Damn, I wish I could live like those lazy bastards...seems like a sweet deal." Because while that hateful, misinformed gibberish may not make me want to hit you, it sort of makes me wish that somebody else would.

My new computer is awesome, but Mavericks is a little annoying. Plus I found out the hard way that we needed a new modem. I was not online for over a day (it was almost 2 days, but H fixed it). New modem will be here tomorrow, supposedly. But that's not what I wanted to post about today.

I was talking to someone on FB about why people chose not to identify as a feminist. I don't. I wouldn't deny being a feminist if someone asked me. But when I'm making an "About me" section somewhere, that's never something I claim to be.

To my mind, being a feminist means you believe in equality of opportunity and access for everyone, regardless of gender. But really, the last three words are superfluous. Equality of opportunity and access for everyone is a simple concept, and one that should be the default setting for all human beings. If you aren't doing that, if you believe some people don't deserve the opportunities and access that you have--that's what needs a label. That kind of malarky should be stated upfront to anyone who has to interact with you in any meaningful way.

But then...
Many outspoken feminists think it's their right and duty to police the language, humor, and perspective of anyone who doesn't see every issue exactly as they do. I have super strong feelings that context and intent should be part of every process by which we gauge the speech of others. But I hear a lot that if anyone's feelings are hurt, context and intent don't matter. I would hate to be mistaken for someone who longs to restrict the words of others, or who infers hate where none is intended. I don't think policing language is helpful or that it's a road to equality.

Discussing language is vital, and it's everyone's right to make people aware if their language is hurtful. People who do that should be respected, not mocked. At the same time, there's a difference between language that is hateful and hurtful, and language that is clumsy and careless. While both can hurt, only one is intentional. Accusing and ostracizing, judging and lecturing--that's not the way to have the kind of conversation that actually inspires change. If it's worth it to say something, that something should be educational, informative, and kind.

Of course people also have a responsibility not to abuse language, or to use language they know damn well is hurtful or offensive to someone within earshot. Save racism, sexism, homophobia, and every other bigotry until you're alone with your fellow bigots. Choosing to use words intended to demean, insult, minimize, or marginalize others makes you an asshole. Yes, you get freedom of speech, asshole. That's why I have the freedom to tell you what an asshole you are.

I love language, and it pisses me off that there are people who use it to hurt others. It pisses me off that people think attempts to control language will impact the hate that inspires it. Given all the amazing things words can do, it's a shame how some will insist on using them for destructive purposes.

I'm about to complain about something. I'm going to ask this one time, that if this is something you do/have done, that you not bitch me out for having the nerve to complain about it. It's something that bugs the shit out of me, even as I realize it is not usually done with cruel intentions. I really, really need to get it off my chest, and haven't blogged about it because someone is bound to get offended.

Within the last two years, seven people I went to school with (I went to two high schools and one college) and 3 others I was friends with since college have died. Cancer, stroke, accident, suicide...one guy just keeled over and they still don't know why. It's tragic, both for the people involved, and for those of us who are forced to contemplate our own mortality.

When this happens, invariably one or more people will contact me asking me to remind them who the person was. No, I don't mean they called to reminisce about moments we shared, or discuss the legacy they left to the world. No, these people are literally saying Oh, that person you're mourning--who was that again? They've totally slipped my mind. Really?

To me, that's just gross. I've stopped answering those Emails all together. Taking the occasion of someone's death to remind grieving people that Hey, they didn't mean shit to me. I don't even know who they are is incredibly insensitive. Not sure why it's okay to be insensitive to me. Have I somehow given the impression that I'm an extremely strong person? I have no idea how that could have happened.

When Phillip Seymour Hoffman died, people actually made shitty comments about him on my page. Everything from "He wasn't that great" to "I don't think I've seen him in anything" or "I hated him in X" or even "Yeah, but do you care about all the other people who died who weren't famous?" Okay, let me say this as calmly as I can. Fuck. You. When I post how sad I am about Rik Mayall, what's the point of interjecting how you don't know who he is, or that he never made an impression on you, or that nobody should care because we didn't know him personally. Someone actually Emailed me to ask if I needed my meds checked, because I seemed so sad. Um, unless you're my doctor, go fuck yourself with your backhanded concern trolling. It's not necessary for you to Tweet to me that if he heard that I died, he wouldn't know who I was. What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?!? Yes, James Gandolfini played a mobster on TV. That doesn't mean if you're sad about his death that you're glorifying the mafia for fuck's sake.

Do people think that's okay just because it's famous people, because we don't know them personally? That implies that we don't get attached to actors, musicians, comedians, or anyone else who creates the kind of work that impacts our lives. Then there's the obligatory "don't be so sensitive," on the rare occasion that I openly take issue with that. Yes, being sad about death is SOOOO inappropriately sensitive, right? That said, I still can't watch Crocodile Hunter without feeling sad, so maybe I'm just a hothouse flower. o.O

Besides, if you're hitting me up on FB or Twitter, or commenting on my blog, or Emailing me--you clearly have access to the Internets. When I was in college, I used to be very complimented when people would ask me random facts they wanted to know. The alternative would have been going to a library or something. Plus, I have a ton of intellectual vanity. Duh. But if you have every answer to every question on earth at your fingertips--why the fuck are you asking me to explain who someone is?

Ultimately, if you don't care about something you see other people caring about--you don't owe anyone an explanation. People are probably not thinking So and so didn't post about Harold Ramis, they must not care about busting ghosts! Whether it's sports or a death or American Idol, There's no need to interject your apathy when people are already hurting (or celebrating--because that happens too, and it's just being a pseudo-intellectual party pooper). Maybe it's not universal to think that kind of behavior is rude, unfeeling, or just completely unnecessary, but I'd be much obliged if everyone would keep it the hell away from me.

On that note, I leave you with one of my favorite bits from The Young Ones. Join us just after Rik accidentally kills Neil and buries him in the garden, where he grows into three Neils.

Okay, one more. Why are the kids crying? Rik is dead, the People's Poet is dead!
But then one sensitive and particularly articulate teenager says How can Rik be dead when we still have his poems?

*sigh* Rest in peace, funnyman. I will never get over not being able to see your performance as Peeves.

If I'm trying to be more positive, going on the internet after a polarizing news event is something best avoided. But no...I read all the stories including a transcript of that absurd manifesto. I read all through the #YesAllWoman tag on Twitter until it was hijacked by ugly haters. I fully expect all the pro-control v anti-control BS whenever there's a shooting. It often boils down to "Let's get guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people" versus "Nobody and nothing has a right to get between me and mah gunz." I hear people fearing that someone will come take their guns away, but I've never heard anyone in authority actually say they wanted to do this.
Please correct me if I'm wrong--but there has been no restrictive gun legislation passed since Obama became president. We've done more to stop the scourge of baggy pants than that of gun violence. I don't know anyone personally who thinks no one should have guns, ever. Most people are more reasonable than that.

However, this latest massacre is more about men versus women. Or rather, who owes what to whom and what the unhappy party has a right to do when their needs aren't met. A few weeks ago, I was unfriended by someone who posted a friend-zone comic. The punchline indicated that the girl (who asked an angel for a nice guy to fall in love with) was called a bitch and told that she "friendzoned" him. I suggested that this "joke" was hateful and sexist, and was told in return that friendzoning works both ways and that it's nothing against women.

As a fat chick, I have to laugh. As a person who grew up with appallingly low self esteem, I had lots of crushes and came to think that I'd like myself better if a cool guy liked me. In my defense, I was a young stupid kid--sort of like this guy. I was also mentally ill, like this guy. But nobody ever tells guys who reject fat girls how "mean and shallow" they're being. Nor did anyone suggest that I "keep at him" or try to "wear him down" or "show him how amazing I really am."
No...I was told to lose weight, get nicer clothes, all manner of shallow shit. The point was that if men didn't like me, I was supposed to change myself rather than blaming the men. Of course, I didn't blame the men, I blamed my own perceived ugliness. But if chicks don't like a "nice" guy (never mind that nice guys aren't pro-torture and don't generally murder people in drive-bys) then they are bitches. And bitches deserve what they get. The internet aftermath and the teenage girl with a FB shooter fan page are evidence that plenty of people still have whacked views on male-female-relationships.

Like most of you, I expect a certain level of stupidity whenever I go online. What I don't expect to see are grown-ass men who say asinine things like "Men and Women have it equally bad." Speaking for myself, I literally do not know a woman who hasn't been raped, stalked, menaced, manhandled, or experienced other physical attempts to sexually control or manipulate them. I would be very surprised to learn that this is true of all men. Personally, I've been hit by several times as many men as I've actually taken a swing at.
It baffles me that there are men, even men who call themselves feminists, who honestly don't see that women have things foisted on them daily that men don't have to deal with. As a fat chick, I'm not sexually harassed often, but it's not like it doesn't happen. More often though, I'm treated as a non-entity because I have the audacity to present myself in such a way that strangers don't immediately want to fuck me at first glance. The nerve of that woman, not being sexy. Duh, being sexy is what women are FOR.

So yeah, agree or disagree about gun control, or mental illness. But to pretend that women aren't on the receiving end of a tidal wave of aggressive inappropriateness, or that we're often dismissed or laughed off when we call people out on it--? C'mon. If you really don't think that happens on a daily basis, you need to open your fucking eyes.

Been trying not to do the thing where I make a long depressing, complainy-pants post in the middle of the night.

But I want to.

But I won't.

Yes, I *would* like a cookie.

Thank you so much for asking.

Been engaging in a bunch of discussions about a new online trend. People are complaining about, of all things, Trigger Warnings. If you're not familiar, a "Trigger Warning" is a single sentence before an article, a TV show, vid, or podcast that contain subject matter known to be triggering--that is to say, can cause profound discomfort or distress to someone. TW's cover things like sexual assaults, child or animal abuse, eating disorders, abusive or hateful language--that sort of thing. Trigger Warnings are also used in the creation of "safe spaces" online (or in RL, I suppose) so people can go to a given forum or chatroom and know that certain topics won't come up or that specific types of asshattery won't be tolerated.

So yeah, there's a backlash now. Apparently, there are "too many" trigger warnings. All this compassion is getting "ridiculous," and the "whole thing has gone too far," say pundits and bloggers everywhere. I can't help but translate this as "Okay ladies, we've acknowledged your feelings, now please stop bitching about X, Y, and Z. Being respectful to your hangups is getting old, and some of your fears and issues are dumb IMO."

I very rarely bust out the "P" word, but people who don't have to give a single thought about Triggering do have a kind of Privilege. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to live a life free of anxiety or without fear of some kind of embarrassing or debilitating reaction to something. If this is your life, that's awesome for you. You should be able to develop some friggin compassion for people who were not so lucky.

I don't doubt that there are writers or publications that are overzealous about their Trigger Warnings. I agree that there are more Trigger Warnings around than there used to be. Some drivers don't know how to use their blinkers--it doesn't mean that blinkers have "gone too far." What the fuck does "gone too far" even mean anyway? Anyway, more Trigger Warnings doesn't necessarily mean they need to be curtailed. It might just mean that we're learning to care more about how our words affect others. Wouldn't that be neat?

When people complain about Trigger Warnings, one of the slippery slope fears is that it creates a fantasy world where people can hide from reality. This is so dumb, I can't imagine that people actually believe it when they say it. If you skip an article about rape, you might just forget that rape exists? Not bloody likely. Maybe you're reading the news on your break at work and just don't want to be thinking about rape for the rest of the day.

Underlying it all, I think, is a contempt for feelings by people (who should goddamn well know better) who confuse emotion for weakness. And boy, do we hate other people asking us to accommodate "weakness." I don't expect to hear that nonsense outside of FOX "news" or Dr Drew. Just as food stamps don't make people dependent on food or whatever, Trigger Warnings don't make people forget that there is bad in the world. If anything, people who appreciate and utilize Trigger Warnings know first-hand about the evils of the world, and just need (and fucking deserve, goddammit) a break from it every now and again. How about not giving them shit for it?

Ultimately, it's a single goddamn sentence. If it doesn't apply to you, by all means, scroll right on past it. I know people are in the habit of skimming most of what they read online. Why else would people send me links to my own articles saying "Saw this and thought of you..." ???

When I was a kid, religion was not really a thing at our house. Mom practiced no faith, and her husband was a non-practicing Christian who had no patience for people who thought anything other than Christianity was "real." We learned about Santa before we learned about God/Jesus. My grandparents took us to church sometimes, but it had no more meaning than a movie or a concert to me. I had a public school teacher who made us pray, and who called me a "heathen" for not knowing the Lord's Prayer so I could say it after the Pledge.

( Cut for potentially boring chatter about why I'm going to church this Sunday. )

Pope Francis has the potential to cause the biggest Church upheaval since Martin Luther and his hammer. It shouldn't be that way, but sadly, it has to be. So this Sunday, I'm heading down to St Francis Church to hear mass and see if my local Catholics are in line with the new Pope and his message. Because if I can get in on this wave of spreading compassion and comfort, I'm in!

( I wrote St Francis' outreach person... )
So far, this seems okay to me. Watch my new "church" tag if you want to follow this adventure.

I encountered some haters over at Amazon today. Why do I comment? Yeah, I'm not sure. ( I was looking at GRRM's book, The Wit and Wisdom of Tyrion Lannister )

I'm also hearing a lot about how people are refusing to pay to see Ender's Game. It certainly makes sense to not give money to someone if you think they are a vile person. ( But let's look at this rationally... ) Chances are, every movie ever made has at least one person involved in it who thinks something terrible about someone--be it gays, women, minorities, or atheists. Same with books, video games, TV shows, and sporting events. So maybe we could put less emphasis on what we're NOT seeing, and more on what we're doing to actually make things better.
Orson Scott Cart would HATE that.
And let's do something shitty for Fred Phelps while we're at it. My years of refusing to attend his church aren't having much of an effect.

If you haven't seen my new website yet, do check it out.
My cousin Richard made it, and it's sweet!
I'm starting a newsgroup so I can keep everyone abreast (*snerk*) of my various goings on. So if you're not boycotting me, please do sign up. ;-)

My newest Kinkly article is about Vampires, because it's almost Halloween. It covers vampires and biting from pre-Christianity through the sparkly kind.

Lots of you know that I'm a fan of Health at Every Size. This is a philosophy that essentially says I'm going to eat as well as I can, and exercise regularly. If that doesn't make me lose weight, so fucking what. I'm also a fan of Size Acceptance. This means that if you have some sort of problem with the size that I am, so fucking what. One might say I live on the philosophical corner of MindUrOwnBidniss Ln and HateElsewherePlz Blvd. One of the chick bloggers on FA and HAES I've enjoyed reading is Ragen Chastain. I've been reading her for a long while now. While I do think her blog is hella repetitive, I also think it's full of good information.

But here's the thing...
Like many blogs written with a concrete foundation in feminism, Ragen bends way the hell backward to not offend readers. Every opinion, every statement of philosophy, begins with a long disclaimer stating that just because she says something works for her--she's not telling everyone else that they should do it, or that it's the only right thing for anyone to do. I presume she does this because, on the internet, you can't say anything without someone jumping on you about it. If someone says "Hey, what a lovely sunny day it is" someone else will rag on them for being insensitive to people with skin cancer. If someone says "I lost weight and I feel great," others will undoubtedly ask how they enjoy being a tool of the diet companies. People are dicks, and anyone even remotely visible online needs to have a strategy for dealing with dicks up front.

But see, we all make judgements. I actually think the occasional shaming of idiots can serve to better the world, if only to encourage them to be a little less vocal in their idiocy. We all think that some people look better in certain clothes or with specific haircuts, would be happier dating different people, having a cat instead of a dog, finally admitting they're gay, watching HBO instead of Honey Boo Boo. We've all got opinions about other people and the things they do. Me, I can't shut up about mine.
Still, I don't think having those opinions makes me a hater. I'm not putting people down to feel better about me. I don't think even thinking ugly things about others does not make a person evil or mean-spirited. Own your judgements just like you own every other emotion--even when it doesn't make sense. Just like we eat foods we know are bad for us, miss people we know are actually assholes, we sometimes make judgements about people that we later feel guilty about. That's okay, really.

What's my point? I'm getting to that.
it's about my peeve: What I really, super, dooper hate.
When people pretend they aren't being judgemental when they are. I hate when people, even people like Ragen, whom I admire, do this. If someone you admire is doing something you hate (say, a fat sports hero going on The Biggest Loser) fucking say so. Otherwise, you get into this infuriating sacrificial-grandmother posture. Oh no dear, you just go to that party instead of playing cards with me like we do every Saturday. You make your own decision like the grown lady you are, and if I'm dead when you get back...well, that won't be your fault. You just went to a party.
This whole put-upon narrative of You can do any foolish, harmful thing you want...I'm not saying one single solitary word about it...not ONE WORD... thing is such utter bullshit. Prefacing your judgement with passive-aggressive ranting about how judgemental you're NOT being is uglier than simple judgement would ever be.
Why? Because it's dishonest. It also places the judger on a higher moral level than the person being judged--even though in most situations, the one being judged is actually the one being genuine. Look how judgemental I'm NOT being in the face of so-and-so's complete idiocy. I think it's their right to be an idiot so I'm not saying one word... in the middle of a post where you're saying a bunch of words about the idiocy you just said you weren't judging.

If you think people shouldn't buy or use Slimfast, say so. If you honestly believe it's harmful and dangerous-- don't pretend like you're cool with it either way, and will respect the other party just as much if they do the thing you're making it pretty clear that you don't want them doing. Disclaimer: I don't know Ragen in real life. I've not met her so I have no idea if she's the same in her blog as she is in person. She's certainly not the only person who fits the examples I've described. But it was her recent blog post that burst the dam on this issue.

All people make judgements every day. All of us. Even people like me who barely leave the house these days. I still make judgements about people based on what they say, what they do, how they respond to issues, what they say about their children. We all do this. There's no shame in it. It's how you navigate humanity. If you're constantly treating others in a way you wouldn't want to be treated--well, then you might be an asshole. Get that checked out. If not...relax. Having an opinion, even about other people, is normal, natural, and unavoidable. Opinions are actually part of instinct. We need them for survival, though this is less true on the internets

I'm what my mom used to politely call "mouthy." I've got lots to say, and I'm reasonably good at saying stuff--so I do. If I start becoming a pompous jackass, a rude bitch, or a mean-spirited asshat, I fully expect my friends to tell me that. No, that won't be a fun way to spend an afternoon. I can be rather defensive and difficult if I'm feeling insulted. But I also have enough introspective skill that I can look at the advice objectively and see if there are things I need to address.
I feel that improves me as a person the same way an aggressive editor improves prose. While I do have those moments of "Fuck you, really?" I end up a better person for it in the end. I was being a total snobby bitch about fanfic a while back, and a few people took me to task for it. It wasn't fun, but as I was out of line, it was an asskicking I totally deserved. Just because I hate something, people who like it aren't necessarily vapid morons with nothing to contribute to literature. Who knew, amirite? ;-]

So no, we shouldn't all go around thinking we know what's best for everyone. But if we've got something that we feel strongly enough about that we're sharing it with a wide audience--it should be truthful, honest. If it isn't, it's deceptive, which means it might just as well be manipulative.
Don't manipulate me, just tell me what's up.
I'm a big girl, I can handle it.

Twitter: I gain more followers just letting my account sit there. I seem to lose people every time I actually post something. And I hate being limited to 140 characters. Arbitrary, anyone?
This leads me to believe that Twitter is an annoying sack of crap.
So yeah...there's that.

As usual, sociopolitical stuff is inescapable since I insist on hanging out on the internets. But I can't talk about guns any goddamn more. I was thinking about opportunity in America, and how lack of it creates hopelessness, which can intensify into fear and desperation. I lot of people feel like they have less opportunity than our parent's generation had. Less money, harder to buy a home, have to take jobs you don't like, etc. But some people think we have more opportunity, mainly because of the internet.

It used to be that when you met someone, you'd ask what they do. By that, you were asking what job they had--ie, what they did for a living. But now when I ask that, I'm asking the person what they actually do. Like, what's their art, their passion, what do they make. For way too many people, what they're passionate about has little to do with how they earn a living. So asking someone what their job is not only tells you very little about them--but it may also be sort of rude. More akin to asking someone how they pay their bills as opposed to actually learning something about who they are as a person.

Then I remember how damn lucky I am to be able to do what I like full time. I'm not just writing, I'm producing audiobooks and marketing for other companies and learning all this wild new stuff. That also frees me up to make comics and learn cooking stuff and review TV professionally. On that note: I want The Following to be awesome. I'll be hella bummed if it's not. Ripper Street also starts this week on BBC America. I'm poised to dig it. My bro is coming for lunch on Sunday, and I'm making eclairs. Well, I'm attempting to make eclairs. Difficult to say what I'll actually end up with.

Tonight I have 5 more marketing articles to write, plus the draft of my next article for Kinkly. I think I have a loose plot for the next Stig & the Puppetman. I have to get that drawn by tomorrow evening so H can scan everything in for me. Four chaps to go until A Stabbing for Sadie edits are done and can be sent to Mr Publisherman for the 2nd edition. Then, audiobooks go into production.

Been watching Breaking Bad for TV night on Sundays. We're half way through season two. It's great, just like everyone says. Still, his wife and her family are so awful. I'm surprised to be liking the DEA agent much more than the women. They suck.