Monday, March 31, 2008
Personally, I have to say- I dump/date people for really retarded reasons. No way in hell would I date someone who thought Ayn Rand was awesome, and let me tell you- I find this to be a completely rational decision, because anyone who thinks Ayn Rand is awesome would be completely incompatible with me altogether. Ayn Rand sucks ass. And that Judy Heiblum is right- dudes who carry around copies of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" are sooooo worth avoiding. Trust me (also, let me tell you- they haven't ever actually read it.).
On the other hand, I think dudes who like Henry Miller and Dostoevsky are ridiculously sexified. But I'll also think they're pretty dreamy if they've heard Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner's "The 2000 Year Old Man" or are way into Marx Brothers or Woody Allen movies. But it's not just about "Oh, you're this way because you like these specific things"- it's also about having a similar frame of reference for conversational purposes. That's really what I think is important.
I'd write more, but my keyboard is being a pain in the ass. Oy.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Ok, maybe not. I was on Oprah for all of five seconds, and for some reason they only selected all the really stupid sounding things I said.
In the "interview" I stated that I felt that the smoking ban, with the 15 feet away from the door (and, obviously, the bouncer) rule, was dangerous for women. Personally, I'd like it to be my decision to go into a bar- it's no longer my choice and I don't like that. I live by two bars, and thus must now deal with drunk people against my will. Not fun. And loud. Very loud. The other issue is that now we're going to have women leaving their drinks at bars to go smoke and getting roofied. Which is not fucking cool.
I also said that I believe that smoking bans are primarily a way for a city or state to look like they're doing something good for people, without it actually costing them any money or real effort. And then, you know, you can take people's minds off important things like the war, and the war against reproductive choice, and the homeless, and sweatshops and everything else in the world that sucks ass.
But of course, they did not include that part. Oh well.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
I know people read, talk on the phone and spend quite a lot of time on the toilet (hell my father would spend a good two hours on there every morning and probably still does) but I can't imagine being there so long the actual toilet seat BECOMES a part of your body. Read on:
WICHITA, Kansas (AP) -- A 35-year-old woman who sat on her boyfriend's toilet for so long that her body was stuck to the seat had a phobia about leaving the bathroom, the boyfriend said.
Police say Pam Babcock apparently spent two years living in the bathroom of her boyfriend's mobile home.
"She is an adult; she made her own decision," said her boyfriend, Kory McFarren. "I should have gotten help for her sooner; I admit that. But after a while, you kind of get used to it."
The case drew nationwide attention after Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple said it appeared the Ness City woman's skin had grown around the seat in the two years she apparently was in the bathroom.
"We pried the toilet seat off with a pry bar and the seat went with her to the hospital," Whipple said. "The hospital removed it."
McFarren, 36, said he can't be certain how long Pam Babcock stayed in the bathroom because "time just went by so quick I can't pinpoint how long." He said beatings she received in her childhood caused her phobia.
"It just kind of happened one day; she went in and had been in there a little while, the next time it was a little longer. Then she got it in her head she was going to stay -- like it was a safe place for her," McFarren said.
But McFarren said she moved around in the bathroom during that time, bathed and changed into the clothes he brought her. He brought food and water to her. They had conversations and had an otherwise normal relationship -- except it all happened in the bathroom.
What emergency responders found when they went into bathroom has left residents of this small western Kansas town buzzing, and law enforcement officials incredulous.
Police found the clothed woman sitting on the toilet, her sweat pants down to mid-thigh. She was "somewhat disoriented," and her legs looked like they had atrophied, Whipple said.
"She was not glued. She was not tied. She was just physically stuck by her body," Whipple said. "It is hard to imagine. ... I still have a hard time imagining it myself."
She initially refused emergency medical services, but was finally convinced by responders and her boyfriend that she needed to be checked out at a hospital.
"She said that she didn't need any help, that she was OK and did not want to leave," he said.
Whipple said the county attorney will determine whether any charges should be filed against McFarren.
McFarren, who works at an antique store, said he has been taking care of Babcock for the 16 years they have lived together. He insisted that he tried to coax her out of the bathroom every day.
"And her reply would be, `Maybe tomorrow,"' Whipple said. "According to him, she did not want to leave the bathroom."
She was reported in fair condition Wednesday at a hospital in Wichita, about 150 miles southeast of Ness City. Whipple said she has refused to cooperate with medical providers or law enforcement investigators.
Babcock has an infection in her legs that has damaged her nerves, and there is a possibility she may wind up in a wheelchair, McFarren said.
James Ellis, a neighbor, said he had known the woman since she was a child, but that he had not seen her for at least six years.
"I don't think anybody can make any sense out of it," Ellis said.
Babcock had a tough childhood after her mother died at a young age and apparently was usually kept inside the house as she grew up, he said."It really doesn't surprise me," Ellis said. "What surprises me is somebody wasn't called in a bit earlier."
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Oy. I'm at work right now. It's unbelievably dead. I still don't have internet at my place, for the same reason I haven't gotten an eliptical machine yet- lack of time and mechanical ability.
I'm a bit PMSy anyway, so this was just the icing on the cake. Normally I'd just be thinking "This article is completely retarded." Which it is. But because I'm all mentally retarded and feeling icky today, it makes me obscenely frustrated.
I don't know. I am the exact opposite of this article, and through my hormone clouded mind, I am trying to process how I feel about that- despite my feeling that it's complete and utter bullshit. It's just kind of a surreal feeling.
I am quite tall. I have dark brown, almost black hair. I have weird eyes that change color but are usually sort of a greyish green or greyish violet. I am exceedingly cynical. I do not have a car. I smoke. I drink. Often. And I have never eaten Wonderbread nor did I grow up on a farm. That last part I just threw in there, because that's something I've always thought about when irrationally pondering what might be wrong with me.
None of my friends are short, long blonde haired, none-too-intelligent, uncynical types either. Nor are they girl-next-door types. Which is something I like about them. I hate that term, however, as it implies I don't have neighbors, which I do. In fact, I've had many neighbors in the course of my non-girl next door life. One of them was an Elvis impersonator. Which, frankly, I feel should mean that I win. Which I don't, but still.
I am supposed to die of consumption at the end of the film. This much I know. That, and I would look pretty much retarded with long blonde hair. I have a picture somewhere of me in a wig. It's quite disturbing, to say the least. I gotta tell you, this whole thing sort of makes me feel quite sensible about my recent decision to embark on another manfast. It makes more sense than cutting off half of my legs, at least.
But I feel a little bit like a bad feminist today.
Friday, March 7, 2008
I found this on Yahoo Tech! Love it! The last line is my favorite :)
It's official: Daylight Saving Time is a bust. Designed (and recently extended) as a measure to save energy in a period of inflated electricity prices, an in-depth University of California study has now shown that DST doesn't save anyone any money at all. In fact, it's costing consumers extra, to the tune of $3.19 in extra utility bills per year.
The study was made possible because of the peculiarities of the state of Indiana, which was only partially on DST until 2006. When the whole state finally went DST (to sync with the national business day), some comparisons vs. the prior method were made apparent. The study calculated that the shift costs Indiana residents an extra $8.6 million in electricity bills in total.
Why? Shouldn't they be, well, saving daylight -- and burning fewer light bulbs?
They are, said the study. But while lighting bills were reduced, air-conditioning units had to run more often, because people were home on hot afternoons when they'd otherwise be still at the office. Heaters had to be run on cool mornings, too, when people got up and it was still dark outside.
Professor Matthew Kotchen, who pioneered the study, noted, "I've never had a paper with such a clear and unambiguous finding as this."
This isn't the first time the energy-saving rationale of Daylight Saving Time has been attacked. The first was in 1976, three years after DST went into effect, when the National Bureau of Standards found that there was no significant energy savings after the switch. The recent expansion of DST to a few extra weeks was also revealed to have saved no energy during its run. And yet here we are...
In related news, it was also revealed that Daylight Saving Time actually creates no additional daylight.