Mad Woman's Pepper Farm

Boy has it been a long time since I posted...

2015-03-20T01:46:35Z

I am officially graduating in May. I would have been done in the fall but scheduling issues and then crazy insanity at work (oh hello 60 hour work weeks because every one of my coworkers dropped like flies the moment the holiday rush started to hit) meant dropping one of my classes.

So. I just filed all my paperwork for my diploma. I'll be handing in my notice at work in a few days. The bakery has been pretty much unbearable for the last few months. I'll be relieved to find a new job somewhere where the expectations are at least somewhat based on the reality of what one full timer, one part timer, and one person who's been there less than a week (and has been tasked with spending all her working hours doing test batches of new items) can actually produce while handling nearly all of the pastries for a bakery that operates 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. So I'm giving myself a month off before graduation to finish this class, find a new job in a new city, a new apartment, and get ready to move.

A friend of mine from college is opening a bakery in June and offered me a job. It could be a great opportunity and I know we work well together and could transition our relationship to boss/employee just fine. I'm worried that it's just outside Dallas though. If I'm going to stay in Texas I'd much prefer to be close to my sister. And personally, I'd rather be in a city. I'm a city person. So I'm looking in Austin and San Antonio. But this job offer is kind of throwing me for a loop. I need to talk to my friend about it more.

Basically my entire life is up in the air right now which is exciting but also frightening and I really don't want to mess it up or undersell myself. I don't want to miss out on doing something great or getting something great for myself because I'm afraid of messing it up or not being good enough. I've been down that road before and boy does it suck.

Anyway, that is the news here.

SQUEEEEE

2013-08-12T04:24:58Z

So the other week I got some really exciting news that is now official. My sister and her husband are moving to Austin next year!

My sister took a new job with her company that has her working the southwestern region of the US building relationships with area colleges and working with students and study abroad offices to promote her company's study abroad programs. She'll be living in Austin and working from home most of the year, but traveling a lot around the start of semesters-- including to Dallas (where she can visit with me!) and Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arizona.

She'll be moving down some time next spring, probably, and her husband will be joining her once their lease is up in Virginia and he graduates in May.

This means my sister is going to be three hours away by car/bus! And bus tickets are only $25. Do you realize how much cheaper and less time consuming that is than flying from Dallas to DC? SO MUCH.

So I am really excited. I miss my sister like crazy and love her to bits, and her husband is a great guy, too. The move would also bring them closer to some of his family, so that's pretty great (his oldest sister, who's really nice, lives in the Austin area).

My sister is excited because it means that:
1. She won't have to deal with the parents of students as much as she does now (if you've worked in education/administration and had to deal with the parents a lot you know why this is a bonus -- now imagine you were shipping their precious 17-24 year olds off to China for a couple of months. That's my sister's actual job).
2. She gets to work from home so her commute will cost nothing and take her no time. She lives outside of DC right now and uses METRO to get to work--- it's expensive and crowded and takes forever and has ridiculous numbers of delays and other issues (I'm really not a fan of DC's public transit system and I only have to use it when I visit).
3. Even though her salary isn't getting much of a bump, her cost of living is going to cut almost in half from what it is now in the DC area (even though Austin has the highest COL in TX, as I understand it). She'll be able to pay off her loans completely, ad she and her husband will be able to save more and travel more, and going to grad school for any of the art/textiles/museum studies programs she's been looking into would be more attainable after a few years working there than it would be if she kept on where she is.

So yeah. I can't believe we're both going to be living in Texas. If you'd told me that four years ago I would have laughed in your face. Life is weird. I'm just glad my sister isn't going to be half the country away from me anymore. Woohoo.

Really the only downside to this is that it might make the decision to move to Portland, ME after I graduate more difficult. Having my sister in Austin would definitely be incentive to go there instead (and it would certainly be a much less difficult move) but I miss New England a lot and my Mom would certainly not be happy about both of us sticking around so far away from her.

Oh well. No point in worrying over it now, in any case. I'll figure it out when the time comes.

I just wish they were coming out here sooner. Spring is too far away!

Busy Busy Busy

2013-07-14T05:32:44Z

So I'm still going to school and am working at Michael's (which is great and I can walk to work-- although, granted that would be more awesome if it weren't over 100 degrees out every day).

Class is going well except there's a lot of drama with my current group. So much drama. We work in groups in class for the "labs" which is normally good and helpful and all of that but not so much when my group members are acting like insolent children despite the fact that both of them are older than me. I'm literally in the middle of the thing where they're like "tell ___ ...." and the other one is like "tell_____ ..." and neither of them will talk to each other. Yeah. I might be a poor excuse for an adult in a lot of ways but at least I know how to suck it up and work with someone I don't get along with.

In any case, we're doing very cool things. We just made an orange coconut mousse cake with jaconde sponge and it is so pretty and awesome I can't even handle it. The day before we made a triple chocolate bavarois which is made up of layers of chocolate cake, white chocolate bavarian cream (like a mousse but more sturdy and less airy), milk chocolate bavarian cream, dark chocolate bavarian cream, another layer of chocolate cake, and a sacher glaze on top. It was lovely as well, and delicious. We're going to be doing French Macarons and Petit Fours in the next couple of weeks which is really exciting as well. I just love all the fussy fancy desserts. They're the best.

I have a crazy week this week. Not a single day off (although I only work four hours on Friday and I'm off by one so at least I can run some errands then).

I'm also seriously considering cutting off all of my hair because I spend 90% of the time with it up these days anyway and it's just ridiculous. My mom might have a heart attack, both of her daughters would have boyish cuts. I do like the longer hair (not this long, though, it's almost to my waist, and completely obnoxious) but in this climate with my job and school it is not practical. Really the only thing holding me back is the fact that I'd have to then go in for haircuts way more often to keep it from getting to that annoying length where it's in the way all of the time but too short to be put up. I haven't had my hair cut professionally in... 4 or 5 years. Holy cow. Yeah. WAY MORE FREQUENTLY.

So anyway. There's my update. I was also hoping to get something together for the new SIYE challenge but it's not coming together. We'll see if I can get it there by the 15th or not. At this point it's looking like not. Le sigh. I am so bad at plot.

My Week On Facebook (Identities Removed)

2013-03-31T22:47:05Z

Someone I know posted this:

A.
I think marraige is a heterosexual tradition. Why should everyone automatically be entitled to it? It has a long tradition. It is a very special committment that a man and a woman make and it is the start of a family. It is one of special rights heterosexuals get to enjoy.

By denying it to homosexuals we are not saying they are inherently bad or worse than heterosexuals... they simply do not meet the requirements of marriage. I do think gay people can raise children just as well as straight people. But straight couples can produce children which is a big responsibility hence a strong union of two people is needed to raise said children. Gay couples don't have to worry about producing children. Just saying.

Like · · Share · March 27 at 9:36am ·
9 people like this.

Responses (including some essays from me on why Gay Marriage is a human rights issue and A's arguments are invalid) after the cut:

B. I don't even know where to begin- this hit me really hard and all I can think of is how sad it must be to live in your twisted little world. So, according to your logic...since slavery was a tradition we should continue to have slaves? Your implication that it's okay to deny rights to groups simply because they don't meet the "requirements" (whose? yours?) is sickening. So because women earn less on the dollar than men do, we shouldn't have the right to accelerate into executive positions in corporations? Dude, some hetero couples are infertile--do you mean to deny infertile heteros the right to marry as well? Marriage is between two people who love each other, want to combine resources, and possibly have children. We don't live in the fucking dark ages anymore where women are sold to men to reproduce and carry on the lineage. You said yourself that you believe "gay people can raise children just as well as straight people" so isn't it contradicting to deny them the same marriage rights as heteros? To meet your own standards in the responsibility of raising children, doesn't a "strong union" imply that heteros would be married? So how can you say gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry if they can raise children just as well? And what the fuck do you mean by we don't have to "worry about producing children"? Do I really need to point out all the heteros who are terrible parents and yet they continue to reproduce? Don't want a gay marriage? DON'T GET ONE. When do I get to vote on hetero divorces? I love my partner of two years and I look forward to our future together, we will be married one day and have children...despite the roadblocks we face because of small-minded folks like yourself.

March 27 at 10:27am · Like · 1

C. Finally!! Someone on FB with something else to say about the topic!

So what do you think should happen with homosexuals? Do you think they should have a similar ritual of union under god? Or what do you think?

March 27 at 10:28am via mobile · Like · 1

D. damn A. I didn't know you thought like that. cue womp womp

March 27 at 10:32am via mobile · Like · 1

C. B ^

My wife makes $4 more an hour than I do. Theres more exceptions than we all think.

And I do think homosexual can raise kids, where do they come from though?

A man and a women who made one, that's the way babies are conceived - egg and sperm. Period. So no argument there.

I think EVERYONE should have the freedom of CHOICE.

Since homosexuals already live and raise children together, why not let them have the title? It's not Christian? Believing that is not Christian in itself and is prejudice to not give someone the right to be themselves in any form or fashion.

I am curious on A's input if he thinks they should have a 'separate but equal' union in a similar style.

March 27 at 10:35am via mobile · Like

E. What gives you or anyone else the right to deny equal rights to anyone? Don't sit here and try to justify a prejudice with a weak "they can't reproduce" argument. Plenty of straight couples can't reproduce. Plenty of straight couples are bad parents. It sounds like you have a personal issue with homosexuals.

March 27 at 11:15am via mobile · Like · 2

F. I don't agree but I completely respect your opinion. P.S. we all know need to get together soon!

March 27 at 11:26am via mobile · Like

G. what's worse - A stating his opinion? or getting attacked by you people?

March 27 at 11:27am · Like · 2

E. The opinion

March 27 at 11:29am via mobile · Like · 1

E. Opinions don't go without ridicule. Opinions and your beliefs should be questioned. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to an unquestioned opinion. You are definitely asking for it if you publicly announce your stance on a controversial topic.

March 27 at 11:31am via mobile · Unlike · 4

G. I don't recall him asking for your input

March 27 at 11:32am · Like · 2

E. I don't recall me asking for yours. I'm getting it though aren't I? That's how speaking publicly works. Do you have anything with real substance to say, now?

March 27 at 11:33am via mobile · Like · 1

H. I am really gonna regret posting on a topic like this.../sigh. First, I want to state that I do not share A's opinion so this is not in defense of that opinion. What I would like to point out is that in his opinion he did not personally insult or attack anyone. Right off the bat B. responded with a post full of personal attacks and profanities...Do you really think that is the best way to get your point across??? If you have to fill your argument with them I feel it makes your point come across weaker...your post was filled with anger.

March 27 at 11:34am · Like · 2

G. agreed H. i'm all about gay rights and love gay people, but the responses in this post are borderline sickening

March 27 at 11:35am · Like · 5

H. filled with anger and hate...isnt that why we are in this mess to begin with?...

March 27 at 11:37am · Like

ME. A, the issue is that as long as we have one set of rights for straight people and another set of rights for LGBT people, LGBT people are considered less in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the public.

Not that allowing gay people the right to marry is going to flip a switch that changes every homophobe's mind, but it's a necessary step for homosexual relationships to be recognized as just as valid and fulfilling as straight ones. It's their relationships, after all, that are the only thing that actually makes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people different from heterosexuals. Saying those relationships don't deserve the same recognition as straight people's is the entire crux of the problem that allows people to see and treat homosexuals as fundamentally different, as less.

The reproduction argument, I'm sorry, is ridiculous. I have PCOS and may not be able to have kids. Should I be denied the right to marry or adopt children? I won't be, because I'm straight, but that is what is being denied homosexual people. Producing kids is not the big responsibility in the having kids equation, it's raising them. And frankly, since we're still over replacement rate and there are so many kids out there without families it would actually be a little better if there was less producing going on. But that's besides the point.

There are real rights attached to the title of marriage, so this IS an equal rights issue. But the title of married is important, too, as opposed to civil union-ed or whatever else, because "seperate but equal" as everyone really should understand by now, is not at all equal. It just perpetuates the othering of people and deepens the divides.

You have a right to feel how you feel, but your discomfort and desire to hold on to tradition-- it's not more important than gay people's feelings of love nor their feelings of being discriminated against. A person's discomfort at someone else having a marriage that doesn't fit with the idea they grew up with of what a marriage was doesn't even come close to trumping that 'someone else's' right to equality under the law, nor their right to not be discriminated against or made unsafe by the people around them.

While I understand that your intent in your position on this is to not say homosexuals "are bad or inherently worse," intent isn't everything and whether you like it or not, that is exactly the message that your position sends, to homosexuals and to the people who hate them for being homosexual (and see your arguments as part of their justification).

Marriage as an institution, in actuality, changes all the time. During my parents' lifetime it was illegal for mixed race couples to get married (and actually the issue of denying mixed race couples this right still exists in my lifetime). Not too long ago, marriage wasn't even about love. It is not, nor has it ever been something set in stone, so why are we trying to set it now? It doesn't make sense. Not when people are being discriminated against.

March 27 at 2:07pm · Edited · Like · 1

I. Some opinions are wrong. This is one of them. If you think it's a hetero tradition good for you. I also think people who wear crocs are stupid but I don't go around complaining about it.

March 27 at 1:10pm · Like · 1

J. I support people as human beings... plain and simple.... Just sayin..

March 27 at 1:35pm · Like · 1

K. I am so very saddened that this is your opinion - and by the way what does that make straight couples who cannot physically have children and get married? By your definition they do not have the right to marry either...

March 27 at 2:05pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

L..

March 27 at 2:11pm · Like

M. Seriously, the gays get everything: fashion, hair styling, awesome parties, and much much more. Do we really want to give them marriage too? Come on!

March 27 at 2:20pm · Like · 1

N. Government should have nothing to do marriage. Gay marriage is a politcal football that is tossed about to gain fame and influence over American citizens. We SHOULD instead be focusing our efforts on returning to our American hertiage of strong industry, innovation, and healthy values. America is done for...

March 27 at 2:56pm · Like · 1

O. Without reading the extreme blind flaming from some of the comments on this thread, I UNDERSTAND what you're saying, however, the benefits and legality of marriage change the game, as far as what it means to be married. That and the social aspect of "getting married" as a whole has changed as well... lol

March 27 at 3:10pm · Like

O. Marriage is not simply for people who plan on mating, lol. It is broadly defined, and does and does not cover children, both adopted and... born of the couple >.>

March 27 at 3:12pm · Like

O. I can very much understand the fight for being able to LEGALLY marry, but the title carries no weight for me.

March 27 at 3:13pm · Like

O. And B needs to calm the hell down, lol. Do you even know A in person? Surely you wouldn't flip the fuck out if you did. Jumping down someone's throat for something you believe in doesn't help anyone. It pisses them off and gets you angry. >.>

March 27 at 3:15pm · Like · 3

A. guys, I am straight, and god damned proud. Is that a crime? I think marriage is based on a family type structure. I think marraige is the beginning of a great family, with a man and a woman, having children. I think it EXCLUDES gay couples. In life, you can't get everything you want. This is what I believe.

March 27 at 3:18pm · Like

A. Do I have gay friends? Hell yeah. Are they cool, good people. Hell yeah.

March 27 at 3:18pm · Like

O. Oh shit A is trolling right now

March 27 at 3:19pm · Like

A. so sorry for standing up for what I believe in. When you marry some one of the opposite sex, you are taking on the repsonsibility of kids. Gay people aren't. They shouldnt get the same title if they don't have the same responsibilities. They can't have sex- for me that's a big deal.

March 27 at 3:22pm · Like · 1

O. People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious. Marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment. Polygamous marriages may also occur in spite of national laws.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. Forced marriages are illegal in some jurisdictions

March 27 at 3:24pm · Like

K. A, You still haven't addressed infertile straight couples - by your argument they shouldn't be allowed to marry either - do you really agree with that too? And what defines sex? Isn't anal sex called so for a reason?

March 27 at 3:35pm via mobile · Like

A. sex- a male depositing sperm into a females vagina (the necessary steps for creating a baby). That is how I define sex. I sill use the term oral sex and anal sex etc., but sex is still that basic thing. I think allowing gay couples to marry cheapens marraige for straight couples, because gay couples do no have the burden of kids. They CANNOT start a family naturally. I think that marriage is linked to family. Gay people can't create a family. There for they can not be married.

March 27 at 3:49pm · Like

A. and as far as infertility- that is rare. It is being worked on, and there are several ways to work around it, if I am not mistaken. And if a couple is infertle, i still think they should be allowed to marry. Because one day their infertility may be treatable. And it is tradition for a man and woman to marry, so they should be allowed to.

March 27 at 3:50pm · Like

O. Wait wait wait, so you're saying, that people who DO NOT WISH to bear children, AT ALL, for ANY REASON during the course of their marriage, should NOT be allowed to marry?

March 27 at 3:51pm · Unlike · 1

O. THIS is what you mean?

March 27 at 3:52pm · Like

O. Because it sounds a lot better to me, like that

March 27 at 3:52pm · Like

A. no no, because they could accidentally have kids. It is there responsibility to use that power at their best discretion. It's like giving people in police uniforms water pistols instead of actual ones, but then still having to call them cops

March 27 at 3:53pm · Like · 1

O. YOU ARE SO TROLLING RIGHT NOW

March 27 at 3:53pm · Like

A. not trolling bro, I swear, but I am not going to lie, I like getting a rise out of people. That may make me a jerk lol

March 27 at 3:55pm · Like

O. That's trolling

March 27 at 3:57pm · Unlike · 1

O. That is NEARLY the very definition of trolling

March 27 at 3:57pm · Like

A. nearly

March 27 at 3:57pm · Like

O. And you just meta trolled, by trolling about trolling

March 27 at 3:57pm · Unlike · 2

O. What

March 27 at 3:57pm · Like

A. I didnt state my argument mearly to get a rise out of people, but that was a side effect, one which I am not necessarily upset about

March 27 at 4:05pm · Like

A. we need to have a straight-pride parade

March 27 at 4:07pm · Like · 5

A. "I", how is an opinion wrong? And how is footwear related to what we're talking about?

March 27 at 4:10pm · Like

K. I like how you're my "friend" and yet if I find the girl of my dreams you are telling me I don't have the right to marry her, or legally be at her side if she gets in some horrific accident and is in the hospital - how two-faced of you...

March 27 at 4:17pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

A. i think you should be entitled to all the legal rights as a hetero married couple with a same sex spouse. There should be paperwork that allows this. But do not call it marriage. that is a heterosexual tradition

March 27 at 4:20pm · Like

A. why do gay couples need the validation of something that is a heterosexual tradition?

March 27 at 4:21pm · Like

A. why do you have to come and tell me that what used to be a right of me and heterosexual brothers and sisters is now your right, without me putting up a fight?

March 27 at 4:22pm · Like

K. So you believe in "separate but equal" okay so segregation is the way!!!

March 27 at 4:23pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

K. Because the last time that mindset was used it worked out so well

March 27 at 4:25pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

A. i never said they are equal, i did say they are separate. we need a different term besides marraige for the gays. why can't we co exist with two different arrangements, marraige and civil unions, for example? Why do we need to accomodate gay people into a hetersexual tradition? Show a little respect for the tradition and ritual of marraige. I am not being a smart ass, I don't see the need for you to be

March 27 at 4:26pm · Like · 1

A. it's kinda ironic because you are trying to celebrate peoples diversity, and so am i, but you insist on grouping everyone together into one tradition

March 27 at 4:27pm · Like

H. K, he isn't trying to make you sit in the back of the bus or go to separate schools...the comparison is a bit extreme

March 27 at 4:29pm · Like

K. That's a cute way to spin the argument - and you just said in a prior comment that gays should be entitled to all the same stuff, just call it something different - i.e. the DEFINITION of separate but equal - you'd realize it if you were paying attention to what you're saying genius

March 27 at 4:30pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

K. He was the one that defined it as such H, not me, I'm just pointing out what he's saying

March 27 at 4:31pm via mobile · Like

A. if you want to take marragie from me, and tell me that two people getting togehter, but never having to worry about having children and the responsibilites that arise as a direct result, is the same, then I will forever disagree with you.

March 27 at 4:32pm · Like

K. I'm done because clearly nothing good can continue from this - close-minded people sometimes cannot wrap their brains around reality - there are so many holes in your argument that you are completely ignoring - I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall at this point

March 27 at 4:34pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

K. Because kids define marriage of course how could I not see it before!

March 27 at 4:35pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

A. kids define family. Marraige starts family.

March 27 at 4:35pm · Like

H. And why question his friendship which is what you did in a previous post if he agrees with gays having the same legal rights? There is a different title for our lifestyles so what is the huge problem with a different title?

March 27 at 4:35pm · Like

K. I guess in some countries little kids can marry...

March 27 at 4:36pm via mobile · Like

A. lol

March 27 at 4:36pm · Like

A. gay people do not have the same responsbility as straight people, and need to recognize and appreciate that

March 27 at 4:37pm · Like

K. I think that's a cop-out - and a huge one at that

March 27 at 4:38pm via mobile · Like

H. I guess you weren't really done...

March 27 at 4:39pm · Like

A. i disagree. And will continue to do so. So we will have to wait for the day it comes to vote

March 27 at 4:39pm · Like · 1

P. I respect your opinion A, but like my mom used to say any dumbass can have a baby....

Marriage is a tradition but unfortunately like most traditions they grow, alter and change with modern times.

March 27 at 4:40pm via mobile · Like

K. And H, how is it that different? A minority group lobbying for equal rights and getting a "separate but equal" speech? Yeah worlds apart

March 27 at 4:40pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

H. I'm not opposed to gay people having the right to get married. I just found this thread ridiculous because of all of the angry responses. People are far less likely to try and see someone else's point of view when being personally insulted and cussed at...

March 27 at 4:42pm · Like

P. I'm reading you arguments A and you have touched s ome

March 27 at 4:44pm via mobile · Like

P. Some valid points*

March 27 at 4:44pm via mobile · Like

ME. No, P, he hasn't. All he has said is that marriage is about giving birth and sex is about depositing sperm into a vagina. These arguments have no basis in reality and are potentially dangerous. What about sex with a condom, that's not sex? It's not depositing sperm into a vagina. Does that mean if a guy rapes a woman but wears a condom it's not really rape because it's not really sex? You can tell me this is irrelevant, and sure it's tangential, but when you make an argument to define something you should be thinking of the ramifications of your definition.

Here's some reality: marriage is not about sex. It's not about children. Some people get married because they want to have children, sure, but most people get married because they love each other and want make a commitment to the other person that will be recognized by the people around them and afford them the safeties and opportunities that marriage provides. One of those opportunities is having a socially approved family unit that includes children, but there are MANY, MANY child-less married couples, and many, many more who have had children by invitro or adoption or surrogates. These methods of having children can and are also used by gay and lesbian couples. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. And infertility is an issue a lot of people face, actually. There are many more people (like my sister, happily married for 5 years) who do not want kids, and those people have every right not to want kids, but still want to be married. Because the two things are NOT the same.

March 27 at 11:00pm · Edited · Like · 2

P. He made a point and supported it, I acknowledged his opinion for what it is A OPINION which everyone is entitled to.

I didn't say I had the same beliefs on said issue.

March 27 at 5:32pm via mobile · Like

ME. Also, A, check your privilege. You have never, and will never, face any kind of adversity for being attracted to and wanting relationships with women. Maybe you should recognize how lucky you already are and stop trying to horde even more rights and priveleges for yourself.

March 27 at 11:00pm · Edited · Like

ME. P, I understand that. You said he had "valid" points which is basically saying that his points were logical, supportable, and realistic. I'm saying, while he had points that he has argued, and yes he is entitled to his opinion, I don't agree that those points are valid and stated my opinion. It wasn't meant as an attack on you at all, I just wanted to say how I think his arguments are flawed and contain logical failings.

March 27 at 5:39pm · Like

Q. Marriage and children don't necessarily go hand in hand. Ultimately it all comes down equal rights for ALL. It's not up to you to speculate what ones responsibilities are. Marriage is not something most couples commit to based on their responsibly to one another, but rather an elective ceremony that even heterosexuals rely on to validate their relationships. To use the argument of tradition is the worst route to take because tradition is usually antiquated & is the way it is simply bc it always has been- which is the problem in this scenario. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as you do not have to agree with homos getting married. But has it ever occurred to you that your opinion shouldn't determine whether a couple can get married or not? Just bc you don't approve doesn't equal them not having the right.

There was a time when women didn't have the right to vote. People thought it was a tradition strictly for men & that women couldn't handle such responsibility. Isn't that crazy?...and all too familiar

P.S. The strong union needed to raise said children does not require marriage.

March 27 at 5:40pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

K. Q, those are some great points - if it was truly as traditionalized as A thinks it would still be called hand fasting!!

March 27 at 5:43pm via mobile · Like

P. Valid points from his stand point, he was raised with traditional values where men and women have traditional roles his argument supports that.

March 27 at 5:45pm via mobile · Like

H. He said they should have the same legal benefits. Yes, women were not able to vote. Had they said "now you can but we are going to call it something else" would it really matter what it was called? As long as my "vote", no matter what label it had, counted as much as anyone else's then what difference does it make?

March 27 at 5:45pm · Like

H. "Maybe you should recognize how lucky you already are and stop trying to horde even more rights and privileges for yourself." So he is so very lucky that he has that natural instinct to procreate?...

March 27 at 5:50pm · Like

ME. H and A, on the separate but equal issue I'm just going to say what I've said in an earlier post:

As long as we have one set of rights for straight people and another set of rights for LGBT people, LGBT people are considered less in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the public.

It's a necessary step for homosexual relationships to be recognized as just as valid and fulfilling as straight ones. It's their relationships, after all, that are the only thing that actually makes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people different from heterosexuals. Saying those relationships don't deserve the exact same recognition as straight people's is the entire crux of the problem that allows people to see and treat homosexuals as fundamentally different, as less.

The title of married is important, too, as opposed to civil union-ed or whatever else, because "seperate but equal" as everyone really should understand by now, is not at all equal. It just perpetuates the othering of people and deepens the divides.

March 27 at 5:54pm · Like

H. I am not on the "separate but equal" band wagon. Your arguments, as well as his, have flaws. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though. A flaw in your argument is that you say you hear that he wants equal rights legally yet you say, and I quote, " A person's discomfort at someone else having a marriage that doesn't fit with the idea they grew up with of what a marriage was doesn't even come close to trumping that 'someone else's' right to equality under the law".

March 27 at 6:00pm · Like

ME. "Instinct to procreate" =/= heterosexuality. You can be heterosexual and have no desire to procreate (I can even name you some people), you can be homosexual and have a strong desire to procreate (again, can name you some people). You can be infertile and want or not want children. Sexual preference is not a function of child-bearing desire or capability. Neither is love. I take issue with your using the word "natural". By using it you imply, whether you mean to or not, that homosexuality is "unnatural". The lack of desire to reproduce occurs in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature so implying that one way of being is natural while these are not is just categorically untrue.

March 27 at 6:00pm · Like

H. If humans did not have the instinct to mate with the opposite sex then we would become extinct. Yes, I believe it is an instinct most people are born with in order to ensure the continuation of the species. I agree that many people do not want the responsibility of children but that is a different topic.

March 27 at 6:03pm · Like

ME. "Equality under the law" refers to how the rights are named as well as what they are, it goes back to the separate but equal issue. Mainly though, I wrote that post before he said he would afford homosexual couples the same rights. If you scroll back through the comments you can read the original post in full. Thank you for pointing that out.

March 27 at 6:04pm · Like

H. That being said I have nothing against people being gay. I have nothing against couples that do not want children...in fact I think too many people have children they either don't want or cant support. It is not meant as an insult, but we do have many instincts for survival.

March 27 at 6:07pm · Unlike · 2

ME. I understand that, I do. I honestly didn't think you meant to imply it, but as I've said before what we intend to say and what we actually say don't always line up, and I just meant to point out that this was one of those cases, especially in the context of this thread. To your earlier point, I do think he should feel lucky to be straight. I do. I'm glad I don't have to deal with being downgraded as a person or a citizen of my country, I don't have to be afraid of someone trying to hurt me physically or emotionally or sexually simply because of who I am attracted to or who I love, I don't have to worry about the social stigma or coming out to my parents, I don't have to have people say "you're cool and all, but you can't have the same opportunities that I have." I feel lucky that I will be able, if I choose, to marry the person that I love. I shouldn't have to feel lucky about this though. Being straight and being cisgendered and being white and being American are all things that I am lucky for. I did nothing to earn the freedom from discrimination these things have given me. Neither has anyone who is not one of those things done anything to earn any form of discrimination they get. It does not mean I am apologizing for the way I was born, just that I can recognize that I was lucky. Because I am.

March 27 at 6:22pm · Like

H. You twisted it though. You then went on to talk about desires rather than instincts. Many people do not desire to have children, yet the instinct to procreate is there hence the need for birth control.

March 27 at 6:34pm · Like

R. I think it's a very interesting take you have on the issue. It is true that there are a lot of traditions that for hundreds of years have only acknowledged a man and a woman to enter into an arrangement of marriage. But if we look to western history of marriage and the influences that have caused that definition to change even within the realm of a single man and single woman being able to enter into this arrangement, we find that it's not nearly as cut and dry. Ancient Athens was a special period, a citizen was expected to take a wife and raise a family, but also allowed for homosexual relationships on the side, especially with boys. If we look to ancient Jewish practice, we see that in many cases, one wife was indeed expected, but for royalty, concubines and other legal means of bedding more than one women were allowed, encouraged, and looked up to. So we can say something like, "well, things have changed now, and our concept of marriage is now defined to mean: the singular relationship between one man and one woman legally bound by the state and acknowledged at the federal level for taxation purposes and legal rights to the spouses aforementioned agreements. Like medical rights to a partners' last will and testament." if we look at it that way, it is a bit harder to justify historical context, seeing as many of these ideas are a modern take on legality and rights. Minor caveat, not all straight couples can produce children. If you want the definition to really work the way I have assumed you assumed it, we should try to really consider the consequences of said definition. In summation: historically it's not quite that cut and dry, the definition has changed throughout varying cultures and times, (sometimes dramatically), and the definition in the original comment is not full enough to encompass the implications thereof.

March 27 at 7:15pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

A. Thanks everyone for your input. It has really caused me to think and re consider my original stance. This is a complex issue that hits a deep chord with a lot of people. I don't have a lot of experience in debate, or in forming my ideas and thoughts clearly into words, but my main point is, that I have a strong feeling about family. Man meets woman, falls in love, share their genes, create a child, and the cycle of life continues. I just have a really deep-set idea of family and marraige and how it relates to kids, if that makes any sense. I think it is a life-long commitment and straight couples must grapple with the "kid" issue a lot, and it deserves our respect and attention. Gay people have to worry about stds, so I am not saying they can have all the sex they want and not worry about it. Gay people can get people pregnant too so I know that technically they have to worry about that also. I know the definition of marraige has included some ridiculous aspects as ashley and others have pointed out. I hope we all learned something. I will continue to think on the issue. I appreciate all the well thought out, personal opinions that were shared. I, as you, want everyone to live as peacefully as possible. Thanks again.

March 27 at 7:29pm · Unlike · 3

R. By the by, absolutely nothing wrong about wanting strong family units whose focus is the children and raising them to be responsible adults. I think it's wonderful that people still find that an important aspect of what it means to have a family.

March 27 at 7:33pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

ME. H, I don't think that there's necessarily a clear distinction to be made between instinct and desire in this case (I've generally considered wants for sexual and romantic contact desires, just ones often independent of the desire to procreate), but I definitely understand what you're saying. Your original statement is still problematic to me, though. Generally speaking I think it's best to not assume that someone having a non-heteronormative desire or identity should be considered somehow missing something or in some- even very minor- way less human or less useful or any such thing because 1) since we don't really definitively understand that much about how people tick it IS assumptive, 2) it can oversimplify the complexity and variety of human experience, and 3) it can be expanded upon in a very negative way. I'm really not trying to blame you or imply anything about your character or even say that you're necessarily wrong, I hope you understand, I just wanted to explain the way I see it and that I think your phrasing was problematic. I didn't intend to twist what you were saying, but I was coming at your statement with a history of hearing the "it's unnatural" argument and the perception, like I hope I explained above, that "instinct" and "desire" are pretty much interchangeable in this particular case.

March 27 at 11:04pm · Edited · Like

H. I did not say that not having the normal instinct to reproduce made anyone "less human" or "less useful". People over time evolve and there are mutations. Do I think Mila Kunis or Kate Bosworth are "less human" because they both have a genetic mutation that causes their eyes to be different colors? No. They are both absolutely beautiful women with or without the mutation. Not normal doesn't equal bad.

Thursday at 12:29am · Like

H. That may not have come out right or even made sense...im like half asleep so I should have waited to respond to that tomorrow...lol

Thursday at 12:34am · Like

ME. The "less human" or "less useful" thing was more an example of how the idea can be expanded upon negatively, and with all the talk above about the "responsibility to reproduce" it seemed relevant in the context of the thread. I understand what you mean and we're really in agreement here, as far as I can tell. I'm sorry I was putting words in your mouth, I didn't mean it that way. I just meant it as an example of how the "they don't have this human/natural/normal thing (in this case, instinct)" can be a problematic way to look at or describe someone (even unintentionally) who is different unless you know for sure what's causing that difference. It's hard to do though, I know, and I don't mean to be nit picking or to gang up on you, I just want there not to be ambiguity that could lead other people who see this thread to come away with the idea or feel supported in the idea that homosexuals are unnatural or missing something or in some way less than heterosexuals.

Thursday at 2:58am · Like · 1

H. My point right now is that I don't feel I should have to walk on eggshells or tip toe around using certain words because it brings up emotions related to what you have heard people with extreme views say. I am not them. I personally would vote for gay marriage BUT everyone has their own opinion and as long as it is not hurting anyone then I'm fine with that. A did not personally attack individuals in his original post but right off the bat he started getting insulted and cussed at. For one, that is not the way to change anyone's opinion. Secondly, things will change with or without A's approval. The only reason I posted to begin with on this thread is because of the angry insulting comments that got posted at first. I am not seeing that anymore so you're right, we probably are in agreement.

Thursday at 12:04pm · Edited · Like

ME. I agree with you that angry comments and attacks aren't helpful and undeserved. Which is why I went back and removed the "freaking" from my comment, which I wrote in frustration over some of A's response comments. I know it doesn't undo it, but I was genuinely pissed off by some of what he said and the implications thereof. I would say, too, in defense of B (who I don't know) since all of you also pretty much jumped on her immediately, she said, "I love my partner of two years and I look forward to our future together, we will be married one day and have children...despite the roadblocks we face because of small-minded folks like yourself." Which I take to mean she is in a homosexual relationship, herself.

If someone you knew, who had an opportunity that you didn't -- not because they worked for it or earned it in any way, not for any other reason but how they were born -- was saying that you -- soley because of how you were born -- shouldn't ever have that opportunity, would your first response to that really be gentle and calm? If someone told you you couldn't marry the person you love if you choose to make that commitment, that wouldn't offend you personally, or piss you off at all?

You're right that A didn't attack anyone, but when you're advocating denying another person something that you have, soley on the basis that they were born different from you, if you are the person they are denying the opportunity to it's probably going to feel like an attack. I am not saying that her comment was right, or helpful, or that A deserved it or anything, but I think assuming that the people who got offended are just over sensitive, angry jerks isn't fair or helpful either.

On the "walking on eggshells" thing. Whether you like it or not, people come into conversations with baggage and what you or anyone else says is filtered through that baggage, so I'm just advocating that when someone talks about another group of people and difficult issues that effect people's lives they try and think about how what they're saying can be misinterpreted, and other people try and make sure they're understanding correctly too (which is what I was trying to do). You don't have to do it, but I doubt I was the only person who would have jumped to the wrong conclusion about some of the things you said. Again, I wasn't intending to say you were against gay marriage or in any way at all homophobic, just to point out how the thing you said could be badly misinterpreted. And again, I'm sorry if it felt like I was putting words in your mouth and misrepresenting you. That wasn't my intent.

Thursday at 4:33pm · Like

H. There is a difference between being offended and losing control over your emotions causing you to personally insult and attack. A is an adult so I'm sure he can handle insults so mainly my point was that attacking and cussing at someone is not going to get the same result as a calm, level headed response. I do not consider "freaking" a cuss word, nor did I ever say that your responses were personal attacks on A. Also, I did not ever say that people that got offended were over sensitve, angry jerks.

Thursday at 4:43pm · Like · 1

A. Why should gay people get the same title, if they don't have the same responsibilities? I think they should get benefits if they chose to share their lives together, such as hospital visitation, tax-breaks, etc. But just as staright people need to respect and appreciate their love for eachother, gay people need to respect straight couples also.

Friday at 9:56am · Edited · Like · 1

A. hope I don't seem like thishttp://www.upworthy.com/a-stand-up-comedian-sums-up-the-gay-rights-debate-in-30-seconds?c=ufb1

A Stand-Up Comedian Sums Up The Gay Rights Debate In 30 Seconds

www.upworthy.com

Why can't the truth always be this hilarious?

Friday at 10:02am · Like

ME. Because the responsibility of marriage isn't living with the potential to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. For one, that is a responsibility that exists outside of marriage also. For two, that responsibility is absent from many straight marriages as well.

The responsibility of marriage is in committing yourself to another person, in loving and caring for and respecting them even when times are hard, even when you are furious with them. The responsibility is in choosing to spend your life supporting them, letting them support you, and working together even when it feels impossible. That is the responsibility you take on when you say "I do," in fact, it is written into most vows. And it is exactly the same for homosexual couples.

The responsibility of bringing a child into your family and raising them is also present for homosexual couples. They may get more of a choice in when,how, or if it happens than some straight couples end up getting (or less, if they live somewhere that refuses to let them adopt), but like I said earlier, the major responsibility of having a child is in raising that child (and I don't, by the way, take the pregnancy or giving birth part lightly at all, but that is -if we're being this cynical in assigning responsibility - a woman's responsibility, not a man's, gay or straight. Lesbians can get pregnant (hello, invitro) as well.)

Here is the thing, A. I understand that your definition includes the responsibility of producing and having children in the traditional way (and I really hope that you and your future spouse are both capable of living up to that, if that's what you want). That's completely fine, as long as your partner is on board. You should be able to define your relationship in the way that is most meaningful and relevant to you and your partner (so long as you're not hurting anyone) and have that relationship respected and the responsibilities you take on together acknowledged and appreciated. The thing is, the same holds true -not just for you- for everyone.

I fail to see how gay people are disrespecting straight couples by wanting for their relationships to be given the same validity as straight people's. Am I disrespecting you when I say that as a woman, I should have a vote, too, and that it should be called a vote, and count the same? And yes, to the commenter who mentioned this, if my vote were called something else, I would be freaking upset by that. Because it implies that just because I have a few different parts, my choices and decisions and civil responsibilities are somehow fundamentally different from yours. This is divisive, it allows people to focus only on differences, and differences are frequently read, whether we intend to or not, as strange, as scary, and/or as something that makes that person less than us. The words "savage" and "uncivilized" have pretty much been defined by this principal.

If we give them the rights, but call it something else, we are focusing on the differences only, and giving license for everyone to do the same. We are sending the message to them and the people who would do them harm that homosexuals/bisexuals are strange, they are scary, they are less. That is the message you send, whether mean to and whether you mean the sentiment. If you really fail to see setting up an entire group of people for continued persecution as a human rights issue that trumps the need to hold onto traditional definitions (especially of something that is in actuality, changing all the time), then I just plain don't understand you.

Meanwhile, you will still be able to define your relationship exactly the way that you and your partner choose. You can include making babies in your vows, even.

Gay people want to be able to call themselves married for the same reason that straight people do. The word has significance. It has power. It represents a social acceptance, but also a stage in a relationship. It's signifies security in their commitments to one another. It is, as Edie Windsor said, a magic word.

You are not respecting LGBQ people's love as much as you respect your own and that of other straight people when you deny them the word. It's as simple as that, really. And they are not disrespecting you - they're taking nothing away from your future marriage or your parent's marriage or anyone else's- by wanting the same right to the word. You still get to define it for you, your parents get to define it for themselves, etc.

You just don't get to define other people's relationships for them.

Yesterday at 12:55am · Edited · Like

ME. And A, in response to your second comment: I don't think you do, but that doesn't mean that what your saying isn't problematic.

Yesterday at 1:07am · Edited · Like

S. I can't believe someone actually believes in the can't accidentally have children argument. That is the most asinine attempt I have ever heard of. How many people have kids out of wedlock? Just because a couple has the physical makings to be parents doesn't mean that they are any better at it. Nor does it mean that they have any greater right over any other couple.

15 hours ago · Like

S. Seriously, why don't we just take away a woman's right to vote while we're at it. I mean, we can't carry the same weight as men so obviously we don't deserve the same freedoms, am I right?

15 hours ago · Like

A. Everyone who is a citizen should have the right to vote. Gay people are regular people- they are just as good at raising a child as a straight person. Being gay does not affect anything but your sexual preference, which is completely unrelated to anything moral, so I don't see how it would affect their ability to raise children, and I never stated otherwise. Why is it tradition for a couple to wait to have sex before getting married? Answer that question for me please. Thank you, I hope to continue this discussion.

6 hours ago · Like

T. I like how the argument comparing Gays right to marry is mentioned on the level of SLAVERY. If you have made that point, you are more ignorant than the traditionalist bigots you bash.

5 hours ago via mobile · Like

ME. Who has compared it to slavery?

3 minutes ago · Like

[EDIT: A. wrote back into the thread the other day with this:

"[ME], and anyone interested, I have changed my mind and think that gay people should be allowed to be married. Their love for eachother can and should be celebrated, in any way they see fit, so long as it does not interfere with another persons rights, which it really shouldn't. If I am not mistaken there are benefits for married couples with children that gay or infertile couples will not receive, and rightfully so. A title is just a title, and people rearing a child, whether married or not, is a feat which speaks for itself and a legal title will not change the work that adult did in raising that child. No one can force a man to stay with a woman he impregnates, only he can, and his actions will speak for themselves."]

New Year, Same Fears

2013-02-14T09:11:25Z

So I just found out that my school is now offering an apprenticeship program.

It's a two or three year long paid internship that counts towards the practicum and co-opperative education credits I need for my degree and, although spots are very limited, there are a few positions for baking/pastry. It's full time work (I could even get benefits after 6 months, although being 22 and still on my dad's insurance that admittedly isn't a huge draw for me at this time) and you take 2-3 courses a semester so that by the time the internship ends, I would also be graduating. And it sounds... amazing. You rotate between positions starting with an orientation and covering product knowledge and identification, purchasing and receiving practices, presentation and display, breads, pastries, frozen desserts, cake decorating, chocolate and candy work, sugar showpiece production, supervisory training, and relevant kitchen work (non-baking).

It's perfect. And since I've been striking out trying to find some relevant job for my internship requirements on my own... if I got this, it would be amazing. Everything solved. Sort of.

Because there's still a problem. And it's really the only problem (besides the fact that I may not get it). Me.

The idea of working a 40 hour week and going to two classes a semester may not be super daunting to most people, but to me, as someone who has struggled (and still does, to a lesser extent) with agoraphobia, this is a somewhat terrifying proposition. And I have this history of screwing up massively when it comes to having any real personal responsibility for things, even when they are things that I want and am passionate about. It is really hard not to look at this and just see myself failing in it.

The other problem of me is my lack of license. Since I have no idea where I would be working (and the likelihood is it would not be particularly nearby), I don't know if I'd be able to get there without a car. And not only do I not have a car, that time when everyone I know (and every normal person) was out doing their driver's test, I was in the middle of a mental breakdown so getting that bit plastic was basically the furthest thing from my mind. Texas is not an easy place to live without a license, even in the city. For example, if I were to be working around DFW (where there are many large hotels and such), I live about 25 miles away. Getting there via public transportation, however, takes over two hours (and that's during peak service hours). So that's fun.

Finally, it would mean committing to two to three more years here, in a city that I largely can't relate to that is thousands of miles away from anyone and everyone that I love. Admittedly, I'm going to be here at least-- at LEAST-- another year and a half anyway, but somehow this seems more damning.

And mostly I just really want to talk to someone I know about this, someone who loves me and understands how complicated this is for me but I haven't been able to yet. It's an amazing opportunity and I know I need to at least try, I'm just... scared. I don't trust myself.

I want so badly to be an adult who is able to take care of myself and have (hopefully) at least somewhat fulfilling or interesting work. Who can put money (any amount of money) into savings instead of constantly having to pull it out to make up rent or tuition or the price of a textbook. I just want to be able to do something real, something I can say when people ask me what I do, something I can point to and say that I did it and I didn't screw up or back out or let my fear get the best of me yet again.

It's just really hard. And it's even worse because I feel like it isn't this hard for a lot of other people. I know it's not this hard for my sister, because she is not that good of an actress. It sucks coming from a family of successful people. I mean, thank god for my step siblings for actually not having their lives figured out because the rest of my family (sans my mom who got so screwed in the divorce she's still struggling to get some stability back) is so on track that I just can't believe what a loser I am by comparison. Don't get me wrong, I am so happy for them and they all have earned it. I just... why am I not like that? Why can't I just do stuff and get on with it without having to analyze everything three hundred times and second guess myself into a literal panic attack over every minute detail of my human existence? I want to be someone I can trust to do the things I want to do and not worry myself to insanity over every tiny potential mistake.

In other, less serious news, here are the things I have fallen in love with in the year 2013 so far:

- The second season of Sherlock (Why did I wait so long to watch it? Why?!)

- Breaking Bad (I really did not think I would like this but oh my god, it is unbelievably amazing)

- The big, comfy blue sweater, long necklace, and super comfy leggings I got for Christmas (also the mini tart pans, oh man)

- The Green brothers -- mainly Crash Course (World History is my fav!) and The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, although I'm going through some of the vlogbrothers/brothers2.0 stuff too and it's awesome. I also really want to read "The Fault in Our Stars" and John Green's other books now.

- Theo Jansen's strandbeest (although this actually goes back to last year for me, it's too awesome not to mention)

- Liz Lawrence

- This video A.K.A the best PSA ever

I also just realized it's Valentine's day. BOO.

Possibly Unpopular Opinion on the Hot-Dudeness of Harry Potter in Fanfiction

2012-11-26T00:08:52Z

WHY do people insist on changing Harry's appearance for no reason in fanfiction? He's got to always be some super buff (while simultaneously skinny/scrawny?) teenager who's over six feet tall and has long, flowing hair. No he isn't. No he doesn't. Where did this obsession with long hair = sexy dude come from anyway? Because I don't understand it. I don't know anyone who does. Harry having longer hair during the horcrux hunt? Okay, fine. They were in a tent. But that's the only time during the books that this is an acceptable situation to me. The buff-ness thing I don't understand. Yes, I think he is in shape. He clearly has to be, what with all the spell dodging and running away from psychopaths and so forth, but in shape does not equal Greek-god-bodybuilder-man. And yet, people seem obsessed with just arbitrarily changing him into some Fabio character sans birds-exploding-in-face. Stop it. Please stop this ridiculous trope. It's weird. It's unnecessary. It kind of creeps me out.

Harry can be a hero and be desirable to other characters while not being super tall or built like a brick wall, while having short sticky-outy hair instead of long flowing locks, while wearing glasses and probably having a bit of a case of chicken legs. I'm sorry, I thought that was part of the point. He wasn't supposed to be traditionally stud-like because most actual heroes aren't like gods. People can be attractive and have love interests (even attractive love interests!) without looking like they came out of a magazine ad or the cover of a romance novel. I'm pretty sure J.K. was making a point about this. So why, oh why, is fandom so dead set and tearing that point to shreds and forcing Harry Potter to conform to ridiculous beauty standards?

Stop it. It's not cool.

P.S. to everyone who does not do this: THANK YOU.

Why do I ever try to talk to my father?

2012-11-21T00:00:26Z

So.

I came back from class to an email entitled: "Your comment about the use of false IDs not amounting much"

Which was... supposed to be in relation to what I had said about voter ID laws in a conversation a few weeks ago. I don't think he really got the message seeing as I'm 100% certain the term "false IDs" never crossed my lips, nor does it have anything to do with what I was talking about, but OK.

Also, just to be clear, when you get to it, I'm not meaning to say Romney supporters are racist, sexist, and homophobic. I don't believe that at all. I know there are some, just are there are some crazy and awful people behind every politician. I wouldn't have even brought that into things if it weren't for the fact that my dad is racist, sexist, and homophobic. What I'm saying is that a lot of the message from the GOP was rooted in the same ideologies from decades past when those things were entrenched in the culture, and the GOP played on the fears generations of people were brought up to have despite the fact that they are grossly unfair and unfounded.

Alright. Down the rabbit hole we go:

On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:45 AM, My Father wrote:

Look up St. Lucie Florida election results. It seems that 280% of the voters in the district voted.

- Dad

From: Me
Subject: Re: Your comment about the use of false IDs not amounting much
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:42:01 -0600
To: My Father

I have to say my first reaction to this email was: Oh my god, Florida is having problems with the vote count? Shocking! It's not like there's a precedent for Florida... having vote counting problems. Clearly it must be an obscene and unprecedented amount of voter fraud.

If it is, in fact, a matter of voter fraud then it is unprecedented, at least according to the ACLU and a few other reports I saw when the voter ID issue was hitting Texas.

It may well be a horrible amount of voter fraud, but considering it's Florida, who's had some sort of MASSIVE voting failure every major election since I'm old enough to remember, I'm inclined to hold off on definitively believing that it must be voter fraud-- especially since that's such a hot button issue right now that I'm sure there are A LOT of people gleefully jumping to conclusions about what happened without all of the information.

I wasn't talking about false IDs at all, for the record, though. I was saying that from what I'd read, voter fraud was being blown out of proportion-- being turned into some sort of rampant problem corroding the US -- when the evidence has not been there to back it up. That supposedly a lot of the voter fraud that does exist has been found to not have been willful but the result of voters' mistakes or mistakes made by others. That while it might be a problem, it is not the epidemic people were making it out to be in the year before this election. Which means it does not come close to justifying the creation of a form of poll tax-- which is ILLEGAL. Requiring state IDs, which cost money (and can take a ridiculous amount of time to procure -- at least mine did) creates a poll tax. You can't have a functioning democracy while requiring people to pay to perform their civic duty. The fact that a politician in PA actually came out and said, point blank, that voter ID laws would "win the state for Romney" shows that they knew that this law would disproportionately effect certain population groups and propel their own political agenda, directly flying in the face of the purpose and function of democracy, and that voter fraud was not the main target driving their actions, but a desire to suppress voters. The only way a voter ID law should be able to pass in this country is if state IDs are free, which I don't think is something that states can exactly afford. So even if this was a case of massive voter fraud, and even if there turns out to be a lot more of this this election and voter fraud becomes a real, pressing issue, they're going to have to find a different way to deal with it.

Basically, this is awful, but it's also ultimately irrelevant to the issue of voter ID laws.

On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:01 PM, My Father wrote:

OK , everyone in the world is good and they do not do such things. The guy is right. If illegal aliens were not voting Romney would have taken 350 plus votes.

- Dad

Then I replied:

Ok, everyone in the world is a white person holding onto the ideals of a racist, sexist, and homophobic generation while clutching their copies of "Atlas Shrugged" close to their patriotic little hearts. If it weren't for you meddling illegals...!

Believe what you want to, Dad. You can belittle my beliefs until kingdom come, but they're not going to change for it. The country that I, and the vast majority of my generation, want to inherit looks nothing like the white bread horror show that the GOP was trying to serve us. Maybe you and Fox News should step down from your high horses and think about how Romney's message failed and why instead of just looking for other people to blame.

I love you. I'm sorry if I sound like a petulant kid to you, but this is how it is. My world view is hardly the rose tinted candy land you seem to believe it is, but okay. I'm afraid you're rather alone in your beliefs among your daughters.

Please punch me in the face.

Nightmare

2012-10-27T16:03:45Z

I had a dream last night that I was in class, explaining to my communications teacher why I didn't use pictures from the database (like we were supposed to) in my presentation on Agoraphobia. The only pictures from the database that I could find were stock photos of pretty, made up, hair-did white women badly imitating "The Scream" or with make-uppy tear tracks running down their faces as they jutted out their lower lip, or-- in their only indication that they were trying to have anything to do with agoraphobia -- staring out a window forlornly with tear tracks on their faces, as if the reason they were crying was because they wanted to be out there too. I not only find this photos gimmicky and awful, but they misrepresent the disorder and make it into a joke. I refuse to let them be presented, by me, as representative of agoraphobia because I feel like hat would make me a liar. I know better. This is not what agoraphobia and panic and depression look like. First of all, if you're agoraphobic, I said, you're probably not going to be crying right in front of your window because a large part of it is not wanting to let the outside world into your sadness and anxiety. Crying in front of a window is letting it in. The same article with one of these pictures even talks about how people with agoraphobia will avoid windows and keep the blinds drawn all the time. Yeah. Way to go.

That's when a huge window appears in the back of the classroom. It's getting dark outside but from the view, you just see a couple of stone/brick buildings. I say, I love this view because it reminds me of Boston and I feel safe.

Then the view flickers out, everything is a dark, indigo blue outside and gray inside, and everyone else is gone. I'm on the ground and I realize the building is falling before it actually does, in slow motion, start to tip on its side. I roll into a ball and cover my head and neck with my arms, and the windows blow in, and the room tips and then settles. I am still roughly where I was, with no one in the room but a pile of desks at the far end and a lot of broken glass. My phone starts ringing and I dizzily reach for it. I think my mother must be calling. I imagine her in her old office at work, having a coworker come in to tell her a bomb went off in Dallas, or maybe there was some kind of natural disaster. I grab my phone and see my sister's name but it stops ringing before I can answer it. I'm dizzy, and there are some scratches on my arms from the glass but they're superficial and I think: I have to look for survivors. So I start going through the pile of desks even though everyone was gone before the building fell and I don't see anyone in there. When I find nothing, I move quickly out of the room and down a short hallway into another.

My sister is lying there, in a bed, the wrong way around. The window above her is broken and I see a few shards of glass embedded in her nose. I try to scream for her, but my voice is so hoarse it comes out as a broken whisper. I run towards her, still trying to speak, and not understanding why she's there. Then I notice her face is there, the only blood is on the cuts in her nose, but I can see through her neck and the side of her head. Her skull is broken and her brain is sitting, fully intact, on the bed beside her, looking somehow like it crawled out through the gaping hole in her neck. I scream her name over and over, still just a cracking, useless release of air, and her face turns to me and smiles this creepy, empty little smile.

And then I wake up.

To annoying group member...

2012-09-21T21:37:33Z

... in my Cooking class:

It's really awesome for you to take the brunoise that I spent 20 minutes meticulously cutting into those even 1/8" cubes without asking and throwing it into the clearmeat for the consumme. If you're too lazy to rough chop some more carrots, use your own freaking brunoise instead of stealing mine. Especially considering that yours was not 1/8" and the rest of the brunoise that we had for our group was almost the exact same as mine. Even with your carrots being the odd ones out, I would never have essentially thrown them into the trash without making sure you were okay with that first, especially since we all spent so much time today trying to learn how to get it just right. Seriously, what an unnecessarily jerkish thing to do. I was right there, all you had to do was ask. I would have chopped up some new carrots myself. It's not like the extra brunoise would have gone to waste otherwise. Considering how ridiculously and uselessly competitive you are with everyone else in that class I can't help but think you did it out of some sort of spite because my chop was a little bit smaller than yours. And why do you take so much pleasure from our consumme (which you didn't even do much for) being an infinitesimally bit clearer than another group's? You did this last week too, and then sat there and rubbed it in one girl's face that her group's soup supposedly had more problems then ours. This is not a cooking competition. We are all learning. Ours could have very easily been worse than that. Judge our work on it's own merit, not on what other people are doing.

My God, I hate Fridays. Passive aggressive post of doom.

I made a cake today...

2012-09-06T03:37:24Z

...and I'm quite chuffed about it.

I'm taking the cake decorating classes for my degree in baking and pastry this semester. Today was the third day of class and we got to work with colors (yay!). I've done some decorating before, but until this last month it had been over two years since I picked up a pastry bag.

Everyone is picking it up really quickly in the class. It's really cool to look around a room and see twenty-odd different cakes in a rainbow of colors, all looking really excellent. There were some technicolor scary ones in there too, but that's also personal preference. To me, a heavily-dyed cake is gross, and you really only see heavily saturated frosting colors in the occasional, awful, "cake wrecks" qualifying, chain grocery store cake when in New England. It seems to be a lot more common in the South. I still have bad associations though. Also, all that dye makes the frosting bitter and stains your mouth. Then you poo weird colors... no. Not a fan. They are certainly eye catching though.

Politics -- I know, I know, I'm sorry, but I just had to.

2012-08-24T09:23:48Z

I had a long -- and painfully obnoxious conversation-- with my father about Paul Ryan today. Now I admit that I am not an economist or political know it all but I also believe I keep myself better informed about these things than most people my age. This might not be saying much. Still, in general, as most people tend to do, I believe I have valid opinions.

One of these opinions is that nobody knows for sure what is actually going to save our economy right now, and the ideas that most people who actually have some authority on the subject (having studied it in depth) actually tend to agree upon are probably never going to get put in place regardless of who is in office because they tend to be extreme and would basically require overhauling everything (source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform / and proof that even when they agree with that they don't agree with that: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/26/157396666/the-disagreement-behind-our-economic-platform). Even with the best intentions, we people are not perfect and cannot predict the future.

Which is part of why I find it a bit ridiculous that my dad so steadfastly supports Paul Ryan's financial plan.

It supposedly largely relies on eliminating loopholes and arbitrary tax cuts, and even though he won't say what, which, or for whom about that I can generally agree with this sentiment -- but also more clearly relies heavily on overhauling and cutting down on social programs, financial aid programs of all kinds, and generally pushing for less government spending. The aim of this is supposedly to cut the deficit. Sounds good. Sounds excellent being of the generation that is likely going to be very affected by this deficit. But wait! There's more! Tax cuts. For the wealthy. Big ones, too, that according to the Tax Policy Center could loose over four trillion dollars in revenue over the next ten years. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?ref=paulkrugman) If that's even close to being the case then, according to Krugman, his plan would actually increase the deficit because cutting loopholes and social programs would probably not save anywhere near enough to make up the difference in this loss of revenue. Even if it is completely off the mark though and Krugman's numbers are wrong, and Ryan's plan would help the deficit, this program is still literally taking from the poor to give to the rich. Social programs would be cut in order to fund tax cuts for people and companies in the highest income brackets. And in reality, this would be regardless of whether or not they actually are "job creators" (which is a concept that I basically consider to be a huge, steaming load of malarkey any way). How is that okay?

Also, where is the precedence that shows that cutting out the safety net and the public funding helps a depression? These things were put in place in the first place to combat the great depression and prevent things from ever getting to that point again. Moreover, where is the precedence that shows that giving more money to the rich actually has a real trickle down effect, like politicians claim? Because it hasn't. Why is there this obsession with starting at the top and working our way down when it comes to fiscal policy? Obama is guilty of this too, I'm certainly not saying he isn't, and his assertion that we should be starting with the middle class is almost as ridiculous. No one, as you can see, is arguing that we start from the bottom up. Why? You'd think that would be a no-brainer. Get the people who need to the most support enough for them and their kids to have the opportunity to no longer require that support and to give back by having productive roles in their communities and produce tax revenues for the government. Lower crime, create new business, new education opportunities, lower the wage gap. Nope. Give more money to the rich in the vain hope (as we've seen time and again in the last decade) that that will actually spur them into creating more jobs for Americans, even to the degree that it will make a substantial impact in unemployment. Not only that, but do that at the expense of programs that are the only things keeping many hardworking Americans afloat (and in good-ish health).

But this economics crazy was not even what I mentioned Paul Ryan for. A lot of the details of his policies I learned today when I took my dad's advice and looked into Paul Ryan's plan. So, a little more on that later.

What I did mention was Personhood, Forced Ultrasound, "Legitimate" Rape, access to birth control, Pro-Choice, the Let Women Die bill, and cuts to Family Planning Programs. What I didn't mention was the Lily Ledbetter veto, or the health care discrimination he would re-institute.

For those of you who don't know, Personhood is a bill that would grant "personhood"-- legal rights under constitutional law -- to a zygote at the moment an egg is fertilized. At this point in time -- the time of fertilization-- a woman is not even pregnant yet. As a legally recognized person, any action that could cause harm to the zygote would be assault. Its death by will or by neglect would be murder. I'm not making this up.

Let's think of some of the repercussions here: hormonal birth control and IUDs cannot prevent fertilization; they prevent pregnancy. This is why IUDs come with warning about continued risk of ectopic pregnancies. Birth control, with the exception of condoms, diaphragms, and spermicide (and I'm pretty sure that's it except, of course, for abstinence) cannot prevent fertilization, just the ability for that fertilized egg to be accepted by the body and adhere to the uterine lining. Using any form of birth control besides condoms, diaphragms, and spermicide (those latter two in particular having a pretty low degree of effectiveness, and condoms only being 97% effective when used properly-- which a lot of the time they're not) would make you, under personhood, a murderer.

Abortions would be murder under any circumstance. Imagine being in a situation where your life was in immediate danger and you needed an abortion to save it. This is not some obscure fantasy situation, it is a medical reality that many women face. Not only would abortion not be a legal option for you and may be impossible to get -- even though you were dying and it would stop you from dying. If you did manage to get one, would you have to argue self-defense in a murder trial because of it? Because your situation is not traumatizing enough, here let's put you before a judge.

In vitro would be murder, since zygotes "die" in the process. If not willful murder, it would be murder by neglect.

What would happen to women who miscarry? To women who did something potentially dangerous to their zygote or fetus before they knew they were pregnant such as smoking or drinking or working a physically grueling job or indulging in a potentially dangerous hobby or endeavor? Where would the line actually be if we opened the door? It's terrifying to think even if you are pro-life/anti-abortion.

The idea would be that a tiny two-celled organism that only has a pretty small chance at life, all things considered, and has no humanity-- no thoughts, no feelings-- by all medical accounts, who's sole ability is to split its cells, would have the same (and realistically probably more) rights as the woman who provided half of its existence.

Why is this relevant? Paul Ryan supports it. In fact, he cosponsored a federal bill to make personhood the law in every state in America. Not only that, but going back to our hypothetical situation where-in you are pregnant and it's killing you, Ryan voted for the "Let Women Die Bill" which, in the words of Sandra Fluke, "proposed to allow hospitals to refuse a woman emergency abortion care, even if her life was in immediate danger. Currently, a federally funded hospital is required to provide at least enough care for a patient to be stabilized so that she doesn’t die and can be transferred to another hospital. The bill Ryan voted for meant that hospitals wouldn’t even have had to do that." (source: http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/15/13301064-sandra-fluke-paul-ryan-on-womens-issues-so-bad-its-unbelievable-but-true?lite)

I hope everyone knows about Forced Ultrasound by now. It's the law here in Texas. It's also the law in Virginia, despite the public outcry. It's appalling. It makes me sick to my stomach. It's medically unnecessary and an especially absurd concept when you consider the "ability to turn eyes away" clause (although without it, the law is even worse -- more on that in a minute). Ryan's federal forced ultrasound bill actually had a clause named exactly that. Let's talk about the mis-allocation of health care resources, shall we?

The idea, in case you don't know, is that any individual seeking an abortion would be first forced to undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound. This involves inserting a phallic "wand" into a woman's vagina in order to get an early sonogram of the fetus. In Texas, it doesn't stop there. Doctors here are legally required to verbally describe the sonogram image, make heartbeat audio available if possible, and make the sonogram image available to the patient. Again there's that "ability to turn eyes away" bit. I don't know about the other state's laws on this or the ones proposed in Ryan's bill so for the sake of fairness let's assume that this isn't what's called for in those. Still, this is messed up. It's being called "informed consent" and in Texas, at least, it's followed up with a mandatory wait period following the ultrasound and before abortion services may be offered, during which two face to face visits must be made to the doctor. The idea being that women who go to get an abortion don't understand that they are pregnant. No, they need to pay up to see it, hear it, think about it, talk to a doctor about it two more times and only then do they realize-- oh hey, fetus. Golly. (see: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/01/womens-health-in-texas-state-state for more info). Imagine the amount of torment this would cause if you were getting an abortion for rape or medical reasons. For any reason really, but especially in those cases. Yet as far as I know there's no exception to the rule. In fact, getting an abortion in Texas has become so difficult that some women are fleeing to Mexico in order to get potentially dangerous abortion options in the form of ulcer medication, available over the counter there, with no information on proper dosing or health check-ups to follow up. (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/reproductive-health/looking-mexico-alternative-abortion-clinics/)

The Sandra Fluke article also talks about Ryan wanting to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood -- an organization that despite popular belief primarily provides services that have nothing to do with abortion, and any federal money they get cannot be used towards abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, and medical emergency (the woman's life being in danger). Planned Parenthood is a trusted resource for a lot of people to get information, birth control, std testing, gynecological exams, pap smears, mammograms-- potentially life-saving preventative care measures that help women stay healthy and prevent or quickly shut down deadly and expensive diseases.

Besides this he's voted to cut abortion rights to people on medicaid/medicare, and he and Romney have included the "Human Life Amendment" in their platform which aims to make all abortion illegal under the constitution. Considering past precedence with the whole Personhood thing, I assume this also means to make it illegal in medical cases. And I'm not just talking about medical emergencies where in the woman's life is in immediate danger (I don't know whether they both actively support that, even though Personhood does, theoretically, and "Let Women Die" clearly does) I'm talking about fetal death. Just look at Georgia's "Women as Livestock" bill (see: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill/) Because women, like pigs, should have to carry dead or medically unviable fetuses to term (or induce labor as a form of abortion only after the point where the fetus could "emerge alive"), regardless of their mental state, unless their life is endangered.

The list goes on. I can't even handle it. On the issue of "Legitimate Rape" (see this, if you have not already: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html?utm_hp_ref=todd-akin for the re-introduction of the absurd term "legitimate rape", medical fallacy, and Todd Akin's desire to continue to victimize victims of rape for the sake of a fetus or zygote, even by denying them morning after pills) Ryan joined Todd Akin and many more in cosponsoring a bill to narrow the definition of rape, " limiting which victims of rape were "legitimate" enough to receive financial assistance for access to abortion care." (Sandra Fluke, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021179033 ) "Legitimate" rape, in the case of this bill, is forcible rape. (http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/08/23/forcible-rape-legislation-this-is-civilized-politics/)

Rape is rape. A man who forces himself on or takes advantage of a woman, or a woman who forces herself on or takes advantage of a man, or a man who forces himself or takes advantage of a man, or a woman who forces herself on or takes advantage of a woman is a rapist regardless of circumstances, and their victim in a rape victim. That's it. There are not levels here. Those who supported this bill are abusing and degrading and defaming victims for their own political gain and excusing the actions of horrible criminals. Rape is rape.

(And the implied notion that women have a tendency to claim rape when there wasn't one-- it's more likely the opposite is true. Look up "rape culture". Rape culture makes excuses for creepy-ass behavior from men and turns the women who refuse to stand for having them and their friends be objectified and made to feel unsafe by these jerks into "bitches" and "drama-queens." Moreover, it creates an environment, by everyday actions and words, that tells women that they will be blamed for admitting to being victimized by a man, and makes excuses for the guy that tell him that his behavior is acceptable and he will not get slammed for it. The result is ideas like "legitimate" rape, women not feeling able to take a stand, and rapists getting away with it to rape again. Here's a good, but pretty unrelated article that talks about rape culture, if you're interested: http://captainawkward.com/2012/08/07/322-323-my-friend-group-has-a-case-of-the-creepy-dude-how-do-we-clear-that-up/. The comments section is equally interesting.)

Heading back, however, to his fiscal policies, Paul Ryan voted down the Lily Ledbetter act and other "equal work, equal pay" legislation. Presumably on the (incorrect) assumption that a pay gap no longer exists, and that indiscrepancies in pay are a result of women generally choosing lower salary fields (which is accounted for in many studies, as far as I understand), or that women deserve less pay because women (all women, apparently) prioritize their time towards their children (which is an argument that I saw a while back but cannot find the article about. It was not coming from Ryan but may have come from another Wisconsin rep. I am not sure.) Or maybe he just hates women and wants us to suffer (I'm not saying that, I don't know the guy, but, damn, it is hard not to think that's the case).

He also wants to rescind new legislation that makes it illegal for insurance companies to charge more for women. Presumably the justification here is because of the potential for a woman to become pregnant and therefore require additional medical services?

When I brought these subjects up with my dad, he brushed it off. He thinks that Paul Ryan's opinions on social issues make no difference and they won't matter even if he becomes vice president. In a time where we are seeing a record amount of anti-women's rights legislature being passed into law, I don't believe this for a second. He spent the next hour on the phone with me trying to convince me that a man who voted down the Lily Ledbetter act and numerous other equal pay bills has the best ideas for my economic future. He brushed off the fact that Paul Ryan thinks that he has better ideas for personal decisions regarding my body and life than I do based on his assertion that "the guy is brilliant". I can feel the love. It's just clearly more for some mysoginistic politician than his own two daughters.

On a slightly different note, Ryan also idolizes Ayn Rand.(Who incidentally supported abortion passionately, although I feel like that may have more to do with her eugenics-feuled ideologies than anything else). Ayn Rand was a woman too blind and unintelligent to see past her own very narrow view of her personal experience and recognize the world as anything more than a black-and-white place full of producers and moochers, Ryan's "makers" and "takers". She wrote fantasy novels wherein the world was destroyed by the free-loading moochers who drove the productive citizens to boycott their lives instead of continue to work in a society that allowed for people to take advantage of social programs, and, in their minds, them. These novels perpetuated her out-of-touch-with-reality (and likely, I can't help but think, at least partially set in racism, despite her objections to the contrary) philosophy that social programs allowed lesser people to be carried along in a cozy "hammock" (as Ryan put it) at the horrible expense of these better, more intelligent, more hardworking, morally superior "producers". It fits very well with the very fucked up (sorry, but there is no word strong enough) eugenics movement that was very much still in force at her time (and led to many horrifying things including state-sanctioned forced sterilization) and clearly still has many hangers-on today. Ayn Rand is not someone to be idolized in my book. (More Ryan/Rand and also, Ryan wants to return to the gold standard? Worst idea ever, oh my god. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/krugman-galt-gold-and-god.html )

The other point of all of this, though I got rather caught up in things, was initially to share a comment I have regarding this article, however: http://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/paul_ryan_randian_poseur/

I take some issue with this one. The main point is, though: Social Security benefits played a big role in Paul Ryan's education and therefore, it is assumed, his success in his career. Not only is he not acknowledging the role that the gove

rnment support has played in his success and possibly his family's financial stability, he's trying to destroy opportunities for other people to receive these same benefits and opportunities. And the fact is, many of the people who would be denied these benefits need them much more than he did.

Not only is he looking to cut social security benefits (like those he received) and medicare benefits (apparently to reform it into a system "like congress has" but without any of the fail safes that prevent federal employees from having to make up the difference if the coverage doesn't amount to actual real-world costs -- which many people believe it won't via his plan, because for that to be possible the health care system has to act as a perfect free market (which it very much is not)) but also funding for public universities and schools (like those he attended) and aid and fiscal support for college students.

This is not to say (and the problem with the article is that it sort of does) that everyone should be tied to agreeing with and supporting every institution that ever gave them anything that they have used in their lives. That's insane and anti-progress.

The problem is in the lack of recognition that he, and many other successful and powerful people, seem to have in the role that other people, circumstances of birth, and government support have played in their lives and in their success. There is a tendency among people to believe that their success is solely a factor of their hard work and moral and intellectual superiority. This is even more insane and anti-progress than the other thing.

What he should be doing is looking at the role that the financial support played in helping him achieve his own goals and the ramifications of not having that money, and then consider all of the people who are in the same or (let's really stretch his cognitive power here) worse positions and what the ramifications of not having these programs would be for them. Instead he, and I'd say a large number of well off white guys (my father certainly included) will tell you that that's not the point and the sole reason he's standing there before you in the position he's in is that he deserves it, he worked hard, he's smart, he earned it, he had all of the ambition, he is the sole maker of his own destiny and he was just better so he won. Nice and self serving, but nowhere near reality.

These government institutions help people, even the now rich and powerful people who claim to be wholly self-made. They provide the opportunities that people need in order for their hard work and intelligence to get them something, or for them to have the opportunity to give something back. In fact they're needed (via public schools and programs for kids) just to grow that intelligence and work ethic in children to begin with, so they can grow up to be "makers", as Ryan would put it.

Ryan and his ilk talk about the safety net our country has built (largely in response to the great depression, I might add) as a preventer of innovation, a slower of progress, and as a free ride for those lazy "takers" who use the opportunities it provides. This is also insane, and the real anti-progress would be eliminating the safety net that allows people the opportunity to take risks and bet on themselves or on those around them with innovative ideas or products. Getting rid of this safety net would severely cripple the American people's ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Forget the American dream, screw you if you come from less than what I had, I won't even allow you the same opportunities or support.

TL;DR: Paul Ryan has some scary (and at times slightly hypocritical) ideas about our economy and about women's bodies. Remember when I said I was disillusioned about politics, aggiebell90? Well, now I'm just angry.

Drabbles from Me

2012-08-07T17:57:12Z

May Morning: http://hpgw100.livejournal.com/416563.html

Pickles: http://hpgw100.livejournal.com/414257.html

Fish Fingers and Pickles

2012-06-23T00:16:16Z

It's a new fic thing from me! Already! I surprise even myself.

It's Harry/Ginny!

It's G! Maybe PG? Where is that line? I don't really understand it. Probably G. If you're reading this the distinction between G and PG is probably not relevant to you anymore, so... yes! There we go.

A/N: So the theme for hpgw100, which I follow, is "green" this week, and this immediately popped into my head so I thought I'd give it a go. Of course, since it's me writing it, it went ~~a bit~~ a lot over the limit (more than eight times over, whoops!) Completely un-betaed, so all problems are my own and mine alone. Sorry about that.

I did manage to whittle it down to 100 words, so you can go see that version over at hpgw100 if you'd like.

Teddy came rushing into the living room as fast as his little legs could carry him, clutching something to his chest and staring intently at it instead of looking where he was going. This inevitably had him running headlong into Ginny's legs.

"Watch it there, mate," Harry put a steadying hand on Teddy's shoulder to keep him still while a laughing Ginny regained her footing.

"What do you have there?" Ginny asked, and Teddy held up his bundle for inspection, his eyes bulging in excitement and accomplishment, his hair rapidly cycling through shades and hues. In his hands wiggled a very terrified looking toad.

"Can I keep him?" Teddy yelled, because, as all young children know, increasing your volume indicates to everyone the supreme importance of what you are saying.

The toad's eyes were bulging now too and it appeared to be having difficulty breathing.

"I don't know if your Grandmother would appreciate having a toad around, Teddy," Harry said, looking at Ginny for help.

"Where on earth did you find this guy?" Ginny asked instead. Number Twelve's small, walled-in garden was not exactly rife with wildlife.

"Ou-side" Teddy explained helpfully, tilting his head in the direction from which he had come flying in moments before, and then fixing on Harry again. He knew the weak link in this scenario. "Pwrease? Pwretty pwrease?" Teddy begged, giving the toad a not-so-healthy squeeze with each drawn-out word. The toad looked ready to pop.

"Mate, you're going to break it if you keep squeezing it like that," Harry said, reaching down to loosen the boy's hands.

"His name is Pickres!" Teddy defended, pulling Pickles back against his chest. Harry's eyebrow's shot up and he glanced over at Ginny.

"Pickles the toad?" He asked, still looking at Ginny. Her mouth dropped open as she realized what Harry was getting at and she fixed him with a glare.

"Uh huh! Cuz he wrooks wrike a pickre! Can I keep him? Pwrease? He match your eyes, see? Cuz he wrike you!" Teddy turned his hair green to match Harry's eyes. He hadn't fully grasped the fact that most things, unlike him, could not choose to match their features to the things that they liked.

This, of course, was too much for Harry. Still looking at Ginny, his shoulders shook with his barely-suppressed mirth, but a snort and a chuckle soon broke loose. Ginny tried to keep up her appalled demeanor, huffing at him and glaring hard, but she was clearly trying not to smile.

"So my eyes are as green as Pickles the toad?"

Teddy was looking back and forth between the two young adults, confused and slightly annoyed by their reaction.

"Alright, shut it, Harry," Ginny said, hip checking him before hunkering down to be eye level with Teddy.

"Teddy, this is not a pet toad, it's home is outside, I don't think you should take it away from it's home, do you?" Ginny asked him delicately.

Teddy looked at her warily, his eyebrows crunching together, and pulled Pickles closer to him still. This was clearly a ploy.

"You wouldn't like it if a stranger came and took you away from your home, would you?"

"But I'm not a stranger!"

"You are to Pickles. And a giant one at that." Harry put in, having calmed himself down. Teddy stood there contemplating this, his tiny face scrunched up.

"How about we go put Pickles back in his home, where you found him, so he can be with his friends and family? They're probably worried about him, don't you think?" Ginny said, angling herself to look Teddy in the eye.

Teddy sniffed. "I couwd be his fwriend and famiry."

"But his other friends and family would miss him a whole lot, don't you think? I know we'd miss you so much if you went away and we never saw you again. We'd be heartbroken, Ted, and Pickles's family would be heartbroken if you kept him." Ginny pressed.

Harry's hand rubbed circles on his girlfriend's back as he watched her haggle with his Godson. She was better at this type of thing than he was. He had a tendency of getting on Andromeda's bad side when he was faced with these kinds of situations. It's not that he wanted to spoil Teddy - he knew full well the damage that could do - but it was just so hard to disappoint him.

Teddy's head was bowed, his feet were shuffling. It was the pose he adopted whenever he'd done something wrong or realized one of the adults in his life was right about something and he didn't want to admit to it or give up his side. Ginny knew she'd won.

"C'mon Teddy, let's go take Pickles home and say goodbye and then we can wash our hands and have some lunch. How do fish fingers sound?" Ginny asked while steering Teddy toward the garden door.

"Fish fingers!" Teddy exclaimed as he was guided over the threshold, nearly dropping Pickles down the steps in his excitement.

Everybody's Graduating But Me.

2012-05-21T06:41:00Z

So, my Taking it in Turns piece is continuing to shoot me in the face. Posting theoretically began today and I am still so far from getting it to where it needs to be and I'm also not sure how to finish it yet. I think it's also fair to say that it's a pretty big departure from anything I've done for a fest before. I just really hope it doesn't turn out crap.

In other news, I'm a year older and another semester down. My best friend just graduated from college with all my former classmates and it feels a bit weird. Part of me is glad that I'm not with them but another part is feeling a bit left out. Ah well. I start my summer courses in a couple of weeks and I have got SO MUCH TO DO before then. It's mainly cleaning and gathering supplies, but I also need to make an eye appointment and keep looking for a job (not to mention finishing that h/g piece).

Also, I've started watching "Girls" and it really makes me feel better about myself.

I Think It's Time For a Little Rant

2012-03-19T16:49:59Z

  In light of everything that has been going on in the last several months, I really do not see how people can still delude themselves into believing that sexism is not an issue in the United States.

    It's so unbelievable, these people in our government and the stunts they are trying to pull with no regard for the well being and rights of the women of our country. My body is my body, and your body is yours, and no one has the right to intrude on that ownership and the power it provides, nor the responsibilities it includes. Complete strangers-- not to mention complete strangers who are by design totally ignorant of the realities of my body or bodies like it-- most especially have no right to a say that I cannot, should not, will not, protect myself and my body when I see fit, how I see fit.
    The effects of the legislations and political agendas of these men go far beyond pro-life vs. pro-choice issues, they actively hurt women, or at the very least have the potential to do so. How can this be considered lawful? The very fact that these kinds of ideas and measures are being brought up tells Americans that women are less-- and women with financial struggles less still-- and do not deserve fundamental rights. It says that a woman should be punished, even tortured, for any decision about her own life or person that goes against what complete strangers have decided is best for her. It says that her life is less valuable than the man next to her's, and less still than a tiny clump of cells that may someday attach to the wall of her uterus.
    Funny, too, how if that clump of cells turns into an actual human being, the worth of it seems to drop like a rock to them; particularly if it has the misfortune of being born a woman in these, the United States of Antagonism. We could and should be so much better than this, America.

Relocation Summation and a bit on living with anxiety

2011-10-14T00:33:15Z

My time as a nomad will hopefully be coming to an end on November 3rd.

I've spent the last few years jumping from place to place (Amherst, Massachusetts to one place in Boston for less than a year, back to Amherst for a few months, on to another place in Boston for a few more months, to Ware for about a month and a half, back to Boston for another few months, back to Ware for a month, then to Sunderland for a bit under a year, then on to North Carolina-- where I am now-- for a few more months.)

On November 3rd I'm moving into an apartment in Dallas, Tx where I'll be starting a two year culinary arts program in Baking and Pastry.

It's going to be a very big change!

I am excited and slightly terrified. I keep second guessing myself, as I always do, about my ability to do just about every aspect of this, but I just need to keep myself in check and do it, do it every day and not let my anxiety get the better of me. Because I am really excited.

It's strange though, when you have an anxiety disorder, how you start measuring everything by how triggering each aspect of your imagined/anticipated daily routine will be. I find it very hard to have self confidence when I'm constantly forcing myself to evaluate the likelihood of my own failure, my own loss of self-control. Except that, when I am evaluating what could cause me panic, I am able to take preventative measures like putting a cab company on speed dial and always being sure to have cash on hand for if I miss the bus or the train and start freaking out. Or making a daily schedule that involves showering at night so I don't panic about it in the morning (because for reasons I don't fully understand, all of my worst panic attacks have occurred in the shower in the morning). Or replacing my broken mp3 player and headphones so I have music on the train to distract me from circling thoughts. And making sure I have a little bit of time, every day, to escape into someone else's life so that mine doesn't become too overwhelming.

Goodness, wish me luck.

In the meantime, I need to get a move-on on my seasonsfest piece! Yikes!

Just Watched 'The God Complex'...

2011-09-22T02:01:33Z

...and I am so not okay. GUH. Someone hold me. You can not do this to me, Doctor Who writers. Not yet. I was not ready. I am legitimately not okay.

Puff for Life

2011-09-11T07:07:40Z

It's official. I'm a Hufflepuff :D And my wand is Dogwood (quirky and mischievous, noisy, not good with non-verbals but still capable of outstanding spellwork) and Unicorn Hair (consistent, very loyal to witch or wizard of its choosing, anti-dark magic) 11 inches and slightly springy. I figure it's a good fit.

(Now I'm going to talk like unicorns actually exist because it's 2:30 am and I've gone mildly insane:) I like that unicorn hair is something that can be procured without harming the animal, that's a plus. Otherwise, I mean, I had a mild unicorn obsession when I was about six or seven but I've quite grown out of that and now when I saw it I was like... gah so girly. But I am girly. I remember there being something in the books about unicorns being attracted to those pure of heart and intentions or something along those lines (or I might just be confusing stuff with fanfiction in which case...) so I think I'd rather focus on that idea than on the whole... crazy horse-obsessed girly factor.

Anyway, I love dogwood trees. I think they are absolutely beautiful and there were a bunch outside of my middle school that we used to climb and hang out in after school and I have very good memories of that. They're short and open-limbed and that make them seem very friendly and non-imposing to my cracked-out mind (notactually cracked out, good lord, just naturally mildly insane).

Slightly springy is very fitting as well. I like that. Makes me smile.

ANYWAY, enough obsessing about my wand. I got a tawny owl (no, not for real). I freaking love tawny owls. So beautiful. Not that it should surprise anyone who knows me that I got an owl because not only am I a ridiculously practical-minded person, for the most part, but I have had a mild obsession with owls since a trip to Disney World when I was a kid where I got called up to the stage of a bird show and had one fly right over me and land next to me. They're so beautiful and I love their big eyes and the way their heads move and how they look super-pompous when they're shifting position or fluffing their feathers. Owls are cool. Basically. (Cool like bow ties and fezzes).

In other news, there is a cockroach in my room that is too freaking fast for me and it's been hiding behind my hutch but it is really psyching me out. I need to get the roach murdering roach food. This place has too many holes and cracks to let the little buggers in. The spray is not enough. Stupid evil bugs. At least I'm no longer screaming my head off at every encounter, this is a very big improvement. Of course, the discovery of the use of Scrubbing Bubbles as effective chemical warfare has boosted my confidence in dealing with the little buggers. I have a can beside my bed. Which makes it seem like I am overrun with roaches, but I'm really just paranoid as hell.

In other other news, I think my new soap must have lanolin in it (aka sheep grease. I'm allergic to the stuff and therefore wool and I are mortal enemies), or else this detergent has something I'm not aware I'm allergic to. The problem is, did laundry with new detergent just before switching to new soap, so it's hard to tell the culprit. Must check both for signs of woolly-badness. Basically, I'm covered in hives. How's that for TMI?

HOW DID THIS TURN INTO GIANT POST OF DOOM??

POTTERMORE

2011-09-11T02:33:15Z

SQUEE! It just opened up for me. I haven't even really started yet and it's already AWESOME. The intro gate is a little bit weird, but not in a particularly bad way.

I will be VERY shocked if I'm not a Puff, but WE SHALL SEE? I can't wait to get a wand and all of this awesome stuff. Gosh, I am such a nerd. I am sitting here listening to the Very Potter Musical soundtrack and squealing in excitement (because, what else is there to listen to at a time like this?? I don't have any Wrock on my computer, but I may have to run over to youtube and play some alexcarpenter parodies at some point in this totally awesome Pottermore finding time. I feel so witty with my AVPM references right now. Yes, nerd. We've already established this.)

Okay, off to explore, wish me luck, non-existent readers!

HG Silver Lining Summer Fest Piece for Fwittney

2011-08-23T03:26:38Z

Title: I Whip My Harry Back and Forth
Author/Artist: pepperam
Prompt:#33- Harry accidentally walks in on Ginny...
Rating: R
Warnings: Sexual Themes, Partial Nudity, Excessive Freckles, Bad Singing
Medium: Digital (with Sumo Painter on a Bamboo)

Summary: Our faithful hero Harry is in the Burrow's kitchen-- eating breakfast in his pajamas-- when suddenly he hears a crash above him punctuated by the sound of screams. Fearing the worst, he rushes to the source of the racket: Ginny's room. He barges in and finds her... "singing". And dancing. In a bra. Oh my.

Notes: Gah! I'm getting this out just in time. This is the first time I've done a digital piece (from start to finish on the computer, that is) in years and it took me awhile to get into the swing of things. Anyway, I hope you like this. When I saw the prompt this scenario immediately leapt to mind.

Also, the title (entirely the fault of friends!) is a reference to this rather viral phenomenon

Disclaimer: I do not own any of the characters or names appearing in this piece of fan-art. All rights belong to other parties. I'm just doing this for fun :P

I should never read comments on Yahoo...

2011-08-12T14:03:36Z

... it makes me RAGE.

As a disclaimer to this rant: I really have no intention of undermining or degrading or otherwise upsetting anyone's religious beliefs because for the most part I think religion is a force of great good in the majority of people's lives, it's just not so much in mine. The people I know who have religion in their lives are some of the most generous and genuinely caring people I know, and though I don't always agree with them or understand where they're coming from on certain things, I value that religion works for them and that they have their faith. But then I go online and see religion used like as battering ram in comments and...well, I'll get to that.

I also want to make clear that there are plenty of people I know that are equally as gracious and are agnostic or atheist. And, despite appearances, I'm actually not a socialist but this idea of free-market capitalism-without-boundaries or regulation or support systems is really, really not okay, IMHO. Maybe that opinion qualifies me as socialist in some people's minds, but I don't think so. I also don't mean to villainize those who are still doing well in this economy or say that all of them are acting in the way I will claim, because I know that's not the case, but that anyone is acting that way (and I know that there are those) is extremely upsetting to me.

Alright, on to the original rant:

"Atheism goes hand in hand with communism"-- some moron on Yahoo.

So, by that token, I'm guessing Christianity goes hand in hand with capitalism then? Funny, I thought Jesus was about helping the poor and empowering the every man, not hoarding designer shoes in granite mini-mansions while screaming about the lazy loser scum looking to steal their "hard-won" fortunes through tax funded government aid and social security while the other half works horrendously long hours with practically no time off or rights or benefits just to hold down some shitty job so they've got a roof over their heads. Which is basically all I see that capitalism has brought this country recently. And how exactly does political/economic theory go hand in hand with religious conviction anyway?

(Also, completely unrelated, but Bill O'Reilly's "We live in a capitalist country. There are winners and there are losers" the other night threw me into a similar rage as this. I'm sorry, where in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights is it said that we are a "capitalist country"? I really don't remember that being in there. Nor that there are to be "winners" and "losers" and fuck all to the poor slob who can't, by matter of circumstance, provide oodles of cash for themselves and their family? Especially when we seem to be, as a country, taking every opportunity to destroy opportunities for people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps.")

Also, on a mostly unrelated note, I am really sick of God and Jesus and whomever else getting all the credit every single time there is some act of humanity. Am I the only person who feels this undermines all of humanity? Oh, we're only halfway decent when God steps in, otherwise we're all just a steaming pile of heathens. What, you can't have faith in people at the same time as having faith in a God or Gods? And the othering of people who don't believe in the Bible or what have you-- because clearly if you don't have organized religion you are devoid of all moral fiber?

And maybe it wouldn't make me quite so pissed off if there were an equal amount of crediting the devil for all the horrible, self-serving immoral crap that goes down, but no, that's just par for the course. That's people being their heinous selves. But the second someone turns around and acts heroically or charitable or otherwise good, it's all "thank God" "God saved him" or "God gave her the courage" "God made sure that person was there in time." Okay, this is how religion works, God controls everything... it just seems so: let's have no accountability, let's not take ownership of ourselves, our lives, and our actions or allow others to own there's. Let's just take the credit and praise away from the people who stand up and take action where action is needed and float it all around on divine intervention, and even, sometimes, steal some for ourselves for praying for good things to occur.

I mean, this comment: "atheism goes hand in hand with communism" was so unrelated to the topic on top of being absurd, that it was clearly just a way of lopping one group in with another that is seen in our society as being unsavory to the point of villainous. It's this "I dislike them, therefore they are everything I dislike and everything I dislike is them," thing that pisses me off more than anything because not only is it ridiculously hateful, inherently prejudicial, and catastrophically othering, it's completely and horrendously irrational -- and it's absolutely rampant! Brain Kilmeade's: "All terrorists are muslim" awhile back? Same effing thing. And that's just one example. It makes me legitimately sick to my stomach. And I suppose the problem is that religion (or lack thereof) is such an easy way for people to group others in order to perpetuate this kind of filth.

It reminds me of the PM of Britain responding to the London Riots with "parts of the society are just sick" and that kind of take no responsibility write-it-off othering that is so utterly useless. It's like yelling at your kid for taking scissors to her own hair instead of bothering to find out about the bully who's been pulling her around by her braid at recess. Part of the society is just sick. I mean, listen, I am in no way okay with ANYTHING that is happening in these riots. I think it's horrendous what these people are doing to their communities and the people in them and they all deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law for all of the damage and fear and pain that they have caused so, so many people, but when you think about how the government is sitting there saying "they're just sick" and pandering to the lowest common denominator of name-calling and type-casting rather than trying to get to the root of the unrest, and you have news stations literally saying "there was absolutely no cause" "they just went crazy." It makes me almost understand how the whole thing started right there.

And it's things like that which make it all the more difficult to have faith in humanity. So when I see people ignoring the human aspect in all of the good there is out there, it's almost like they're trying to deny me my faith in the few cracks and crevices of news and internet where it can still be found. Then I have to empathize with those who would claim divine intervention, those who I feel, however unjustly, are leeching on my faith in people, for everyone out there who's opposing their faith in God.

Round about. And round about. And round about I go.

ALSO: All of my icons are too damn cheerful, so we're gonna go for irony this time.

Never in the same place long...

2011-07-25T06:15:05Z

I am procrastinating on my packing so hard I am now procrastinating going to sleep because I know I really do need to get a move on tomorrow. UGGH.

The whole thing makes me want to bang my head against a wall over and over and over.... so instead, I just wrote an extremely, inappropriately lengthy comment to an author on LJ who I'm pretty sure I've never had any kind of interaction with before, and so she's surely going to look at my rambling crapfest and be very weirded out. Lovely.

Also on the list of procrastinating devices of the last two days: baking multiple loaves of bread (although this is also a result of two other factors: 1) having no food, and 2) needing to use up the flour in my canister so I can wash it and pack it at some point before I move), watching QI and 'Last Chance to See' obsessively, and gorging myself on previously mentioned bread. So healthy.

Although seriously, I'm having one of those points where absolutely everything in my life seems to be missing everything else. Like, all elements of my life are just deciding to be pissy and ignore the checkpoints where they're supposed to take a pit stop so they can meet this other element in my life and get some shit done together. I'm leaving in less than two weeks, am out of meds, and my doctor's on vacation -- for example. Now apply that kind of a situation to everything else you can think of and there we have it. I don't know where I'm going to be in a month, my educational/career plans are exploding around me, I have no money, no transport, and I have to pack and move by the 4th... I don't even have boxes. Just shoot me in the face. Or you know, throw me a pity party because this last paragraph was so whiny and pathetic, and then shoot me in the face for punishment instead of out of mercy. Good lord, I'm such a little bitch, aren't I? It's just so frustrating, and mostly it's just the insecurity inherent in the situation I'm in now... and I don't really know where to go from here.

Quick Update

2011-06-24T04:26:56Z

I'm applying to Culinary Schools -- Baking and Pastry Arts programs to be precise. I just got the nerve up to start at it a month ago, so now I have this whole extra level of complicated for applying so late. Thank goodness for rolling admissions, eh?

I haven't done much in terms of art recently as I've been doing the researching and application thing and catching up on Bones (!!!) and now I'm on to Misfits, but we'll get to that in a mo.

I got a tablet that I'm in the process of breaking in, but as my photoshop has now left me it also means learning corel painter (and so far that's just pissing me off). Since I still feel handicapped (or at least arthritic) with the tablet, it's a bit of a process. I need to get my shit together soon though-- I have fests!

Right, Misfits, good lord this show is doing things to my brain. I'm on to the second series now and I feel like I am just in a constant tornado of freak outs every time I watch it. I honestly did not think I would get this into it. I mean, the premise sounds shit-- a bunch of 18/19 year olds stuck on community service get hit by lightning in a freak storm and develop strange powers-- and it's a tad vulgar even to me, but it sucked me in.

Anyway, right, that's the basics. I'm going into Boston twice in July. First for C's birthday and Independence Day, and then Harry Potter (so many more "!!!") and the Beer Marathon (Which should be really interesting. It starts in the morning, I kid you not. I'll get a viking hat and everything.)

It'll be good. I am organized and feeling okay for the first time in ages. Wish me luck on college applications part deux!

Everybody Go-A Prompt Claiming!

2011-06-06T23:48:43Z

There are lots of prompts (including a number of my own!) still waiting to be claimed over at H/G Silver Lining's 2011 Fest. People have contributed a lot of great ideas and it looks like loads of fun! Just remember to leave some of the less plot-heavy, more art friendly type prompts for the artists if you can, and read the rules before claiming. Happy Festing!

I Got A Gift...

2011-04-25T01:30:42Z

... and it has lasagna. Even total strangers know me too well.

Click here to read the wonderful, squee-enducing story, "What's Cooking" that was written for me at takingitinturns by the ever incredible aggiebell90. There's Neville and a dinner party, scheming and bromancing, Harry and Ginny being adorable, and, of course, the aforementioned lasagna.

Thanks so much to aggiebell90; your story has made me positively giddy, and you've managed to make it so very me!