I Can Gather All the News I Need on the Weather Report
Sunday is for reading the newspaper and drinking coffee. Here are some of my thoughts...
*On the front page today was an article about hospitals, movie theaters, funeral homes, etc. are expanding their products (like stretchers and caskets) to accomodate the OBESE POPULATION of America. It started with what I suppose was supposed to be a heart-warming tale of success about a woman who realized she was too fat when she couldn't fit into the hospitals MRI machine. The article goes on to say "The Roseville woman has lost 15 pounds since that devastating moment five years ago when she tipped the scales at 300 pounds. But the embarrassment has stayed with her." Am I the only one that notices something very, very wrong with those two sentences? As far as my understanding goes, it is easier for an overweight person to lose 15 pounds quicker than it is for a thin one. Don't overweight people lose weight quickly, but find it hard to keep it off, or at least keep the same pace of weight loss going? So for her to lose 15 pounds, she could have done it a lot quicker than in five years. Second of all, since when is 300-15= good? She still weighs 285 pounds!!!! That is not exactly progress! Is it suddenly ok, 15 pounds later, because she can finally her her MRI or something? She is STILL fat! Lastly, of course the goddamn embarrasssment has "stayed with her." Like I said, she's still fat. This journalist makes it sound like everything is all better at 285. Are we really that lazy that we can be proud of this woman for losing what is practically nothing considering what she stills weighs in at?? Are we really that worried about offending people and being politcally correct that we have to reword our articles to make it sound like she's made some improvement? Little things like that in an article really bother me. It makes you wonder how the journalist, or the editor could let that pass to print. I just think it's hilarious...gimme a break.
*The Free Press has also been giving a lot of coverage lately to the problem of MARRIAGE in the US. It has had several substantially sized articles addressing the issue in the past few Sunday papers. I guess this is their new favorite social trend/disaster to bring to our attention. I do appreciate these things being brought to the forefront of my mind, though. Maybe I'm too pessimistic when it comes to our culture as a whole because I don't have much good to say about it, but I pretty much think our culture sucks and I want to live in Europe, although theirs is not perfect either, I'm sure. But America's really makes Canada look attractive. Anyway, government officials at all different levels are trying to take steps to make some sort of improvement in the divorce rate and number of single-parent families. I say "trying" because they are usually blocked by someone who thinks it is a waste of the government's efforts, which I think I agree with. Here's the issue, I guess: our society has made it socially acceptable to be a single parent or divorcee, and many lawmakers think this is a growing problem that needs to be dealt with via new legislation, because of all the problems that stem from the overall decline of marriages. Among the effects of bad marriage (or lack of it altogether) are increased crime, poverty, emotional and social difficulty, poor educational opportunities and the eating up of taxpayers' money. To solve this problem, those in favor of the govornment stepping in suggest requiring pre-marriage counseling to educate people about married life, and mandatory "discussions" before a couple is allowed to divorce. Personally, I'm not reallysure what I think about this whole subject. I think if these laws passed, the people who really need to be educated about marriage will not benefit. Let's face it, humans are very flawed creatures and there will always be fucked up people who get married, cause themselves lots of drama and just end up leading fucked up lives, which leads to fucked up children. As much as the government or its people may want there to be more and more legislation regulating our lives, I don't think it's going to help. Making rules for people to live by doesn't mean they won't be broken all the time. Can taxpayers afford to give marriage lessons to everyone, when they probably won't make much of a dent in the statistics anyway?
*I am just sick of the general public being lazy and expecting the gov't to drastically improve our lives. Their place is NOT to meddle in my everyday affairs. I believe the gov't is to be the voice of the people and regulate things like factories that put out too much CO2 and wreck our environment, or to help third world countries learn to farm without destroying the rainforest. As far as managing my own life, thanks but no thanks, I can do it myself. I believe in INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS. I think people need to realize that if you want something done right, do it yourself. Don't sue McDonald's for making you fat, dumbass! Just exercize some self-restaint and don't eat there. Don't ask the gov't to get involved in my or your neighbor's personal matters. Don't ask the government to stop someone else from having a gay lover and being happily married, even if you disagree with it. I disagree with all the idiots who are out there driving huge-ass SUVS, but that's your decision, not mine. Let people live their own lives! It is not up to YOU to make decisions for SOMEONE ELSE. Don't ask the government to decide what is good for one person, only what is for the common good. Right now, I think the gov't should stick to saving the environment, helping the poor to get on their feet, providing care for the elderly and mentally disabled, providing good public education, and stopping radical groups from getting violent and hurting mostly innocent civilians, or "terrorist attacks." Don't ask the government to define my morals for me. It is not up to a person who has never met Jane Doe and never walked in her shoes to to say whether or not she should have an abortion. Why should that decision rest on public where most have never been in that situation? Don't ask the government to stop your neighbor from getting married to someone of the same sex. You can't stop people from being gay, so why fight a losing battle and try to? The government and our society need to get focused on what is really important. This is a matter of my opinion, so I guess this view is a little hypocritical. And I suppose I am envisioning some sort of humanitarian gov't that helps old ladies cross the street and that I'm probably too idealistic, but w/e. It this exact kind of circular thinking that makes me think life is pointless sometimes... I can't even hold an opinion on anything almost without seeing the bad points about it. Damn my logic.
*On the subject of GAY MARRIAGE, I don't want the government "protecting the sanctity" of anything. Again, I think that is a matter of morals, where the gov't should stay out of it. All of this protest against gay marriage will be viewed as another form of bigotry in the future, just like the civil rights movement in the 60s. Once our society gets this through their heads there will be more social progress. Live and let live, people.
*Same thing for ABORTION. I used to be fiercly anti-abortion, as Miranda and Jessie will remember our arguement back in 5th grade on the way to the haunted house in the park. But I was young and not really thinking for myself, even though I though I was. I was also very Christian and since then, I think Ive grown immensely and become a more independent person. Since someone very close to me got an abortion, my whole perspective on it has changed. I would never, ever want this person to have a baby at this time in her life. I wouldn't want a baby to be brought up by her right now. This girl has it tough as it is, and for people to expect her to bring a baby into her life is just ignorant and selfish. And whatever they may say, adoption is not an alternative to abortion! Having an abortion is mentally hard enough, but to go through nine months with a baby not only discrupts the mother's life, but it causes more heartache and emotional problems to give birth to a child and have to give it up. why would you want to put someone through that? It's fine to say "oh, let's defend the babies since they can't speak for themselves," but what about the people who have already started their lives and will be affected by it? Should't they have more of a voice than an unborn baby? what is worse? getting an abortion and never having the effects of the abortion felt by that many, or having the baby and there being life-altering consequences? I think abortion is a lesser of two evils. I also don't agree with the slogan that the pro-abortion community has chosen, though. What kind of a message does "pro-choice" send? Getting an abortion is not really a choice, not something one does for fun. It is an absolute last resort when one is up against all odds. It's a last hope, not a national pastime. I think the public relations for pro-abortion rights could do a hell of a lot better job getting the stories of real people out there. I think it would be great to have a publicity campaign trying to put the human-interest stories of those who have been affected by abortions out there for everyone to feel compassion for these real life people. To show that it's not baby-murdering monsters that get abortions. It's everyday people, who don't like it anymore than the next person, but who have to do it to save any shred of for a decent life they may have. Now, with that, I do think there should be some regulation to it. For example, someone who shows up at an abortion clinic for the third time (who is obviously a misguided whore who can't exercize self-restraint and who has demonstrated that it wasn't simply a one-time accident) should have their abortion followed by a tube-tying operation. If they haven't learned their lesson, make sure they won't make the mistake again. But this scenario is not the case for most abortions. I also only believe in abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy, but due to my lack of knowledge on the subject, I'm not sure where to draw that line.
*I have much more to say, but this is the longest entry on earth and I think I need to get off my computer. But one last thing, I do not consider myself an extremist by any means, so I don't consider it hypocritical to write that the government should stay out of personal matters and then right after say that I think abortion should be somewhat regulated. I believe HAVING COMMON SENSE AND BEING REASONABLE are vital to people getting along in this world. By the way, if you took the time to read this huge thing, please leave a comment, however controversial or disagreeable it may be. I was hoping this would be a thought-provoking entry.
*On the front page today was an article about hospitals, movie theaters, funeral homes, etc. are expanding their products (like stretchers and caskets) to accomodate the OBESE POPULATION of America. It started with what I suppose was supposed to be a heart-warming tale of success about a woman who realized she was too fat when she couldn't fit into the hospitals MRI machine. The article goes on to say "The Roseville woman has lost 15 pounds since that devastating moment five years ago when she tipped the scales at 300 pounds. But the embarrassment has stayed with her." Am I the only one that notices something very, very wrong with those two sentences? As far as my understanding goes, it is easier for an overweight person to lose 15 pounds quicker than it is for a thin one. Don't overweight people lose weight quickly, but find it hard to keep it off, or at least keep the same pace of weight loss going? So for her to lose 15 pounds, she could have done it a lot quicker than in five years. Second of all, since when is 300-15= good? She still weighs 285 pounds!!!! That is not exactly progress! Is it suddenly ok, 15 pounds later, because she can finally her her MRI or something? She is STILL fat! Lastly, of course the goddamn embarrasssment has "stayed with her." Like I said, she's still fat. This journalist makes it sound like everything is all better at 285. Are we really that lazy that we can be proud of this woman for losing what is practically nothing considering what she stills weighs in at?? Are we really that worried about offending people and being politcally correct that we have to reword our articles to make it sound like she's made some improvement? Little things like that in an article really bother me. It makes you wonder how the journalist, or the editor could let that pass to print. I just think it's hilarious...gimme a break.
*The Free Press has also been giving a lot of coverage lately to the problem of MARRIAGE in the US. It has had several substantially sized articles addressing the issue in the past few Sunday papers. I guess this is their new favorite social trend/disaster to bring to our attention. I do appreciate these things being brought to the forefront of my mind, though. Maybe I'm too pessimistic when it comes to our culture as a whole because I don't have much good to say about it, but I pretty much think our culture sucks and I want to live in Europe, although theirs is not perfect either, I'm sure. But America's really makes Canada look attractive. Anyway, government officials at all different levels are trying to take steps to make some sort of improvement in the divorce rate and number of single-parent families. I say "trying" because they are usually blocked by someone who thinks it is a waste of the government's efforts, which I think I agree with. Here's the issue, I guess: our society has made it socially acceptable to be a single parent or divorcee, and many lawmakers think this is a growing problem that needs to be dealt with via new legislation, because of all the problems that stem from the overall decline of marriages. Among the effects of bad marriage (or lack of it altogether) are increased crime, poverty, emotional and social difficulty, poor educational opportunities and the eating up of taxpayers' money. To solve this problem, those in favor of the govornment stepping in suggest requiring pre-marriage counseling to educate people about married life, and mandatory "discussions" before a couple is allowed to divorce. Personally, I'm not reallysure what I think about this whole subject. I think if these laws passed, the people who really need to be educated about marriage will not benefit. Let's face it, humans are very flawed creatures and there will always be fucked up people who get married, cause themselves lots of drama and just end up leading fucked up lives, which leads to fucked up children. As much as the government or its people may want there to be more and more legislation regulating our lives, I don't think it's going to help. Making rules for people to live by doesn't mean they won't be broken all the time. Can taxpayers afford to give marriage lessons to everyone, when they probably won't make much of a dent in the statistics anyway?
*I am just sick of the general public being lazy and expecting the gov't to drastically improve our lives. Their place is NOT to meddle in my everyday affairs. I believe the gov't is to be the voice of the people and regulate things like factories that put out too much CO2 and wreck our environment, or to help third world countries learn to farm without destroying the rainforest. As far as managing my own life, thanks but no thanks, I can do it myself. I believe in INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS. I think people need to realize that if you want something done right, do it yourself. Don't sue McDonald's for making you fat, dumbass! Just exercize some self-restaint and don't eat there. Don't ask the gov't to get involved in my or your neighbor's personal matters. Don't ask the government to stop someone else from having a gay lover and being happily married, even if you disagree with it. I disagree with all the idiots who are out there driving huge-ass SUVS, but that's your decision, not mine. Let people live their own lives! It is not up to YOU to make decisions for SOMEONE ELSE. Don't ask the government to decide what is good for one person, only what is for the common good. Right now, I think the gov't should stick to saving the environment, helping the poor to get on their feet, providing care for the elderly and mentally disabled, providing good public education, and stopping radical groups from getting violent and hurting mostly innocent civilians, or "terrorist attacks." Don't ask the government to define my morals for me. It is not up to a person who has never met Jane Doe and never walked in her shoes to to say whether or not she should have an abortion. Why should that decision rest on public where most have never been in that situation? Don't ask the government to stop your neighbor from getting married to someone of the same sex. You can't stop people from being gay, so why fight a losing battle and try to? The government and our society need to get focused on what is really important. This is a matter of my opinion, so I guess this view is a little hypocritical. And I suppose I am envisioning some sort of humanitarian gov't that helps old ladies cross the street and that I'm probably too idealistic, but w/e. It this exact kind of circular thinking that makes me think life is pointless sometimes... I can't even hold an opinion on anything almost without seeing the bad points about it. Damn my logic.
*On the subject of GAY MARRIAGE, I don't want the government "protecting the sanctity" of anything. Again, I think that is a matter of morals, where the gov't should stay out of it. All of this protest against gay marriage will be viewed as another form of bigotry in the future, just like the civil rights movement in the 60s. Once our society gets this through their heads there will be more social progress. Live and let live, people.
*Same thing for ABORTION. I used to be fiercly anti-abortion, as Miranda and Jessie will remember our arguement back in 5th grade on the way to the haunted house in the park. But I was young and not really thinking for myself, even though I though I was. I was also very Christian and since then, I think Ive grown immensely and become a more independent person. Since someone very close to me got an abortion, my whole perspective on it has changed. I would never, ever want this person to have a baby at this time in her life. I wouldn't want a baby to be brought up by her right now. This girl has it tough as it is, and for people to expect her to bring a baby into her life is just ignorant and selfish. And whatever they may say, adoption is not an alternative to abortion! Having an abortion is mentally hard enough, but to go through nine months with a baby not only discrupts the mother's life, but it causes more heartache and emotional problems to give birth to a child and have to give it up. why would you want to put someone through that? It's fine to say "oh, let's defend the babies since they can't speak for themselves," but what about the people who have already started their lives and will be affected by it? Should't they have more of a voice than an unborn baby? what is worse? getting an abortion and never having the effects of the abortion felt by that many, or having the baby and there being life-altering consequences? I think abortion is a lesser of two evils. I also don't agree with the slogan that the pro-abortion community has chosen, though. What kind of a message does "pro-choice" send? Getting an abortion is not really a choice, not something one does for fun. It is an absolute last resort when one is up against all odds. It's a last hope, not a national pastime. I think the public relations for pro-abortion rights could do a hell of a lot better job getting the stories of real people out there. I think it would be great to have a publicity campaign trying to put the human-interest stories of those who have been affected by abortions out there for everyone to feel compassion for these real life people. To show that it's not baby-murdering monsters that get abortions. It's everyday people, who don't like it anymore than the next person, but who have to do it to save any shred of for a decent life they may have. Now, with that, I do think there should be some regulation to it. For example, someone who shows up at an abortion clinic for the third time (who is obviously a misguided whore who can't exercize self-restraint and who has demonstrated that it wasn't simply a one-time accident) should have their abortion followed by a tube-tying operation. If they haven't learned their lesson, make sure they won't make the mistake again. But this scenario is not the case for most abortions. I also only believe in abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy, but due to my lack of knowledge on the subject, I'm not sure where to draw that line.
*I have much more to say, but this is the longest entry on earth and I think I need to get off my computer. But one last thing, I do not consider myself an extremist by any means, so I don't consider it hypocritical to write that the government should stay out of personal matters and then right after say that I think abortion should be somewhat regulated. I believe HAVING COMMON SENSE AND BEING REASONABLE are vital to people getting along in this world. By the way, if you took the time to read this huge thing, please leave a comment, however controversial or disagreeable it may be. I was hoping this would be a thought-provoking entry.