Ow.
Guys, don't ever let me fall asleep on my futon again.
I settled down for a nap yesterday, on account of staying up late Wednesday night/Thursday morning for no actual reason. I already had a pile of stuff on my bed that I was too tired to move, so I just grabbed my blanket, curled up on the futon, and set my alarm for two hours later (it was about 4:00 p.m. at the time).
I woke up at 11:59 p.m. making a face like this: D: My back was in agony a little bit, and while I was uncomfortable lying there I was way too sore to get up for about ten minutes.
Lesson learned: No more naps on futon. In fact, it'd probably be best for me to get proper sleep instead of taking naps that turn into day-long unconscious spells. I used to be able to stay up for days on end and only take occasional two-hour dozes; now if I go without sleep for 24 hours I lose concentration and drop off at the first opportunity. This doesn't bode well for next year.
In other news, someone left the Wall Street Journal out on the table where I was eating lunch today, so I took a look though it, the Journal not being one of my regular news sources. On the Op-Ed page, right below a rather interesting (if hyperbolic) article on racial divisions in the environmentalist movement (which I occasionally strongly disagreed with, but, still, interesting), was an angry opinion piece on how we should start taxing blue jeans.
I honestly can't figure out if the writer is joking or not. He seems to take himself a bit too seriously for that, but I can't imagine someone who gets space on the WSJ Opinion pages getting that worked up over jeans of all things. Even if he is joking, the subtext of the joke is really quite unfortunate. Yes, let's tax blue jeans, the cheap, utilitarian, durable garment that almost anyone can wear. After all, we've already priced and taxed the lowest income bracket out of their homes, cars, jobs, and decent food; why not tax them out of their pants while we're here?
He also spoke of it as the ideal variety of "soft paternalism". Because I've always wanted my government to tell me how to dress, yes sir. And his comments on "undifferentiated dressing" veer, for me, dangerously close to an advocacy of gendered and class-divided dressing - the womenfolk shouldn't be wearing pants! And for heaven's sake, why are you upper-class types dressing like poor people?!
Of course, maybe the subtext is intentional? Maybe he's mocking all those politicians who talk about passing laws requiring teenage boys to pull their pants up? I can't imagine the Wall Street Journal wasting page space on an angry rant about pants otherwise.
No other purpose to this entry. Carry on.
I settled down for a nap yesterday, on account of staying up late Wednesday night/Thursday morning for no actual reason. I already had a pile of stuff on my bed that I was too tired to move, so I just grabbed my blanket, curled up on the futon, and set my alarm for two hours later (it was about 4:00 p.m. at the time).
I woke up at 11:59 p.m. making a face like this: D: My back was in agony a little bit, and while I was uncomfortable lying there I was way too sore to get up for about ten minutes.
Lesson learned: No more naps on futon. In fact, it'd probably be best for me to get proper sleep instead of taking naps that turn into day-long unconscious spells. I used to be able to stay up for days on end and only take occasional two-hour dozes; now if I go without sleep for 24 hours I lose concentration and drop off at the first opportunity. This doesn't bode well for next year.
In other news, someone left the Wall Street Journal out on the table where I was eating lunch today, so I took a look though it, the Journal not being one of my regular news sources. On the Op-Ed page, right below a rather interesting (if hyperbolic) article on racial divisions in the environmentalist movement (which I occasionally strongly disagreed with, but, still, interesting), was an angry opinion piece on how we should start taxing blue jeans.
I honestly can't figure out if the writer is joking or not. He seems to take himself a bit too seriously for that, but I can't imagine someone who gets space on the WSJ Opinion pages getting that worked up over jeans of all things. Even if he is joking, the subtext of the joke is really quite unfortunate. Yes, let's tax blue jeans, the cheap, utilitarian, durable garment that almost anyone can wear. After all, we've already priced and taxed the lowest income bracket out of their homes, cars, jobs, and decent food; why not tax them out of their pants while we're here?
He also spoke of it as the ideal variety of "soft paternalism". Because I've always wanted my government to tell me how to dress, yes sir. And his comments on "undifferentiated dressing" veer, for me, dangerously close to an advocacy of gendered and class-divided dressing - the womenfolk shouldn't be wearing pants! And for heaven's sake, why are you upper-class types dressing like poor people?!
Of course, maybe the subtext is intentional? Maybe he's mocking all those politicians who talk about passing laws requiring teenage boys to pull their pants up? I can't imagine the Wall Street Journal wasting page space on an angry rant about pants otherwise.
No other purpose to this entry. Carry on.