Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
found on the washingtonpost.com:
Wal-Mart worker dies after shoppers knock him down
NEW YORK -- A Wal-Mart worker was killed Friday when "out-of-control" shoppers desperate for bargains broke down the doors at a 5 a.m. sale. Other workers were trampled as they tried to rescue the man, and customers shouted angrily and kept shopping when store officials said they were closing because of the death, police and witnesses said. continue reading...
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Many Groups Spied Upon In Md. Were Nonviolent
By Lisa Rein and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 19, 2008; B01
Maryland State Police labeled members of a Montgomery County environmental group as terrorists and extremists days after they held a nonviolent protest at an appearance by then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. at a Bethesda high school.
Police files released to the activists reveal that the governor's security detail alerted the state police's Homeland Security and Intelligence Division to what troopers guarding Ehrlich described as "aggressive protesting" by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network in 2005.
A review by The Washington Post of those and other files given in recent days to many of the 53 Maryland activists who were wrongly labeled as terrorists in state and federal databases shows an intelligence operation eager to collect information on the protest plans of a broad swath of nonviolent groups from 2005 to at least early 2007.
Monday, November 17, 2008
As you may have noticed from the last post, I’m none too happy about this whole Prop 8 kerfuffle. See, it pisses me off not just because of the hate, or the apparently comfort a certain segment of the population has with creating a fascist theocracy, or even the balls that some people have to act as if THEY are the ones who should be offended that they are being held responsible for their actions. See, I am also frustrated—and, to be honest, have been for quite some time—because there are so many more important things to do than try to assimilate with a worn out heteronormative religious institution . . . but man, those fucking Mormons have to ruin everything, don’t they. So I’ve come up with a solution for everyone:
Thursday, November 13, 2008
multiple consecutive hours, my brain goes on hiatus such that it will
not really function in any sort of active capacity, but only in a
reactionary capacity. and to get it to shift out of neutral and
accelerate requires massive amounts of mental oomph.
at night, i find the opposite. i can think and think and think putting
forth virtually no effort at all and there are occasions when i can't
stop thinking (a problem that seems to afflict a number of people i
know). and not only that but i can think in both broad strokes and
about the minutiae about virtually anything, from Armageddon, to pen
nibs, to the exploitation of sweatshop workers in southeast asia. my
nighttime thinking is often transportational—i can think myself into
various situations, with a heightened sense of empathy. i often am at
my most honestly self-reflective at night as well. and there have been
many occasions when i've composed letters in my head right before
going to sleep—thanks, apologies, or other sentiments—that seem at the
time extremely important things to say, but of course the next day,
the urge is lessened and i have an inability to recreate the words
for some reason i think most people are more thoughtful and honest at
night. probably right before they go to sleep. maybe this sense is
just a result of my self-centeredness—an assumption that everyone else
is like me or should be like me.
i wonder why this oscillation in thought (or lack thereof) occurs. is
the structured environment of an office actually destructive with
respect to thought processes? is the night some bizarre psychological
security blanket that allows the brain to wander off in any direction
without worry? maybe it's just the distraction of the computer with
its easily manipulated controls and infinite entertainments that
placates. it would be. stupid computers. (this is how bill gates took
over the world. it's diabolical!)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Is this true? Is a first lady not allowed to work professionally? Would her working professionally somehow result in a conflict of interest for the White House (i.e., tax cuts to the first lady's industry)? Clearly there are unofficial White House-y duties to attend to, but does that preclude her choosing another more enjoyable, paid occupation? Self-employment perhaps?
"There is a strong tradition against the First Lady holding outside employment while occupying the office. The first lady frequently participates in humanitarian and charitable work; over the course of the 20th century it became increasingly common for first ladies to select specific causes to promote, usually ones that are not politically divisive. It is common for the first lady to hire a staff to support these activities."
This is a pretty sexist precedent (outside of the fact that there have been no women presidents, obviously). I certainly support "humanitarian and charitable work", but I don't much like the idea of a first lady being pigeonholed into it.
First Black Lady—Lady Tigra
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
'In front of the White House, the celebrants came up with a new chant to direct toward the mansion: "Pack! Your! Shit!"' —Achenbach
but then last night, in all its historic, gravity-filled, momentous glory, our liberal messiah became the president elect. Obama then said this election was only the beginning and the real work is ahead. he appealed to the american people (that's us!) to do our part to help move america forward. then this afternoon i had an encounter with a fellow citizen while waiting for my order, (the bastille—a grilled panini with portobello mushrooms, roasted red peppers, smoked mozzarella, red onions, tomatoes, spinach in place of alfalfa sprouts, and sundried tomato mayo) at the local sandwich joint, who said electing Obama was a good first step, but that everyone needs to pitch in. i'm sure there are a number of other conversations happening all over the country with the same sentiment bandied about. i just don't know what it means. what part exactly are we supposed to do? how are we supposed to do it? is it sacrifice that's necessary? action? innovation? a psychological adjustment? what is and how do we make progress? this is really what most people yearn for, yes? some purpose? we'll eat it up if someone would just tell us, show us.
* * *
as for prop 8, isn't the basis for our country "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? isn't that what the declaration of independence was all about? the state denying a person their ability to marry someone they love is about as unamerican a thing as i can think of.