Another post about dog rescuing

You may remember this post from when I first started blogging and people belittled me and gave me a hard time about owning a non-rescue dog.

I ran into someone last week, maybe last Saturday, who had a very similar experience to mine while dealing with the same local humane society. It's the one for Clayton County, Georgia. I don't mind saying that now that I know they dump on other people too and not just me. I'd link, but I doubt they have a website.

Anyway, the rescuer experienced the same excoriating grilling that I also endured, but since she was an experienced dog owner, they didn't kick her to the curb or offer her only geriatric or sick animals for adoption. In fact, she found the dog she wanted there! That's actually awesome for the dog, regardless of how I feel about the group. However, in order to get the dog, she had to tear down her fence and built one more to their liking, despite the fact that the small dog in question could no more have gotten out, from what she described, than it could have sprouted wings!

You heard that right. To rescue a dog, someone actually had to do an unnecessary major construction/renovation project. That's quite simply fucked up.

I'm adding this to the list of reasons why I hate rescues. I am clearly not as nice as the rescuer in this scenario. If I already had a fenced yard that I felt could safely contain a dog, I would have walked before letting some evil-ass hairdo at an animal rescue bully me into tearing it down and building another, probably more expensive, one.

My dog has grown up without the advantages of a fence, unfortunately, but she goes out on leash or tether, but of course, my girl is a purebred.

This is the look that Gracie gives me when I tell her how rescue groups treat people who want to give homes to less fortunate dogs.


Actually...just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, she is in middle of sneezing. We're both keenly allergic to ragweed and I just happened to be taking a picture.

Bipartisan relationships

I am a Clinton democrat; my partner is a Reagan republican. I think that pretty much paints the picture. I'm a democrat based on hopes of social progress; he is a republican based on hopes of economic prosperity. We fight about politics on a fairly regular basis. Not argue. Fight. I am confrontation-averse, so I try to go through life without mentioning or showing interest in anything political around my partner. Not easy, but I think I do pretty well.

I wish I could compare my methods and our limited success rate with other couples in the same ideological boat, but I'm not sure enough of us exist for any meaning comparison. It's a hard row to hoe. I'm not sure many people would want to or be able to do it, even with the extravagant blow-outs we sometimes have taken into account.

Do other people draw lines in the sand? I can't because there is literally nothing he hasn't said to me over politics.

I cannot conceive of a workable way to handle this source of conflict, except to give up every belief I hold dear, which to me, is actually a fate worse than physical death, because what are we without our ideals? Is someone who holds no convictions, political or otherwise, fully human? Aren't the intangible things the components of our innermost self (souls)? If I did not love justice, for example, would I still be the same person I am now? If I did not believe in equality, would my daily walk through this world look or be different? I think we're made of our deeply held beliefs. We are that feeling of right-or-wrong that defies religion, social structure, class, etc.

And, yes, I try every time we fight to explain why I won't just do/think/believe as he wants me to do. He can't grasp it. Nothing I say or even write for him penetrates, and that well and truly baffles me. I can understand why he has his beliefs. He wants to make more money and pay less taxes and for the world to be as it was in his youth. Easy-peasy. Why keeps him from doing the same? Ever?

Well...I guess that's more personality than political persuasion, in either sense.

For the record, I have never tried to change his mind about anything. I respect his life experiences and what brought him to his conclusions about politics. I totes understand wanting more money. Really, I do. I just don't get why he can't agree to disagree or put some limits on how far the arguing goes.

Other people have found away through this. I know we will too eventually. I'm just hoping ... sooner rather than later, you know?

But they can't even drive!

I wanted to wait until after World Stroke Day to post this, otherwise I would have released the steam sooner.

So basically, one of my friends who likes to rib me about the geritocracy thing expressed doubt that people who couldn't even drive a car in many states, because of age restrictions, could lead a country.

As much as I hate the term ableist, that's kind of it in a nutshell right there. What abilities are absolutely necessary to be a good leader? I believe common sense, natural intelligence, compassion, a deep well of life-experience, and a calm demeanor are among the most important qualities. I see no reason why matters of body or health should interfere with matters of mind or soul.

Do any of our sitting presidents drive themselves anyway???

I would much rather have a president that can't stand up than one who won't stand up, if you know what I mean.

That's all academic, I know, but it really bothered me how inane of a qualification that is. And not because I didn't learn to drive until I was almost eighteen.

Psycholinguistics redefined

Psycholinguistics is actually the study of language from the psychological perspective. But I think a secondary definition should exist. It should read as follows:

Psycholinguistics [noun] speech or language that when used is guaranteed to make the listener go psychotic. See also fighting-words.

For me, several phrases pop into mind:

Who told you that you could _________?
Well, don't you think that ...
Who let you (do) ____________?
A reasonable person could only believe/think...

These push my buttons. I am an adult by many standard definitions. The idea that I require permission for any of the mundane activities of life or am required to think as the speaker (any speaker) dictates is repugnant to me in the extreme. The notion that I can be manipulated to change word, thought, or deed by use of these petty, brow-beating phrases is as insulting as it is absurd.

For example, from this evening, no one told me that I could tuck my jeans into my boots. I chose to tuck my jeans into my boots because I felt the jeans were slightly short and because tucking-in showed the good-looking boots to better effect.

For less recent example, a few years ago a baby-doc (that is, a doctor under the age of 35) expressed the following sentiment upon learning that my ob/gyn had provided me with my first Mirena IUD:

He let you get an IUD?

Strong emphasis on the let, moderate emphasis on the you.

So basically what I heard: I can't believe a doctor actually gave a dumb slut like you such a valuable medical device.

I wish my comeback had been more authoritative, but I was unaccustomed to that kind of tone from a medical professional. I think I feebly informed her that I had asked her for it and he had taken my request under consideration. Like I said, quite feeble.

For a more pervasive example, I have a work-related acquaintance who begins perhaps one-third of every sentence she speaks with a passive-aggressive variation on don't-you-think... I absolutely loathe that. The haughty tone is just the bonus plan. Like she cannot even conceive that this world may in some dark and shabby corner contain a thought that disagrees with the one she is about to suddenly and shrilly vomit into the room. I have terrific blood pressure. And yet, I literally feel the blood in my arms SMASH against the artery walls every time she does this.

So that's psycholinguistics for me. Tongue-in-cheek, you know. I bet a word already exists to describe the phenomenon. Shoot me a comment if you know it.

World music

Most people are comfortable with music in their own language, regardless of where the musician(s) come from. That's understandable. We like that we can...understand, especially without too much/any effort on our part. Thinking about music? Not really within the realm of most (American) people's experience. It's different in polyglot societies, I think, where more than one language can be heard on the radio waves or found in local mp3 downloads.

Do music stores still exist? Or would I be dating myself again?

Anyway, my problem is that I love languages and maybe two-thirds of the music I listen to comes from languages I've been exposed to in the classroom or elsewhere, but not typically in everyday life. I like German and Japanese music and music from Africa. Not the silly-ass ogling of other cultures prepackaged world music. Popular music from those languages/regions.

Can I understand it? The German, yeah, for the most part. The Japanese, only a few words. The multilingual slurry from Africa...uh, no, but I still like it, and I have looked up some of the lyrics to get the gist. It's wonderful to live in the age of Internet. When I understand a word or phrase from the latter two music source languages, I actually get a thrill, like what I imagine (and only imagine, I promise) a cocaine user gets from taking a line. It's powerful.

Why don't other people experience that? Or would they if they ever gave world music a chance?

I guess part of it is that this isn't what music is for. It's for entertainment, not ... what? Education? Enlightenment? Music was for mind-expansion at one time (hullo, 1960s), but I don't think this is what they meant.

Even people learning (of their own free will) another language don't seem, in my experience, to derive enjoyment from their second-language's music. That really stymies me. How can someone enjoy learning Spanish, but eschew listening to any Spanish music? For example.

To be fair, they don't seem to enjoy poetry either. Conversational language learners...may not have the sensibilities necessary for music or reading? I don't know. I learned German because it was required. I loved it because of a lot of weird little things that when pieced together make something. Not crazy about the poetry. The music does something for me that's between healing/soothing and awakening. Love that. To everyone else, German music is comprised of dead composers, beer hall songs, and one-hit wonders.

If you find yourself puzzling over whether or not you could ever love world music, as described above, I suggest going to Amazon and perusing their mp3 selection. You don't have to buy; just listen to snippets of songs and see how you feel. If you need some recommendations for artists to start with, recall that German is my primary love, and start with these guys: Peter Maffay, Matthias Reim, and Falco. If you can find a copy of Falco's Der Egoist, it's worth a listen.

Peter Maffay himself is a lover of world music and has collaborated with artists from many other countries. Search for his Begegnung albums. Many of these are very good.

Media post - books

These are books that I am reading/have read in the last year that I believe are good enough to blanket recommend to pretty much anyone:

Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell (in-progress)

It's literary. It's better than the movie. It informs the reader about human nature and themselves. And unlike the movie, IMHO, it isn't just about slavery. If you like short-stories, but find they leave you wanting more...ding-ding-ding.

Blood of Tyrants by Naomi Novik

Of course, read the other books first, but that's sort of the point. The Temeraire novels are terrific almost all the way through. Well researched, wonderful characters. Basically, it's Horatio Hornblower with dragons. And actually, yes, it is mostly about slavery.

Me Before You by Jojo Moyes

Another human condition-type book, but the prose is wonderful, the suspense is palpable, and it will make you (the reader) think hard about what's important in life. Uncomfortably funny, very British, but worth the read.

Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor

Best thing in modern, dark fantasy for the younger crowd. Seriously dark for my tastes, but utterly inspired from beginning to end, incredibly daring. If Gaiman, Pullman, and Nix had a literary love-child, I think it would look something like this. Bonus: the sequel is just as good, but even darker.

Speaking from Among the Bones by Alan Bradley

This is from the Flavia de Luce series of mystery novels. Start at the beginning. Please? Again, seriously anglophilic, but charming. The series takes place in post-WWII England in a quaint village with even quainter people. Flavia is...twelve, I think? She solves mysteries and thinks about poisoning people.

Defending Jacob by William Landay

A little too popular, but still worth the time. Readers of John Grisham might especially enjoy this one. I am not such a person myself. The book provides an interesting look into the justice system and into family curses.

Seraphina by Rachel Hartman

Again, dragons, but this time in a more high-fantasy style, although definitely with modern twists. The book asks interesting questions about love, kinship, and family secrets. I am eagerly awaiting more from the author. I usually don't say that.

Shadow of Night by Deborah Harkness

Second book in the All Souls Trilogy. I feel the urge to defend this as not being paranormal romance. The author did some terrific research into history, science, and literature. She also wrote a vampire novel I actually read...and loved. But, yes, tons of romance novel here. Aching for the final volume.


So that's a year of the best books from my reading life, brought to you with memory-jogging help from Good Reads. If you read, you need a Good Reads account.

More almond butter

This is an addition to this post, comparing brands of almond butter.

MaraNatha Almond Butter (No Stir)

As I mentioned before, I cannot eat natural, oily nut butters. Not happening. MaraNatha's no-stir butter is...perilously close to having an oily sheen. It is just barely no-stir, in other words. However, the product has a terrific dark and inviting color as well as a rich texture very similar to my fave (Berry Hill from Aldi's). In fact, I kind of wonder if they might be the same product. But I couldn't compare them side-by-side, so that's mere speculation. The taste was a lot more wholesome and buttery than Jif or Barney butter, even though the sugar content was rather low (3g/serving). It's a good product. Sadly, this one is also quite a bit more expensive - I believe my partner paid $9.99 for a really small jar of the stuff. Not something we could/should have all the time!


I'm not receiving any inducement to post this.

Stay classy, Houston

I enjoy professional football and am actually an NY Jets fan (please feel free to e-mail any condolences); however, I feel compelled tonight to talk smack about the Houston Texans. No, not about the team - about the people in Texas from Houston who thought it was at all civil, appropriate, humane, or generally okay to award their injured quarterback, Matt Schaub, with a standing ovation for leaving the game.

If you feel the need for video or additional commentary, Yahoo! has it, as always.

These are the same fans that possibly went to his house. And not in a nice way. Whaaa?

Schaub is actually a good quarterback - perhaps not Hall of Fame quality, but better than any QB my team has fielded since Joe Namath. Not luckier, obviously, but certainly stats-wise, much better than recent...but I digress.

What I'm saying here is that far worse quarterbacks have been given far less shit for far worse early season performances. So that fault must lie with the fans, in that they are boors without the least shred of decency.

And for the record, I had Houston to win today, but was far more upset by the fans than by my points lost in the football pool.

For whatever its worth, football is an ugly game, and that's part of the attraction, but cheering over injuries is too much real-life and not enough American-pastime for my taste, ESPECIALLY when people are celebrating the injury of one of their own team's players.

Note: you may have noticed that I didn't mention salary here or wealth or perceptions thereof. I don't care. That simple.

Almond butter

I really didn't want to blog product reviews, but this isn't so much about that. No one will ever ask me to review their product. I'm too mean and basically, I hate everything.

I'm semi-Paleo in my dietary habits - meat & veg, little processed foods, low-carbohydrate. The recommendation is to forgo legumes, likes beans and peanuts, which I find ridiculously different, even more so than giving up pasta, rice, and bread. I still eat peanut butter and can definitely see where that sabotages me. But it's so good.

Anyway, one common suggestion in this area of weakness is to replace peanut butter with the healthier (and mucho more expensive) almond butter. When I first started this diet in May 2012, almond butter was impossible to find in my area, even at higher-end grocers. Amazon had it, of course, but um...cost prohibitive.

Lately, this has changed, in that all the big grocery stores now carry a couple varieties of almond butter. I won't eat the natural (stir in oil) kind because it make me queasy just opening the jar. Seriously, no can do! I never buy crunchy, because my partner has recurring diverticulitis and I don't want to kill him. So far, here's what I've learned.

Jif Almond Butter (creamy):

Tiny jar, but the cheapest butter I can get from the big grocers. The taste is bland, but certainly edible, and the texture is slightly oil, not rich. For people looking for a peanut replacement, this probably works okay. The best price I've seen is $5.99 on sale.

Barney Butter Smooth Almond Butter:

Again, smallish jar, very pricey, but ounce-for-ounce very close to the regular, non-sale price of Jif. The taste and texture are decent - richer and fuller, less oily. This one also feels thicker. Not terrific, but a step up. I also feel better about the quality. Best price: $7.99 on sale.

Berryhill (Aldi) Almond Butter (creamy):

The jar is mid-sized between the other two brands. I have to admit it: the texture of this one is far superior. It has a grainy texture, but in a good way, like with fudge. Probably because it has so much sugar (6g) in it? The taste is very nice, but not to-die-for good. That said, if you can find it, the price is very reasonable, considering. Price: $4.99.

Just added:

MaraNatha Almond Butter (No Stir)

This particular no-stir butter is...perilously close to having an oily sheen. It is just barely no-stir, in other words. However, the product has a terrific dark and inviting color as well as a rich texture very similar to my fave (Berry Hill from Aldi's). In fact, I kind of wonder if they might be the same product. But I couldn't compare them side-by-side, so that's mere speculation. The taste was a lot more wholesome and buttery than Jif or Barney butter, even though the sugar content was rather low (3g/serving). It's a good product. Sadly, this one is also quite a bit more expensive. Price: $9.99.


Note: when I eat peanut butter, I only eat Jif. Just FYI.

Blast from the past

I don't know how many people remember the TV show Sliders from the 1990s, but a friend of mine brought up an episode that is sort of germane to the topic of geritocracy. I know I'm dating myself here, but I really liked the show as a teenager, even if I only saw the first ... maybe four seasons. At some point, even good shows can jump the shark, right?

Anyway, it's the Sliders - Third Season episode, The Breeder, which is like a mishmash of Species and Logan's Run. The important point in the episode is that young people are assigned to be forced organ donors for the older and more powerful.

So my friend wants to know what's to stop the elderly from using us for spare parts if they have all the power?

Well...creepy as that may be, I actually think that people over the age of 90 are not really looking for spare parts. At that age, haven't most people made their peace? Also...isn't the surgical survival rate for the extremely old (hey, let's not sugarcoat here), a bit less than it is for the current people in charge (45 to 65-year-olds)?

I imagine we do have some coercive organ donation going on already, probably catering to the current age-group in power, since they are better suited recipients; however, I really don't see that spiking in a geritocracy. In my experience, immortality is not the obsession of centenarians, but rather the young who fear the loss of youth and vigor as much as they fear death. In other words, I think people my age and slightly older are more likely to prey on weaker members of society than the very aged are.

Oh...for a non-aged-related book on this train of thought try Unwind and its sequel by Neal Shusterman. I wish I had remembered that day, but it's been a while since I read it. Talk about an interesting thought experiment!

Alcohol

This is one of those places where my opinion differs greatly from both mainstream and my own cultural group(s). I despise drinking. It's not just a personal, me, thing. I don't like the taste of anything alcohol-based I have ever tasted, ranging from wine, beer, brandy, and mixed drinks. That's on me. I never had the capacity to acquire the taste.

No, I actually hate drinking more generally, and that's because I've never known anyone to do it well. No one I've ever seen is nicer, smarter, harder-working, or easier to get along with while drinking. In fact, most people I know are either angry or mentally slow while intoxicated. So...which do you prefer: scary or frustrating? I would rather not deal with either one. Especially angry or its near kindred - cruel or violent.

And a lot of people seem to have the backwards notion that if something bad is done while drunk, that should mitigate any legal consequence or social ones. What the heck, people??? Unless a person was held down while alcohol was poured down their gullet, they are just as responsible for that as for anything else in their lives. Decision made, consequences lived with. Done.

I don't advocate prohibition. It didn't work. Plus cooking with wine can work pretty well - I always makes sure to get a one-minute rolling boil or use it in the slow cooker. Pinot Noir and pork chops with black-eyed peas = yum. Screaming drunken jackass = not so much.

What then? I advocate people who dislike drinking saying so instead of holding a cup of diet Coke at a party and pretending it has JD in it. I advocate people standing up and saying that bad drunken behavior is JUST as intolerable as bad sober behavior. I advocate using technology, like Instagram or Youtube, to shame people who engage in dangerous behavior while drinking or who are black-out drunks and plead amnesia in the AM.

But this is just me.

Geritocracy vs gerontocracy

A few people have pointed out to me, thanks to their mad wikipedia skills, that the term gerontocracy already exists and describes a form of governance similar to this thing that I posit.

Actually, no.

Gerontocracy existed in Russia during the Cold War. It was a way of explaining that though their leaders aged, they never left their positions in the Communist hierarchy. The system was a static one created by late-middle-aged politicians, much like the ones that rule...everywhere, even here. They were not chosen for their age, their life experience, their values. They just had the right connections and toed a party line.

What I purpose differs in that aging into a position from an unappealingly youthful age (under 70) would be nearly impossible. Those who rule in a geritocracy would already have some serious seasoning before they even got to be so much as dog-catcher. It's not an aging system (much). It's a system run by the aged. No networking. No partisan politics.

And that's different.

Serendipitous newsstory in AJC

I actually wanted to link to it, but the AJC has it as a premium subscriber-only article, and I'll be damned if I pay for a newspaper...on the Internet. Seriously?

The gist is that while the majority of Georgians hate the new healthcare reform act, most of them do support some of the provisions therein, like insurance companies not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. That's one of the biggest victories in the law, IMHO, so it's nice to see I'm not alone in feeling that way.

I just wish people were more open-minded about other parts of the law that will help people, you know?

The elephant in the waiting room

I don't actually feel conflicted about the controversy over healthcare. I feel apathetic toward the healthcare reform currently underway (Affordable Healthcare Act) because it's badly cobbled together with some amazing parts and many more lackluster ones, all of which are the sine qua non of our failed political system. That said, people who oppose reform absolute baffle me at the most basic human level I know.

I think we're pretty much divided into three camps here: the chronically ill, those who've experienced a devastating health crisis, and the well. The first two groups support, IMHO, something being done to fix our broken, emotionally degrading, and financially oppressive system. The third group just wants the sick to fucking die already so they don't have to 'pay' for anyone else's problems. Harsh, but really, isn't that essentially true? Isn't that the crux of the matter?

People who are well believe themselves morally superior. They don't feel any gratitude for having their health. They taken it as a given that being a good, morally upstanding, probably Christian American gives them protection from the demons of disease, illness, and freak accident, while the godless and/or unrepentant get cancer or multiple sclerosis or what-have-you and then selfishly and evilly expect help.

I look at it this way: we do have some health factors within our reasonable control. We can choose not to smoke. We can choose to drink only in moderation. We can buckle our seat belts.

However, there are a lot of factors that are well beyond our control. I don't just mean our genes, gene expression, and genetic predispositions, although these play a huge part. People who are wholly reasonable and responsible in their day-to-day lives can still be injured or die from falling down the stairs. People who exercise can still have a massive heart attack. I refer you to Jim Fixx with regard to that one. People without a familial history of cancer can still get it and suffer expensively...and either live or die based on the quality of care received.

Yes, Virginia, even morally upstanding people who visit their churches and anti-abortion protests twice a week can still end up among the unwell.

I don't really want to wish chronic or long-term illness on anyone.

But for those who have never been there and those who never had a reason to feel grateful for their health or that of others, and therefore might find such gratitude as foreign as taking one's shoes off to enter a home, I sincerely wish they could have some sort of aha! moment that would let them understand how things are for the unwell people whom they so despise, especially those with inadequate access to care.

Now for some disclosure, lest anyone think that I'm interested in reform only for my own benefit: yes, I am chronically ill, but yes, I also have health insurance through my employer, and although the expense remains a pretty harsh financial burden, I am grateful for the fact that I can afford essential medications and preventative healthcare.

That said, most of the people I have sincerely loved in my life -  and for any Christians reading, no, that isn't heathen code for 'guys I've fucked', although most of my former boyfriends fit in here too - the majority of them have had some sort of ongoing medical problem, whether it's debilitating back pain from a car accident, epilepsy, Type II diabetes, lingering effects of a stroke, or fibromyalgia. I have had little cause in my life to find or seek out the companionship of well people. That's just me, how I'm wired, apparently. Not to be flippant or tacky, but as a child, I always prefer my older, broken toys to the new ones. They gave greater comfort.

Anyway, that was weirdly long. Sorry about that. I spent a lot of time this weekend at home with my well partner, getting screamed at over this issue, so it's been on my mind.

So the Pope...

I am not Catholic. This is primarily due to being born into families whose Protestant roots stretch back to prior to the Edict of Nantes and to the days of Henry VIII. We were early adopters all around, you see. Therefore, my opinions on matters relating to the Church should be taken with a grain of salt.

That said...yay, Pope Francis, for not being the same kind of curmudgeonly, Bronze-Age twit that his predecessors were. Doesn't the world have more to worry about than gay rights and abortion? Apparently, I'm not alone in thinking so.

Maybe now Catholicism will go back to feeding the hungry, tending the sick, and opposing the death penalty.

Or they'll covertly assassinate Il Papa. Nice popes have short lives. History bears this out.

BUT let's hope he's the exception!!!

The cabinet

I got another 'friendly' question about the geritocracy thing yesterday. How would I choose to staff the Cabinet?

The basic disagreement here is that the Cabinet is currently staffed by chosen advisers to the president, all of whom have impressive skill sets and resumes and substantial political connections. If chosen based solely on age, the skill sets may not correlate well with job requirements, but if chosen on merit and ability, like now, then the young guns, most of whom would probably be between 45 and 65, may be able to turn the president into a puppet.

Hunh...valid argument.

Also, some (all?) Cabinet positions are in the current order of succession.

A skilled Cabinet is necessary for a good presidency. Two words: Jimmy Carter. The US requires a strong executive. It's part of our national character.

Obviously, in order to satisfy all the demands present in selecting the right kind of people for the job, a system of checks and balances would need to be created, but the system cannot be too complex, because the more moving parts a thing has, the more likely it is to break.

So what I would suggest is that each cabinet position from Secretary of State down to Administrator of the Small Business Administration have a set of qualifications that would ultimately allow for the selection of the oldest qualified professional person, not otherwise engaged in governance. Like with Secretary of State, the likeliest place to find such a person would be the oldest US diplomat. Defense, the oldest (retired probably) US general or admiral. The minimum age for serving on the Cabinet should be 70 or 75 years, with possible exceptions made by act of Congress. Determining the right profession-position fit(s) would be something the Supreme Court might do. Just to spread the responsibility a bit.

This would also take the partisan politics out of the equation, which would be very much necessary in the first few decades of the system overall.

Again, I have no intentions of overthrowing the government. I just like to think about other ways to do things.

I just checked. As of December, John Kerry would still be minimally eligible to be Secretary of State. Seventy just isn't that old these days, is it? :)

Butchering the English language

Two words are causing some confusion among the people I interact with:

Mines (noun, pl.) holes in the ground from whence come diamonds, coal, etc.

Mine (pronoun, possessive) an object belonging to me.

Example:

Wrong: "That dollar bill's mines."

Correct: "That dollar bill is mine."

Consider this a PSA.

I mean, really, who on earth does not know the difference between those words? WTF??? Are they trying to sound cool by sounding ignorant? We need to stop tolerating this. If everyone would correct the error, it would go away.

Pros and cons of prison suicides

Obviously, this is in reference to Ariel Castro, the nut-job that held three young women prisoner in his house for ten years.

My partner is bummed that he won't serve all that time. I'm pleased that no one has to pay for him to serve all that time and he didn't go free.

I see his point. The guy deserved to suffer. His victims deserved more justice. I'm pretty sure the guy hadn't even had any prison rape.

But with the rising cost of incarceration and the whimsy of our judicial system, at least this provides the whole affair with some very affordable, if not perfectly satisfying, closure. I am a big fan of closure.

Either way, he's dead, Jim.

Thoughts?

Government okays laziness and gluttony

That's right. I am a little pissed about the government getting a little too useless to bother saying-no to drugs these days. State's rights are an iffy proposition to begin with. I believe we fought a war on the subject and yes, the state's rights side lost. I know. My ancestors were there.

So marijuana. Not a good idea.

Here's my take. In graduate school, I had this psycho professor who was my adviser, my thesis adviser, and my employer. Call this the dark trifecta, if you will. Anyway, he did A MEGA TON of Mary Jane. It made him super-forgetful. Like he would tell me to do things, job and school-related, and completely and utterly forget later after I had worked pretty hard to get these things done. I could never tell when he was so high that I should blow-off the requests, so I got pretty bad burnout from the experience of sometimes trying to do the impossible and then coming back, exhausted, but successful, to confusion, derision, and...well, annoyance from him.

I started hating users then. I hate them now.

If he had kept it together, I probably would have had a very different life than the one I have now. That life might include a lot more scholarship, travel, and personal satisfaction. It might include better salary and benefits. It might include a lot of things that he destroyed for me because he just couldn't keep it together while using.

He's probably destroyed other people's lives since then. Because he has tenure, I seriously doubt he destroyed his own, no matter how bad he got. I don't know.

I've always hoped he would get caught by Virginia's finest with more than an ounce or whatever and jailed. I makes me feel better. This could still happen, for sure, but I doubt he would serve any real time without the feds being pro-useful citizen too. I doubt it would make any impact unless he did serious time where he had to bargain for favors and...well, I think we know what I'm looking for here.

So, yeah, I'm major league disappointed with my president right now. I might vote for the other guys next time, if they can make me believe they'll fix this.

Celebrity victim blaming

I don't actually follow the lives of any celebrities. I got that fetish out of my system as a dorkish teenager and adolescent who wrote letters to favorite actors and musicians - for the record, the most gracious and cool was Lou Gramm of Foreigner, who wrote me a letter I still have tucked away somewhere.

Anyway, even though I'm not into celebrity culture or even normal Facebook-style interest in popular culture, I still live in America, so I still know that Michael Douglas says his wife's pussy gave him throat cancer. True or not, really?? This is something a guy wants to put out there about his hot, much younger wife? Because...I'm seeing this as a terrible idea. And judging by the news today - they're splitting up, apparently - I'm not entirely wrong here.

But that's not my point here. If she has HPV, then she's at risk for cancer too, and therefore, it's kind of ugly to hang her out there for oh-so-public ridicule, isn't it? Some guy infected her (we assume, although HPV is much more lively than HIV and easily spread without very much intimate contact). She infected her husband. He humiliates her. The other guy...he's oblivious, although possibly suffering from genital warts. It's a sad day when 'genital warts' is considered winning.

She's young. With proper and consistent medical care, she'll probably be fine and maybe meet someone less keen on airing other people's knickers in the international press. I'm thinking he should be looking for a nice long-term care facility.

And they were, seriously, such a nice looking couple.

I know his wife's name, but I haven't mentioned it here because even though I'm just an idiot blogger, I don't want to contribute, anymore than necessary, to the ugly press she is receiving. It's principle. More or less.