[Sub-Heading: Listening to the couple next door yelling at each other - extended edition]
Sometimes their conversations are mundane. Sometimes their conversations are abusive. Sometimes their conversations betray painful truths about the fragile vulnerability of human interactions. Frequently their conversations are loud (such that I can often hear them through the shared wall). Occasionally their conversations take place in our shared driveway (making it even easier for me to eavesdrop on them). One time it sounded like things were escalating to a dangerous place and I considered ringing the police. They are both in their early 30s and there are some difficult decisions ahead for them. In the meantime, they continue shouting at each other:
(NB: the order of fragments is mostly random; some fragments are from the same conversation; some fragments are direct quotes, some fragments are paraphrased; I've grouped fragments into sections of five, with each section being either her or him only; I've tried to balance more toxic fragments with less toxic ones; capital letters indicate screaming rather than yelling)
her: you're acting like a 5 year old
her: it's never going to happen!
her: watch yourself!
her: I'M NOT ACTING LIKE A BABY!!!
her: what about the future?
him: you're fucking nuts!
him: I don't know what I want
him: you say you have revealing dreams about me
him: FUCK OFF!!!
him: I love you
her: unfuckingbelievable!
her: this is as good as it gets!
her: when are we having a baby???
her: I'm your chauffeur
her: GET AWAY FROM ME!!!
him: you keep talking about your biological clock
him: I would never cheat on a woman
him: YOU FUCKING BITCH!!!
him: I want to have a baby
him: how many cigarettes have you had?
her: I love you
her: this isn't 5 years ago
her: I wouldn't not want you to be happy
her: you're following 900 women on instagram
her: FUCK OFF!!!
him: I'm happy in this job
him: SHUT UP!!!
him: I want the mother of my baby to be healthy
him: how many steps have you done today?
him: it was just for fun, it doesn't mean anything
her: why are we still fighting about this?
her: there better not be any teenagers
her: stop touching me!
her: I'm just trying to make suggestions to help you
her: I'm going to talk about this
him: today, I'm not your boyfriend
him: I know how to wash dishes!
him: I will kill your cat
him: what about my happiness?
him: I don't want to talk about this
Showing posts with label Tirade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tirade. Show all posts
Monday, 11 January 2016
Thursday, 6 August 2015
The Driveway is Mine!
[Sub Heading: Driveway Party]
Mine, mine, ALL MINE!! In fact, I am officially declaring my driveway to be a 'driveway' rather than a 'shared driveway'. And I can do this because the annoying people who live next door, and with whom I have to share the driveway, will not be annoying me as I have killed them. Yeah! Actually, they have gone away on holiday (probably 'cos they were worried I was gonna kill them, hah!). And they haven't just gone away for a little bit, they've gone away for a month (assuming I overheard her correctly). So I will be having a driveway party every day for the next 4 weeks. And by 'driveway party' I mean that I will be enjoying not being yelled at in the driveway, being able to drive my car up and down the driveway without hindrance from her car, not having to avoid windows breaking onto the driveway (or possibly onto me), and not having to avoid stepping on broken glass left in the driveway from the broken window. I also won't have to listen to slamming doors or to them yelling at each other (though sometimes this can be entertaining), and I won't have to smell her stinky cigarette smoke or hear her whiny voice. For a whole month. Bliss.
Mine, mine, ALL MINE!! In fact, I am officially declaring my driveway to be a 'driveway' rather than a 'shared driveway'. And I can do this because the annoying people who live next door, and with whom I have to share the driveway, will not be annoying me as I have killed them. Yeah! Actually, they have gone away on holiday (probably 'cos they were worried I was gonna kill them, hah!). And they haven't just gone away for a little bit, they've gone away for a month (assuming I overheard her correctly). So I will be having a driveway party every day for the next 4 weeks. And by 'driveway party' I mean that I will be enjoying not being yelled at in the driveway, being able to drive my car up and down the driveway without hindrance from her car, not having to avoid windows breaking onto the driveway (or possibly onto me), and not having to avoid stepping on broken glass left in the driveway from the broken window. I also won't have to listen to slamming doors or to them yelling at each other (though sometimes this can be entertaining), and I won't have to smell her stinky cigarette smoke or hear her whiny voice. For a whole month. Bliss.
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Move Your Car!!!
[Subtitle: I'm using this blog post to snark indirectly at my neighbour instead of snarking directly at her as that may be too confrontational and possibly lead to violence and I really would (mostly) prefer to solve this issue in a peaceful manner]
Dear Annoying Neighbour (front flat),
The problem with your firm belief in your 'entitlement' to park behind me in the driveway such that I cannot get my car out, is that you actually have NO entitlement to do this. And, more importantly, I actually have a legal right to move my car in and out of my parking space whenever the hell I like. I also have a legal right to get both you and your car booted off the property if you keep blocking my car (which I'm currently in the process of doing). So, you might want to start parking in your allocated parking space - to the side of the driveway - if you don't want to get evicted (surely not being able to park in the driveway is a somewhat minor inconvenience compared to being evicted).
You seem to think that it's perfectly reasonably for me to have to knock on your door every time I want to take my car out and that I'm being mean by not agreeing to such an arrangement. Would you agree to it, if you lived in the back flat?
Your strategies to try to get me to swap parking spaces with you have not been without some measure of creativity. Your appeal to my 'compassionate' side ('my life is harder than your life, so I deserve to park in the driveway/under the carport', or something like that) whilst not being original (or true) was executed with some flair. Your attempts to passively-aggressively bully me by being slow to come to the door when I knocked and then being hostile about moving your car (in effect, trying to make it so difficult for me to get my car out that I give up and start parking in your spot) were unexpected and initially unsettled me, but now I'm battle ready and prepared for the onslaught. Your self appointed role of being gate-keeper to my life is making my angry and defiant, not submissive (your understanding of human nature seems a little misguided here). But you really are wasting your energy because there ain't no way I'm giving up my (allocated) parking space (which I've grown quite fond of over the years).
I accept that my parking space is a little nicer than yours. I park under a carport (though I do have to park right in front of my doorway, which some people might not like), whereas you park under a tree (but the area in front of your flat is clear). But your argument that you have a right to a carport is pretty wild. You, as a human being, have a right to shelter, your car does not. Unfortunately (for you), when I moved in (many years ago), the flat with the carport was vacant so I took it (not because of the carport, that was just a bonus). Maybe one day I'll die an untimely death and you can move into my flat and park under the carport. (Warning: if I am murdered, I will be exercising my right as a spirit-in-limbo to haunt the hell out of my flat). But, for the present, you'll have to park in the side spot or find somewhere else with a carport and move there.
You are being immature and illogical and a bully, and something you need to realise is that the tactics you are using on me to try to get your way may have worked when you were in high school or living at home, but in the real world they are likely to get you evicted from a tenancy or fired from a job. But I think the most important thing you need to realise, the thing that you are foolishly failing to appreciate, is that I'm just as big a cotton candy ass as you!
Bite me,
Effulgent13 (back flat)
[UPDATE/EDIT (6/8/2014): The driveway/parking situation is now under control! The front neighbour is now parking in the spot to the side of the driveway (and has gotten the tree cut down, making that spot a much better parking space). All is now (seemingly) calm in our driveway.]
Dear Annoying Neighbour (front flat),
The problem with your firm belief in your 'entitlement' to park behind me in the driveway such that I cannot get my car out, is that you actually have NO entitlement to do this. And, more importantly, I actually have a legal right to move my car in and out of my parking space whenever the hell I like. I also have a legal right to get both you and your car booted off the property if you keep blocking my car (which I'm currently in the process of doing). So, you might want to start parking in your allocated parking space - to the side of the driveway - if you don't want to get evicted (surely not being able to park in the driveway is a somewhat minor inconvenience compared to being evicted).
You seem to think that it's perfectly reasonably for me to have to knock on your door every time I want to take my car out and that I'm being mean by not agreeing to such an arrangement. Would you agree to it, if you lived in the back flat?
Your strategies to try to get me to swap parking spaces with you have not been without some measure of creativity. Your appeal to my 'compassionate' side ('my life is harder than your life, so I deserve to park in the driveway/under the carport', or something like that) whilst not being original (or true) was executed with some flair. Your attempts to passively-aggressively bully me by being slow to come to the door when I knocked and then being hostile about moving your car (in effect, trying to make it so difficult for me to get my car out that I give up and start parking in your spot) were unexpected and initially unsettled me, but now I'm battle ready and prepared for the onslaught. Your self appointed role of being gate-keeper to my life is making my angry and defiant, not submissive (your understanding of human nature seems a little misguided here). But you really are wasting your energy because there ain't no way I'm giving up my (allocated) parking space (which I've grown quite fond of over the years).
I accept that my parking space is a little nicer than yours. I park under a carport (though I do have to park right in front of my doorway, which some people might not like), whereas you park under a tree (but the area in front of your flat is clear). But your argument that you have a right to a carport is pretty wild. You, as a human being, have a right to shelter, your car does not. Unfortunately (for you), when I moved in (many years ago), the flat with the carport was vacant so I took it (not because of the carport, that was just a bonus). Maybe one day I'll die an untimely death and you can move into my flat and park under the carport. (Warning: if I am murdered, I will be exercising my right as a spirit-in-limbo to haunt the hell out of my flat). But, for the present, you'll have to park in the side spot or find somewhere else with a carport and move there.
You are being immature and illogical and a bully, and something you need to realise is that the tactics you are using on me to try to get your way may have worked when you were in high school or living at home, but in the real world they are likely to get you evicted from a tenancy or fired from a job. But I think the most important thing you need to realise, the thing that you are foolishly failing to appreciate, is that I'm just as big a cotton candy ass as you!
Bite me,
Effulgent13 (back flat)
[UPDATE/EDIT (6/8/2014): The driveway/parking situation is now under control! The front neighbour is now parking in the spot to the side of the driveway (and has gotten the tree cut down, making that spot a much better parking space). All is now (seemingly) calm in our driveway.]
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
The 49 cents is OURS!!!
"Unfortunately your electricity account has been undercharged due to an incorrect Meter Reading."
Look, I probably would have just spent the 49 cents that my electricity company undercharged me on alcohol and drugs and psychics. So, really, it's a good thing that they followed up on collecting this missing money. And, sure, the 49 cents probably won't even cover the cost of postage, paper, ink and personnel required to mail out the amended electricity bill, but this is a minor drawback compared to the ecstatic anal retentiveness of making damn sure that every single kilowatt of power is PAID FOR. No freebies. Good day, Sir!
Look, I probably would have just spent the 49 cents that my electricity company undercharged me on alcohol and drugs and psychics. So, really, it's a good thing that they followed up on collecting this missing money. And, sure, the 49 cents probably won't even cover the cost of postage, paper, ink and personnel required to mail out the amended electricity bill, but this is a minor drawback compared to the ecstatic anal retentiveness of making damn sure that every single kilowatt of power is PAID FOR. No freebies. Good day, Sir!
Friday, 15 November 2013
Primal Scream
Why am I yelling?
What am I yelling?
Should I try to stop?
I yell at the living and at the dead.
I yell at innocent objects.
Do they need to be yelled at?
None of them yell back.
Will anything be achieved?
Maybe it isn't proper yelling. Maybe it's more of a generalized, outwardly directed, raspy, high-pitched vocal exuberance?
I think it's therapeutic, if not a little noisy.
My throat is sore but my mind is calm.
What am I yelling?
Should I try to stop?
I yell at the living and at the dead.
I yell at innocent objects.
Do they need to be yelled at?
None of them yell back.
Will anything be achieved?
Maybe it isn't proper yelling. Maybe it's more of a generalized, outwardly directed, raspy, high-pitched vocal exuberance?
I think it's therapeutic, if not a little noisy.
My throat is sore but my mind is calm.
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Parasite Eve 2 as Allegory For Inequality
Let it NOT be said that these past few months of obsessive devotion to the playing of the Playstation games (as evidenced by recent blog postings) has been in vain. Or a waste of time. Or that, surely, I could find something more worthwhile to do with my time. I say, not so!
For, whilst I was embedded in manic hours of console madness, I discovered a remarkable revelation.
Indeed, it came to my attention, during the desperate throes of trying (unsuccessfully) to beat the Knight Golem in the Akropolis Tower in Nightmare Mode of Parasite Eve 2, that I was doomed from the start of the Nightmare Mode game. Doomed. And why was I so doomed? Because Nightmare Mode imposes a set of impossibly harsh preconditions upon the player, which are incredibly hard to overcome. In fact, you can't actually ever overcome them - the enemies are always super strong and Aya (the player's character) is always super weak. As a result of the imposition of such, um, austerity measures (it's as though Aya were allowed but one gold coin to pay for necessities which cost, like, a gazillion gold coins), Aya is destined to die, die, DIE!
It is my contention, thus, that Parasite Eve 2 (and its multi-gameplay-mode system) provides a comprehensive parable/allegory - or parabellegory - for social, economic and cultural structures which allow inequality to flourish. [However, I do not intend to write a thesis about it. This blog post will (more than) suffice.]
Parasite Eve 2 has four unlockable modes of play (ie these modes can only be accessed after the player has completed Normal Mode). The four unlockable modes are: Replay/Bounty/Scavenger/Nightmare.
Replay Mode is like being born into a safe and wealthy family, living in a safe and well maintained neighbourhood, going to a safe and well funded school, having a safe and well paying job, and rarely being discriminated against or oppressed.
Here are the gameplay specifications for Replay Mode (mission level: easy):
The modes become progressively more difficult - mission levels: normal (Bounty), then hard (Scavenger):
Until the most evil, Nightmare (mission level: forget about it, aka very hard)(note: there is no exclamation mark at the end of the blurb - as there is for the other modes - not very encouraging):
Nightmare Mode is like being born into an unsafe and poor family, living in an unsafe and poorly maintained neighbourhood, going to an unsafe and poorly funded school, having an unsafe and poorly paying (and probably crappy) job, and frequently being discriminated against and oppressed.
I know which mode I would want to play/be born into.
For this blog post, I conducted primary research into the Parasite Eve 2 inequality parabellegory phenomenon. My methodology involved extensive interviewing with a regular Parasite Eve 2 player (aka me), with special attention to the intellectual, physical and emotional responses experienced whilst engaging with (aka playing) Parasite Eve 2. I have compared and contrasted these responses (via two insightful statements) with explicit regard to Replay and Nightmare Modes:
Statement 1: "I have just finished playing Replay Mode (again - I've played it 3 times now! it is awesome) and I had the best weapons and ammunition and health and all the asshole creatures got massively killed and I am great."
Statement 2: "I kept getting killed when I attempted to play Nightmare Mode and this sucks and I had crap weapons and ammunition and no health and I didn't have the energy to keep playing and I turned off the console and I went to bed and I am not great."
For, whilst I was embedded in manic hours of console madness, I discovered a remarkable revelation.
Indeed, it came to my attention, during the desperate throes of trying (unsuccessfully) to beat the Knight Golem in the Akropolis Tower in Nightmare Mode of Parasite Eve 2, that I was doomed from the start of the Nightmare Mode game. Doomed. And why was I so doomed? Because Nightmare Mode imposes a set of impossibly harsh preconditions upon the player, which are incredibly hard to overcome. In fact, you can't actually ever overcome them - the enemies are always super strong and Aya (the player's character) is always super weak. As a result of the imposition of such, um, austerity measures (it's as though Aya were allowed but one gold coin to pay for necessities which cost, like, a gazillion gold coins), Aya is destined to die, die, DIE!
It is my contention, thus, that Parasite Eve 2 (and its multi-gameplay-mode system) provides a comprehensive parable/allegory - or parabellegory - for social, economic and cultural structures which allow inequality to flourish. [However, I do not intend to write a thesis about it. This blog post will (more than) suffice.]
Parasite Eve 2 has four unlockable modes of play (ie these modes can only be accessed after the player has completed Normal Mode). The four unlockable modes are: Replay/Bounty/Scavenger/Nightmare.
Replay Mode is like being born into a safe and wealthy family, living in a safe and well maintained neighbourhood, going to a safe and well funded school, having a safe and well paying job, and rarely being discriminated against or oppressed.
Here are the gameplay specifications for Replay Mode (mission level: easy):
The modes become progressively more difficult - mission levels: normal (Bounty), then hard (Scavenger):
Until the most evil, Nightmare (mission level: forget about it, aka very hard)(note: there is no exclamation mark at the end of the blurb - as there is for the other modes - not very encouraging):
Nightmare Mode is like being born into an unsafe and poor family, living in an unsafe and poorly maintained neighbourhood, going to an unsafe and poorly funded school, having an unsafe and poorly paying (and probably crappy) job, and frequently being discriminated against and oppressed.
I know which mode I would want to play/be born into.
For this blog post, I conducted primary research into the Parasite Eve 2 inequality parabellegory phenomenon. My methodology involved extensive interviewing with a regular Parasite Eve 2 player (aka me), with special attention to the intellectual, physical and emotional responses experienced whilst engaging with (aka playing) Parasite Eve 2. I have compared and contrasted these responses (via two insightful statements) with explicit regard to Replay and Nightmare Modes:
Statement 1: "I have just finished playing Replay Mode (again - I've played it 3 times now! it is awesome) and I had the best weapons and ammunition and health and all the asshole creatures got massively killed and I am great."
Statement 2: "I kept getting killed when I attempted to play Nightmare Mode and this sucks and I had crap weapons and ammunition and no health and I didn't have the energy to keep playing and I turned off the console and I went to bed and I am not great."
Friday, 9 November 2012
"THERE'S NOBODY LEFT! I'M ALL ALONE!"
The song 29/31 (see clip below) - which contrasts the experiences of the same woman at two different ages, 29 & 31 - by legendary musical duo, Garfunkel and Oates, speaks to my inner hysterical childless spinster. And she, in turn, is hysterically amused.
Certainly, at times, in my murky clucky younger days (somewhere under 40), I would fret about my 'shrinking ovaries' and lack of partner, and wonder if, maybe, I should, like, do something about it. Until, suddenly, or more correctly, eventually, I turned 40 and any pre-existing cluckiness quickly dissipated. But there were definitely moments of screaming anguish, especially as those around me continued to partner up and fall pregnant. And in recent times, despite being a mostly comfortably solitary person, I have had yearnings for companionship. So, occasionally, much like Garfunkel (31), I have felt an almost overwhelming urge to yowl into the existential void: THERE'S NOBODY LEFT! I'M ALL ALONE!
Certainly, at times, in my murky clucky younger days (somewhere under 40), I would fret about my 'shrinking ovaries' and lack of partner, and wonder if, maybe, I should, like, do something about it. Until, suddenly, or more correctly, eventually, I turned 40 and any pre-existing cluckiness quickly dissipated. But there were definitely moments of screaming anguish, especially as those around me continued to partner up and fall pregnant. And in recent times, despite being a mostly comfortably solitary person, I have had yearnings for companionship. So, occasionally, much like Garfunkel (31), I have felt an almost overwhelming urge to yowl into the existential void: THERE'S NOBODY LEFT! I'M ALL ALONE!
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
One Ring to Rule Them All...
Wedding rings are a little creepy. Weddings are a little creepy. Marriage is a little creepy. Yes, I am quite the romantic. And my 20-years-ago self agrees (agreed?) with me, as evidenced by the (possibly paranoid) poem about wedding rings/weddings/marriage I wrote 20 years ago:
An unholy promise,
with your kiss on my skin,
through to my bone,
seeps bitter poison,
this crushing metal bond.
Forever is our acquaintance,
forever leaves me screaming and gasping for air...
Oh, happy day. Or at least it's meant to be happy, your wedding day, and perfect, and you're expected to vow to love another person for the rest of your life (or else!) - I wouldn't even vow to love myself for the rest of my life, even as lovable as I am. It's too much pressure. I need to take things one day at a time, reassess as I go. A promise is just an enticement to breakage.
An unholy promise,
with your kiss on my skin,
through to my bone,
seeps bitter poison,
this crushing metal bond.
Forever is our acquaintance,
forever leaves me screaming and gasping for air...
Oh, happy day. Or at least it's meant to be happy, your wedding day, and perfect, and you're expected to vow to love another person for the rest of your life (or else!) - I wouldn't even vow to love myself for the rest of my life, even as lovable as I am. It's too much pressure. I need to take things one day at a time, reassess as I go. A promise is just an enticement to breakage.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Oh, Yeah...Another Year...
2011 mostly sucked. May 2012 suck less.
Meanwhile, Ms Willow Pussycat is VERY ADORABLE:
Meanwhile, Ms Willow Pussycat is VERY ADORABLE:
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Research Fail
[Subheading: Glaring Omission]
Dear Sam Harris,
When you were writing your anti-Religion polemic The End of Reason: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - a book which, in part, explores and philosophizes upon, the nature of human belief, contrasting the irrational aspects of religious beliefs with the rational aspects of most other beliefs - did it ever occur to you to speak with (even interview) a person with religious beliefs and, you know, ask them how they came to have these beliefs. You could've spoken to sample groups from various religions; isn't this the kind of thing researchers do, especially researchers researching people - I think it's called primary data. You're extra harshly critical of Islam; given that Islam is the second most populous of all the religions, surely you could've found some people of this faith and asked them about their beliefs (Hint: hang outside a mosque on Friday afternoon, you're bound to find some Islamic peoples). You've written a book critiquing religion and yet you don't appear to have consulted with any theologians - either an academic or a cleric (eg a priest, a rabbi, an imam). I'm afraid I'm going to have to give this book an F.
Effulgent13
(PS: I'm not religious - lapsed Catholicism notwithstanding)
Dear Sam Harris,
When you were writing your anti-Religion polemic The End of Reason: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - a book which, in part, explores and philosophizes upon, the nature of human belief, contrasting the irrational aspects of religious beliefs with the rational aspects of most other beliefs - did it ever occur to you to speak with (even interview) a person with religious beliefs and, you know, ask them how they came to have these beliefs. You could've spoken to sample groups from various religions; isn't this the kind of thing researchers do, especially researchers researching people - I think it's called primary data. You're extra harshly critical of Islam; given that Islam is the second most populous of all the religions, surely you could've found some people of this faith and asked them about their beliefs (Hint: hang outside a mosque on Friday afternoon, you're bound to find some Islamic peoples). You've written a book critiquing religion and yet you don't appear to have consulted with any theologians - either an academic or a cleric (eg a priest, a rabbi, an imam). I'm afraid I'm going to have to give this book an F.
Effulgent13
(PS: I'm not religious - lapsed Catholicism notwithstanding)
Saturday, 24 September 2011
I Need a Hug, Goddamit!
Yesterday I watched 2 films (I did other things as well - my life is very full). The films were: The Killer Inside Me and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Both films contain strong sexual violence. Just watching one of these films would be pretty disturbing, so perhaps watching one after the other wasn't the smartest move.
In both films the sexual violence is perpetrated against women. It all felt a little misogynistic to me. I don't jump to accusations of misogyny or sexism based on the inclusion of violence (especially sexual violence) against women in a film or a novel. If the narrative allows a context for such violence then it should be included - eg showing how rape is used as a tool of war. But I had issues with the portrayals of violence in these two films.
In The Killer Inside Me, the main (male) character is a violently sadistic psychopath, so certainly his violence is not out of place. What bothered and annoyed me was the portrayal of the women he abuses. There was very little development of their characters - which is annoying in of itself (so often female characters are poorly drawn) - but more information about the women could have given some insight into their disturbing (in my opinion) reactions to the violence perpetrated against them. Without a context for their apparent acceptance of the violence, it's difficult not to see the (quite graphic) scenes in which they are beaten as an expression of hatred (against women).
In The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the main female character (Lisbeth Salander) is violently raped. I don't believe this needed to happen. The events which lead to her violation are very contrived. It almost seemed as though the writer (the film is based on a novel, as is The Killer Inside Me) wanted to include a graphic rape - it felt exploitative. In my opinion, Lisbeth, who is fiercely intelligent and wildly brave, would've found a way around her circumstances to prevent herself being raped. Interestingly, the English translation of the novel's Swedish title is: Men Who Hate Women.
Thankfully, tonight I'll be watching Dr Who.
In both films the sexual violence is perpetrated against women. It all felt a little misogynistic to me. I don't jump to accusations of misogyny or sexism based on the inclusion of violence (especially sexual violence) against women in a film or a novel. If the narrative allows a context for such violence then it should be included - eg showing how rape is used as a tool of war. But I had issues with the portrayals of violence in these two films.
In The Killer Inside Me, the main (male) character is a violently sadistic psychopath, so certainly his violence is not out of place. What bothered and annoyed me was the portrayal of the women he abuses. There was very little development of their characters - which is annoying in of itself (so often female characters are poorly drawn) - but more information about the women could have given some insight into their disturbing (in my opinion) reactions to the violence perpetrated against them. Without a context for their apparent acceptance of the violence, it's difficult not to see the (quite graphic) scenes in which they are beaten as an expression of hatred (against women).
In The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the main female character (Lisbeth Salander) is violently raped. I don't believe this needed to happen. The events which lead to her violation are very contrived. It almost seemed as though the writer (the film is based on a novel, as is The Killer Inside Me) wanted to include a graphic rape - it felt exploitative. In my opinion, Lisbeth, who is fiercely intelligent and wildly brave, would've found a way around her circumstances to prevent herself being raped. Interestingly, the English translation of the novel's Swedish title is: Men Who Hate Women.
Thankfully, tonight I'll be watching Dr Who.
Monday, 22 August 2011
Teenage Boys and Sex: WTF?
I have just started reading a completely ludicrous book titled "Why Gender Matters" by Leonard Sax. I have read one chapter only and have based my assessment of the book on this one chapter (chapter 6: Sex), indeed on one passage:
Also, on behalf of my teenage sisters, I would like to point out that the having of sexual desire - and the wanting to satisfy sexual desire as a motivation for sex - is very much a part of we XX humans. It is completely healthy and normal to be interested in sex while being female. AND, as proof of the link between being imbued with lust and (mostly) imbued with estrogen, astute readers will notice that I, a womb-bearing member of humanity, opened the ludicrous book at the chapter on Sex. Baby!
"The motivation for sex is fundamentally different for most teenage boys compared with teenage girls. Teenage boys want to have sex to satisfy sexual desire. It's a gut-level, base-of-the-brain impulse, not far removed from the need to have a bowel movement when you feel the urge." (Page 125)Ah, sex and poo, quite the erotic combination - thankfully (especially for teenage boys, or so it would seem), there's a whole subsection of porn devoted to fecal lust. (OK, I'm done now).
Also, on behalf of my teenage sisters, I would like to point out that the having of sexual desire - and the wanting to satisfy sexual desire as a motivation for sex - is very much a part of we XX humans. It is completely healthy and normal to be interested in sex while being female. AND, as proof of the link between being imbued with lust and (mostly) imbued with estrogen, astute readers will notice that I, a womb-bearing member of humanity, opened the ludicrous book at the chapter on Sex. Baby!
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Bridges: Practical, Philosophical, Political
(also, pretty)
If it is imperative that a body of water or steep valley be crossed, than a bridge is a fine way to traverse such obstacles.
Spread across uneven topography, and connecting disjointed lands, bridges have infiltrated the earth. We don't know when bridges first appeared, but we are fairly sure that, much like fences and mailboxes, they were brought here by other worldly beings - bless their green tentacles and numerous heads. Little did the aliens realise just how influential and innate bridges would become in the lives of humans. Thriving civilizations have evolved around unintentionally strategically placed bridges. But, more importantly, their enchanting loftiness has infused bridges with metaphysical qualities, which, in turn, have given rise to Bridge Philosophy.
You know what I'm talking about - "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it", "Don't burn your bridges", "Building bridges", "Too many bridges spoil the river" etc. It would be a pointless endeavour trying to find a dilemma unable to be wisely guided by Bridge Philosophy.
I think the bridge philosophy which I strive most to have embody and enrich my life is: I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. As a slightly anally retentive introvert, I have a tendency to overthink situations, to ruminate upon every single possible outcome (good and bad, but mostly bad) that could possibly happen were I to go ahead with, say, walking to the shops to get some milk (or maybe catfood, or maybe milk AND catfood). Which can make getting things done - indeed, living - a little prohibitive. So, to combat my ponderous inertia, and maybe even infuse a tranquil sensibility into my being, I've amended the bridge philosophy: I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, or, if it turns out there is no bridge - but I still need to cross the river - I'll see if I can find a canoe, or maybe a raft, or, worst-case scenario, I can always continue along the riverbank until I find a shallow section and wade across...PLUS, it may turn out that I don't need to cross that darn river anyway.
Bridges also offer a symbolic representation of societies' inequalities, in terms of unequal distribution of wealth (ie wages) and status. Earth engineers, having thoroughly studied many alien bridge structures, have been able to reverse-engineer and, thus, construct design blueprints for the building of new, terrestrial-made bridges. Then, Earth construction workers, using these design blueprints, have toiled for countless hours, at great personal risk - some have been seriously injured and some have died - to build the bridges. Both the engineers and the construction workers have worked hard. They've employed different skills and abilities - all necessary - to ensure that a safe and usable bridge has been built. But each group is valued differently, engineers are paid more and have a higher social status than construction workers. The mental dexterity required to understand complex maths and physics is placed above the physical (and mental) dexterity required to put together a complex structure, when neither ability is inherently "better" than the other. It makes me cranky.
So, next time you find yourself moseying across a bridge, don't think of it as just a conduit to get you from point A to point B, for a bridge is so much more.
If it is imperative that a body of water or steep valley be crossed, than a bridge is a fine way to traverse such obstacles.
Spread across uneven topography, and connecting disjointed lands, bridges have infiltrated the earth. We don't know when bridges first appeared, but we are fairly sure that, much like fences and mailboxes, they were brought here by other worldly beings - bless their green tentacles and numerous heads. Little did the aliens realise just how influential and innate bridges would become in the lives of humans. Thriving civilizations have evolved around unintentionally strategically placed bridges. But, more importantly, their enchanting loftiness has infused bridges with metaphysical qualities, which, in turn, have given rise to Bridge Philosophy.
You know what I'm talking about - "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it", "Don't burn your bridges", "Building bridges", "Too many bridges spoil the river" etc. It would be a pointless endeavour trying to find a dilemma unable to be wisely guided by Bridge Philosophy.
I think the bridge philosophy which I strive most to have embody and enrich my life is: I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. As a slightly anally retentive introvert, I have a tendency to overthink situations, to ruminate upon every single possible outcome (good and bad, but mostly bad) that could possibly happen were I to go ahead with, say, walking to the shops to get some milk (or maybe catfood, or maybe milk AND catfood). Which can make getting things done - indeed, living - a little prohibitive. So, to combat my ponderous inertia, and maybe even infuse a tranquil sensibility into my being, I've amended the bridge philosophy: I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, or, if it turns out there is no bridge - but I still need to cross the river - I'll see if I can find a canoe, or maybe a raft, or, worst-case scenario, I can always continue along the riverbank until I find a shallow section and wade across...PLUS, it may turn out that I don't need to cross that darn river anyway.
Bridges also offer a symbolic representation of societies' inequalities, in terms of unequal distribution of wealth (ie wages) and status. Earth engineers, having thoroughly studied many alien bridge structures, have been able to reverse-engineer and, thus, construct design blueprints for the building of new, terrestrial-made bridges. Then, Earth construction workers, using these design blueprints, have toiled for countless hours, at great personal risk - some have been seriously injured and some have died - to build the bridges. Both the engineers and the construction workers have worked hard. They've employed different skills and abilities - all necessary - to ensure that a safe and usable bridge has been built. But each group is valued differently, engineers are paid more and have a higher social status than construction workers. The mental dexterity required to understand complex maths and physics is placed above the physical (and mental) dexterity required to put together a complex structure, when neither ability is inherently "better" than the other. It makes me cranky.
So, next time you find yourself moseying across a bridge, don't think of it as just a conduit to get you from point A to point B, for a bridge is so much more.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Generalized Abstractions and Long-Winded Sentences are giving me a Cranky
In my quest to understand the theories of Karl Marx, it might be better if I read Marx for Dummies, instead of The Cambridge Companion to Marx. By this, I don't mean to debase the For Dummies collection, of which I've read a few and found to be an informative and helpful introduction to various subjects, unlike the Cambridge Companion, of which I am meaning to debase.
I've read about a third of the 'Companion' and found that it uses A LOT of words to say a small amount of stuff. Such verbosity can be OK, if it flows with coherence. Unfortunately, the Companion's verbosity flows like a river of congealed lard. I've just finished the 4th chapter and, since each chapter is written by a different person, I was hoping for some improvement. But, alas, so far, each writer has chosen to write in the style I've named "Obfuscatory Academic"; a style I am being very much frustrated with!
Here is an example from the chapter titled Science: Realism, criticism, history by James Farr:
I've read about a third of the 'Companion' and found that it uses A LOT of words to say a small amount of stuff. Such verbosity can be OK, if it flows with coherence. Unfortunately, the Companion's verbosity flows like a river of congealed lard. I've just finished the 4th chapter and, since each chapter is written by a different person, I was hoping for some improvement. But, alas, so far, each writer has chosen to write in the style I've named "Obfuscatory Academic"; a style I am being very much frustrated with!
Here is an example from the chapter titled Science: Realism, criticism, history by James Farr:
"The philosophy of science, in Marx's terms, should reflect on and reconstruct the practices of the social sciences in such a way as to help prescribe the development of theories that are rigorously and self-consciously historical, both about the past and the future, and whose subject terms refer to the powers that individuals or classes have or do not have in certain social relations." (pg 122)My best interpretation of this sentence/paragraph is that Marx believed that the study/development/progress of Science should be directed by...uh...what a society needs to ensure it is fair...??? (I'm struggling greatly with understanding what the hell 'rigorously and self-consciously historical' means). Whatever the case, I was disappointed to discover that Marx had NOT, in fact, dabbled in science, as I was led to believe by the chapter heading. Sadly, he did not partake in a little bit of Alchemy, nor did he discover an exotic plant or animal. Perhaps it was for the best, though, that he stayed out of the laboratory. Had Marx, with his ingenious mind, been obsessed with the transformation of lead into gold, well, he might not have been so inclined to turn his energies to the plight of the proletariat (which, incidentally, would be a great title for an adventure series).
Friday, 8 April 2011
Feminism, by Any Other Name, is Still a Rose.
There are some who believe that, since Feminism is meant to benefit all peoples, its name is sexist, as it appears to privilege one group of people, ie females. Some have suggested it should be named so as to reflect its broader range, eg humanism or peopleism (ok, I just made that up). Well, my answer is this; if we're gonna change Feminism to Peopleism, we're gonna have to change Mankind to Peoplekind.
I rest my case.
PS: And if we change Mankind to Peoplekind, somebody's gonna have to re-record the whole moonlanding - "one small step for..." - though, this shouldn't be too big a stretch if the moonlanding hoax theory is to be believed.
I rest my case.
PS: And if we change Mankind to Peoplekind, somebody's gonna have to re-record the whole moonlanding - "one small step for..." - though, this shouldn't be too big a stretch if the moonlanding hoax theory is to be believed.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Frustrated...
is my current mental state. And disappointed. I try...I get nowhere. I try again...I get nowhere, again. Don't know what to do now. Maybe there's nothing to be done. Maybe I'll just have to live with constant frustration and disappointment. Some would say this is what it is to be human. Hmmm...
(Apologies for the vague).
(Apologies for the vague).
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
I Have Invented Another Reading Method
I’m calling it the Absorption method.
The Absorption Method shares some similarity with my other reading method invention, Random Reading (reading random passages at a time until one of them starts making sense; descibed in the Naked Lunch section), in that it requires a certain amount of ‘disconnectedness’ or ‘casual connectedness’ while reading a difficult text. I discovered this new method while reading Crime and Punishment (which could EASILY have been written using half the words - although, thankfully, Mr D's hypergraphia was not at the terrifying heights it reached during the writing of the Brothers K). I think the method works best with a novel which, while not being entirely incomprehensible, strongly encourages the reader’s brain to glaze over, with the possibility of subsequent unconsciousness.
The most important tenant of Absorption Reading (actually, the only tenant) is to ‘keep your eyes moving’. You need to keep your mind aware but not necessarily focused (too much focusing is a maximum danger time for brain-glaze to occur). As you move through the (seemingly endless) paragraphs, you will pick up random words. This should give you enough information to absorb the general thread of the narrative without having to read so much extraneous drivel. Periodically, you will need to go back over paragraphs/pages and read them properly – they main contain essential plot points, introductions of important characters, something interesting. As with any skill, practice brings proficiency. Don’t be discouraged if you find yourself upon the final page of your novel with no recollection of, well, the novel. Start slow; try a short but densely worded novel – maybe Heart of Darkness (which, after a couple of lacklustre attempts, I was finally able to read using the NORMAL reading method). The bookshelf is your oyster. One day, you may even find yourself holding open that most notorious of 'famous but unread' novels, Ulysses.
A word of caution, though. As effective as this reading method may seem, it is not a panacea. It will not render every intractable novel, readable. There are novels, evil novels, hidden in the deepest darkest corners of every bookstore and library, so mind boggling obscure and overwritten, that they will always be, at least for 99.9999% of humans, unreadable.
The Absorption Method shares some similarity with my other reading method invention, Random Reading (reading random passages at a time until one of them starts making sense; descibed in the Naked Lunch section), in that it requires a certain amount of ‘disconnectedness’ or ‘casual connectedness’ while reading a difficult text. I discovered this new method while reading Crime and Punishment (which could EASILY have been written using half the words - although, thankfully, Mr D's hypergraphia was not at the terrifying heights it reached during the writing of the Brothers K). I think the method works best with a novel which, while not being entirely incomprehensible, strongly encourages the reader’s brain to glaze over, with the possibility of subsequent unconsciousness.
The most important tenant of Absorption Reading (actually, the only tenant) is to ‘keep your eyes moving’. You need to keep your mind aware but not necessarily focused (too much focusing is a maximum danger time for brain-glaze to occur). As you move through the (seemingly endless) paragraphs, you will pick up random words. This should give you enough information to absorb the general thread of the narrative without having to read so much extraneous drivel. Periodically, you will need to go back over paragraphs/pages and read them properly – they main contain essential plot points, introductions of important characters, something interesting. As with any skill, practice brings proficiency. Don’t be discouraged if you find yourself upon the final page of your novel with no recollection of, well, the novel. Start slow; try a short but densely worded novel – maybe Heart of Darkness (which, after a couple of lacklustre attempts, I was finally able to read using the NORMAL reading method). The bookshelf is your oyster. One day, you may even find yourself holding open that most notorious of 'famous but unread' novels, Ulysses.
A word of caution, though. As effective as this reading method may seem, it is not a panacea. It will not render every intractable novel, readable. There are novels, evil novels, hidden in the deepest darkest corners of every bookstore and library, so mind boggling obscure and overwritten, that they will always be, at least for 99.9999% of humans, unreadable.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Impressions of Twilight
That's "Twilight" the brooding vampire novel by Stephenie Meyer, not "Twilight" the brooding transition into nighttime, just before the sun goes to sleep. (Not sure where"Dusk" fits into all of this - is it before or after Twilight? - ponderous).
I decided it was time I investigated the Twilight Phenomenon. I've just finished reading the first book in the series. And I now believe the Twilight Phenomenon requires no further investigation from myself. (Although I may watch the films).
I approached this important assignment from a few different angles:
1) through a "teenage filter", ie I tried to imagine how I would've reacted to the novel had I read it when I was a teenager
2) through a "sensible-adult-feminist filter", ie do I think the novel is harmful to teenagers, and especially, to girl teenagers
3) through no filter, ie what do I think of the novel as a piece of writing, no strings attached
Here are my conclusions:
1) Given that my favourite "young adult" novel when I was a teenager was Carrie by Stephen King and my second favourite "young adult" novel was The Shinning by Stephen King, I think it's quite likely that Twilight would've been a little tame for my teenaged reading tastes. However, I suspect I would've at least read, and probably found some enjoyment in, the first book. And I probably would've watched the films (peer pressure would have made watching the films mandatory). I'm not sure I would have been besotted with Edward - Edward-besottedness seems to be a large contributor to the Twilight Phenomenon. Edward's kinda bossy for my liking, and possibly a little too pretty. And I wouldn't have identified with Bella, she's a bit too perfect (bizarre clumsiness notwithstanding); she's too academically gifted and self sufficient and fragile beautied - not a pimple in sight.
2) Harmful? I found this difficult to assess. I probably wouldn't recommend Twilight to teenagers. It's not well written, it's quite bland at times, and I found the characterizations of Bella and Edward a little ridiculous. But are these things harmful? Maybe.
It's true that the Twilight Phenomenon has gotten teenagers to read (at least girl teenagers) and this is a good thing. But if it's the only book a teenager reads, then it could be harmful. Especially in regard to the Bella/Edward interaction. I don't like that Edward is given so much ownership of, and control over, Bella's lust (or 'love', as Bella thinks, fool that she is...what? Me, cynical? Never). And I think there is some danger in a romanticised portrayal of such skewed desire in young adult fiction: Being that they are people with limited life experience in the world of lust/love, they might not read it sceptically, like I did! I also think it's unrealistic that, at age 17, Bella hasn't previously experienced lust (I'd guess most people - boys and girls - would have had some dealings with lust from about age 13...ie about when puberty begins). If Bella had been familiar with the sensation of lust, she might not have been so much in Edward's thrall - she would've still been hot for him but not so ludicrously hot.
There is also something creepy about a 17-year-old getting romantically involved with a 100-year-old. That's right, Edward is just over 100 years old, but was turned into a vampire at 17, so he still looks 17. (This vast age difference thing was something I also found creepy in Buffy, ie Buffy with Angel, although Buffy did have the advantage of being able to throw Angel across the room if he threatened her). Certainly the older lover theme has it's romantic appeal to an inexperienced young person (I had a huge crush on my 35-year-old guitar teacher when I was 17). The notion that the older person will show you what it's all about, and you won't have to fumble around and work it out for yourself - a process that could take years and years! (Hint: maybe it should take years and years). But there's also a gaping power imbalance going on, one that could be easily exploited by a less-than-scrupulous operator. And I think Edward fits this description. He doesn't give Bella room to get to know herself, to become an adult, before he starts using her rampant desire for him to control her (she gets all swoony whenever he gets too close to her - Vomit!). He's incredibly selfish. And having been alive/undead for 100 years should give him some wisdom and restraint, right? Apparently not. This guy stalks Bella, listens in on her conversations, has a violent temper, will possibly kill Bella if he "loses control" around her (read: has sex with her), is very possessive of Bella AND (and this bit made me especially cranky) he instructs Bella not to go into the (dangerous) forest alone (she's only allowed "into the forest" if she's accompanied/led by Edward). Forest rant continues in next paragraph.
[Warning: Gratuitous and tenuous metaphor ensues]. Let me say, right here, right now, on this very blog, that a forest is a wondrous place, and a woman should explore "her" forest whenever, and however, she sees fit. If Bella would like to explore the forest with Edward, that's fine, but it's Bella's decision. I think it would be fantastic if Bella explored the forest by herself for awhile, so she has a thorough understanding of it - its flora and fauna, its various paths, the myriad emotions she experiences within the forest. And then, maybe, she'll have a better understanding of who she might like to accompany her into the forest - if, indeed, she even wants company.
My final rant concerns Bella's father:
Dear Bella's father,
Bella is your school-age daughter. She is NOT your domestic servant. Do your own damn dishes. Clean your own damn house. Learn to cook. AND spend some goddamn time with your daughter. Don't leave her home alone all weekend while you're out fishing. Pretty soon Bella will be off to college and you can do as much fishing as you like, but right now: BELLA NEEDS YOU. And maybe, just maybe, if you spent more time with her, she might not be hanging out with a violently-possessive, self-involved, sexually-sadistic, 100-year-old vampire.
Love, Nicole.
3) I wanna know more about vampire-Alice. Why wasn't this book about vampire-Alice? I will not be reading anymore Stephenie Meyer books unless vampire-Alice is the main character.
I decided it was time I investigated the Twilight Phenomenon. I've just finished reading the first book in the series. And I now believe the Twilight Phenomenon requires no further investigation from myself. (Although I may watch the films).
I approached this important assignment from a few different angles:
1) through a "teenage filter", ie I tried to imagine how I would've reacted to the novel had I read it when I was a teenager
2) through a "sensible-adult-feminist filter", ie do I think the novel is harmful to teenagers, and especially, to girl teenagers
3) through no filter, ie what do I think of the novel as a piece of writing, no strings attached
Here are my conclusions:
1) Given that my favourite "young adult" novel when I was a teenager was Carrie by Stephen King and my second favourite "young adult" novel was The Shinning by Stephen King, I think it's quite likely that Twilight would've been a little tame for my teenaged reading tastes. However, I suspect I would've at least read, and probably found some enjoyment in, the first book. And I probably would've watched the films (peer pressure would have made watching the films mandatory). I'm not sure I would have been besotted with Edward - Edward-besottedness seems to be a large contributor to the Twilight Phenomenon. Edward's kinda bossy for my liking, and possibly a little too pretty. And I wouldn't have identified with Bella, she's a bit too perfect (bizarre clumsiness notwithstanding); she's too academically gifted and self sufficient and fragile beautied - not a pimple in sight.
2) Harmful? I found this difficult to assess. I probably wouldn't recommend Twilight to teenagers. It's not well written, it's quite bland at times, and I found the characterizations of Bella and Edward a little ridiculous. But are these things harmful? Maybe.
It's true that the Twilight Phenomenon has gotten teenagers to read (at least girl teenagers) and this is a good thing. But if it's the only book a teenager reads, then it could be harmful. Especially in regard to the Bella/Edward interaction. I don't like that Edward is given so much ownership of, and control over, Bella's lust (or 'love', as Bella thinks, fool that she is...what? Me, cynical? Never). And I think there is some danger in a romanticised portrayal of such skewed desire in young adult fiction: Being that they are people with limited life experience in the world of lust/love, they might not read it sceptically, like I did! I also think it's unrealistic that, at age 17, Bella hasn't previously experienced lust (I'd guess most people - boys and girls - would have had some dealings with lust from about age 13...ie about when puberty begins). If Bella had been familiar with the sensation of lust, she might not have been so much in Edward's thrall - she would've still been hot for him but not so ludicrously hot.
There is also something creepy about a 17-year-old getting romantically involved with a 100-year-old. That's right, Edward is just over 100 years old, but was turned into a vampire at 17, so he still looks 17. (This vast age difference thing was something I also found creepy in Buffy, ie Buffy with Angel, although Buffy did have the advantage of being able to throw Angel across the room if he threatened her). Certainly the older lover theme has it's romantic appeal to an inexperienced young person (I had a huge crush on my 35-year-old guitar teacher when I was 17). The notion that the older person will show you what it's all about, and you won't have to fumble around and work it out for yourself - a process that could take years and years! (Hint: maybe it should take years and years). But there's also a gaping power imbalance going on, one that could be easily exploited by a less-than-scrupulous operator. And I think Edward fits this description. He doesn't give Bella room to get to know herself, to become an adult, before he starts using her rampant desire for him to control her (she gets all swoony whenever he gets too close to her - Vomit!). He's incredibly selfish. And having been alive/undead for 100 years should give him some wisdom and restraint, right? Apparently not. This guy stalks Bella, listens in on her conversations, has a violent temper, will possibly kill Bella if he "loses control" around her (read: has sex with her), is very possessive of Bella AND (and this bit made me especially cranky) he instructs Bella not to go into the (dangerous) forest alone (she's only allowed "into the forest" if she's accompanied/led by Edward). Forest rant continues in next paragraph.
[Warning: Gratuitous and tenuous metaphor ensues]. Let me say, right here, right now, on this very blog, that a forest is a wondrous place, and a woman should explore "her" forest whenever, and however, she sees fit. If Bella would like to explore the forest with Edward, that's fine, but it's Bella's decision. I think it would be fantastic if Bella explored the forest by herself for awhile, so she has a thorough understanding of it - its flora and fauna, its various paths, the myriad emotions she experiences within the forest. And then, maybe, she'll have a better understanding of who she might like to accompany her into the forest - if, indeed, she even wants company.
My final rant concerns Bella's father:
Dear Bella's father,
Bella is your school-age daughter. She is NOT your domestic servant. Do your own damn dishes. Clean your own damn house. Learn to cook. AND spend some goddamn time with your daughter. Don't leave her home alone all weekend while you're out fishing. Pretty soon Bella will be off to college and you can do as much fishing as you like, but right now: BELLA NEEDS YOU. And maybe, just maybe, if you spent more time with her, she might not be hanging out with a violently-possessive, self-involved, sexually-sadistic, 100-year-old vampire.
Love, Nicole.
3) I wanna know more about vampire-Alice. Why wasn't this book about vampire-Alice? I will not be reading anymore Stephenie Meyer books unless vampire-Alice is the main character.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
"There's No Verb In This Sentence!"
Recently, as I was clearing out extraneous material from the big, extraneous material containing, wooden chest in my lounge room, I came upon some of my prac reports from University. I had a bit of a peruse through them whilst remembering 'the good old days' and was ASTOUNDED to find, inscribed in the margin of one of my reports, in angry black ink, the words: There's no verb in this sentence! "Hah!", I thought. "No verb? My ass! (hahaha) I would never write a sentence without a...wait a minute...*reads sentence from prac report*...[which reads as: "Also retention of these groups in the products and decarbonylation (scheme 1)"]...*notices distinct lack of verb*..."
Okay, I admit, ONE time I wrote a verb-less sentence. Call the grammar police! Send me to command-of-the-English-language prison! Make me read "Grammar for Dummies"! I mean, it was a Science report - I got the Science right (mostly), isn't that the main thing? Is it sooooo important for Scientists to write coherent sentences? No way! Adequate, even expansive, communication skills are for the Arts; they can have their verbs and their adjectives (if they're feeling creative). But Science is all about the facts, it doesn't have time for meaningless distractions like cogent report writing.
But all of this is by-the-bye because I meant for that sentence to have no verb. Oh yeah. I was experimenting with Avant Garde Science (not to be confused with Fluffy Science), which allows for some degree of "lateral" report writing. Those Science Academics have no imagination! (Hmmm, must check the meaning of "contradiction".)
Okay, I admit, ONE time I wrote a verb-less sentence. Call the grammar police! Send me to command-of-the-English-language prison! Make me read "Grammar for Dummies"! I mean, it was a Science report - I got the Science right (mostly), isn't that the main thing? Is it sooooo important for Scientists to write coherent sentences? No way! Adequate, even expansive, communication skills are for the Arts; they can have their verbs and their adjectives (if they're feeling creative). But Science is all about the facts, it doesn't have time for meaningless distractions like cogent report writing.
But all of this is by-the-bye because I meant for that sentence to have no verb. Oh yeah. I was experimenting with Avant Garde Science (not to be confused with Fluffy Science), which allows for some degree of "lateral" report writing. Those Science Academics have no imagination! (Hmmm, must check the meaning of "contradiction".)
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Radical Tax Plan
Here at Effulgent13, we (actually, I, but "we" sounds more impressive) aim to make this world a much better place, such that everyone has stuff they need and, even, stuff they want. I abhor greed (greed is NOT good, Gordon Fucking Gecko, greed is a big giant pain in the ass of humanity). A couple of weeks ago, I attacked greed in one of its most evil incarnations, that of Mining Bosses (aka "Greedy Fuckers" - see here). Well, this week, I'm extending that rant to all corporate bosses and other rich people. And, since I'm also a practical ranter, I'm proposing a new Tax Plan to deal with greed gone wild (I have a degree in Organic Chemistry, goddammit, I'm completely qualified to propose changes to the tax system). I'm hoping this Tax Plan will accomplish 2 main goals:
1) Redistribute wealth from the coffers of rich bastards into the coffers of poor bastards
2) Annoy the hell out of rich bastards
I think that once an individual accumulates personal wealth of a billion dollars, they should NOT be allowed to accumulate anymore. They should be cut off. And, if they continue to accumulate wealth (in whatever form: cash, assets, equity, dodgy businesses, larceny, vice, grand theft auto etc), they should be taxed at 100% for every dollar they earn above the one billion dollar mark. That money should then be given to the lowest income earners as a low income offset tax bonus. Obviously, and most importantly, this new tax will need a catchy title and acronym, which, thankfully, I've already thought of:
BIllionaires Tax: Equality for Misplaced Equity ( or BITE ME).
1) Redistribute wealth from the coffers of rich bastards into the coffers of poor bastards
2) Annoy the hell out of rich bastards
I think that once an individual accumulates personal wealth of a billion dollars, they should NOT be allowed to accumulate anymore. They should be cut off. And, if they continue to accumulate wealth (in whatever form: cash, assets, equity, dodgy businesses, larceny, vice, grand theft auto etc), they should be taxed at 100% for every dollar they earn above the one billion dollar mark. That money should then be given to the lowest income earners as a low income offset tax bonus. Obviously, and most importantly, this new tax will need a catchy title and acronym, which, thankfully, I've already thought of:
BIllionaires Tax: Equality for Misplaced Equity ( or BITE ME).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)