Click here for part 1. Chick is the same person, boyfriend is the same guy. We went to lunch with a friend and discussed. Our friend does in fact refer to her boyfriend as 'Loser.'
FRIEND: "So how are things going with Loser?"
CHICK: "I'm actually really mad at him right now because he's playing games with me."
ME: "How so?"
CHICK: "Because I don't know if he's going to hang out with me over Memorial Day weekend or not, and he won't tell me."
FRIEND: "When did you ask him?"
CHICK: "Well, a couple weeks ago I mentioned to him that since it was a holiday, we'd both have the weekend off (usually I can't hang out on weekends because I do volunteer stuff on Saturdays) and we should get together. So he says that he's going to be going camping with his friends instead."
FRIEND: "So... he has plans."
CHICK: "Well, yeah, so I tell him that he needs to spend the weekend with me, so he should cancel his camping trip with his friends so we could spend some time together, and he said he wasn't going to. So now I don't know whether we're going to be hanging out or not."
(silence)
ME: "Well... it sounds like you're not going to be hanging out with him this weekend."
CHICK: "Well, I don't know, I'm kind of mad at him for not giving me an answer, but I'd be willing to—"
FRIEND: "He gave you an answer. He said he was going camping."
CHICK: "Yeah, but he should be hanging out with me, not hanging out with his friends."
FRIEND: "Hm. Yeah. That was a really stupid thing to say to him."
CHICK: "What was!?"
ME: "You gave him an ultimatum."
CHICK: "What's that mean?"
FRIEND: "When you give a guy a choice saying 'either you do what I want you to do, or you're in trouble,' he is never going to do what you want him to do. He'll go against you just out of spite."
ME: "You may never hear from him again."
CHICK: "But that's not what I did!!!"
ME: "How is that not what you did?"
CHICK: "I didn't give him a choice! I told him he needed to spend Memorial Day weekend with me if he wanted us to work."
Can't argue with logic like that. I don't mean it's solid logic, I just mean, you can't argue with logic like that.
To be continued, I have no doubt...
20090520
Satanists and Catholics Unite
I was intrigued by a passing comment on The Colbert Report that the only demographic which is on the rise in all 50 states is atheists. I actually looked into this statistic and discovered that additionally, the only demographic which is decreasing in every state is Monotheists (the group which includes Jews, Christians, and Muslims), though there is variation for each particular faith.
Religious leaders defend this by saying (and I completely agree with them) that the number of people of true faith have not decreased; they have actually increased for the most part. I personally would suggest that “atheists” also qualify as people of true faith (i.e. they sincerely believe in their metaphysical beliefs).
What appears to be happening is that people who are ambivalent towards religion have long considered themselves Christians because, well, that’s what normal people are. Atheists, however, have done a very good PR job of telling people that, by definition, if they don’t actively believe in God, then they are atheists. Therefore, when people are asked what religion they consider themselves to be, people who used to call themselves Christians are now calling themselves atheists, even though nothing in their belief or lifestyle has changed at all.
Now, I would like to suggest that anyone who casually refers to themselves as Catholic, Muslim, Mormon or Protestant, but don’t go to church/mosque or follow the rituals of their dogma are not actually of that religion, and people who refer to themselves as atheists but don’t really think about whether or not there is a God are not atheists. They’re simply non-religious.
My theory is that if the only people who considered themselves members of a belief system were people who actually believed it, the world would be incomparably better than it is today. If you ever look at debates between devout muslims, devout Christians, and devout atheists, they are almost always completely cordial with each other. Many of the most religious actually believe that they are in the same circle as those from other religions, they simply disagree on the details.
Even some of the higher-ups in the Church of Satan point out that Satanism is merely a rebranding by Christians of the worship of mother Earth, that Satan wasn’t even considered evil until the Catholic church announced that he was the ruler of Hell in the 400s. They don’t condone sinning, deception, or evil of any kind—the church is essentially a nephew of paganism, and are simply victims of a slander campaign 1600 years ago. And much like the other ‘non-believers’ I mentioned before, anyone who calls themselves a Satanist because they drink goat’s blood and evoke the Dark Lord are not really Satanists; they’re just idiots. And really, they’re no worse than the extreme fringe of most other religions, whether it’s radical Muslims, Opus Dei (i.e. radical Catholics), or radical Fundementalist Christians, who condone oppression, mortal punishment of nonbelievers, and provoke violence against innocents, like abortion doctors, gay rights activists, and blacks (lest ye forget the affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan). Even radical Hindus have some issues to deal with. Suicide by fire on a public street is not rational behavior.
Basically what I’m saying is that we need to do a reorg of the country’s religions into the five actual belief structures on our planet:
Religious leaders defend this by saying (and I completely agree with them) that the number of people of true faith have not decreased; they have actually increased for the most part. I personally would suggest that “atheists” also qualify as people of true faith (i.e. they sincerely believe in their metaphysical beliefs).
What appears to be happening is that people who are ambivalent towards religion have long considered themselves Christians because, well, that’s what normal people are. Atheists, however, have done a very good PR job of telling people that, by definition, if they don’t actively believe in God, then they are atheists. Therefore, when people are asked what religion they consider themselves to be, people who used to call themselves Christians are now calling themselves atheists, even though nothing in their belief or lifestyle has changed at all.
Now, I would like to suggest that anyone who casually refers to themselves as Catholic, Muslim, Mormon or Protestant, but don’t go to church/mosque or follow the rituals of their dogma are not actually of that religion, and people who refer to themselves as atheists but don’t really think about whether or not there is a God are not atheists. They’re simply non-religious.
My theory is that if the only people who considered themselves members of a belief system were people who actually believed it, the world would be incomparably better than it is today. If you ever look at debates between devout muslims, devout Christians, and devout atheists, they are almost always completely cordial with each other. Many of the most religious actually believe that they are in the same circle as those from other religions, they simply disagree on the details.
Even some of the higher-ups in the Church of Satan point out that Satanism is merely a rebranding by Christians of the worship of mother Earth, that Satan wasn’t even considered evil until the Catholic church announced that he was the ruler of Hell in the 400s. They don’t condone sinning, deception, or evil of any kind—the church is essentially a nephew of paganism, and are simply victims of a slander campaign 1600 years ago. And much like the other ‘non-believers’ I mentioned before, anyone who calls themselves a Satanist because they drink goat’s blood and evoke the Dark Lord are not really Satanists; they’re just idiots. And really, they’re no worse than the extreme fringe of most other religions, whether it’s radical Muslims, Opus Dei (i.e. radical Catholics), or radical Fundementalist Christians, who condone oppression, mortal punishment of nonbelievers, and provoke violence against innocents, like abortion doctors, gay rights activists, and blacks (lest ye forget the affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan). Even radical Hindus have some issues to deal with. Suicide by fire on a public street is not rational behavior.
Basically what I’m saying is that we need to do a reorg of the country’s religions into the five actual belief structures on our planet:
- Fundementalists
- The Devout
- Casual Believers (i.e. those who merely attend service because all their friends go to church too)
- Humanists (atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, certain liberal factions)
- Non-believers
We’ve outgrown these geographic clubs. Let the Fundementalists go to war with the Devout, and leave the rest of us out of it.
20090519
Scandal Schmandal
I’m sure you’ve been watching the news and heard about the “protests” against Obama speaking at Notre Dame—their reason being that a pro-choice President should not be giving a commencement address at a Catholic institution. Conservative media spoke from the perspective of how outrageous it is that the university is allowing Obama to speak, despite the cries of their community. Liberal media spoke of how outrageous it is that the community protest our President being able to speak to an educational institution because of their own prejudices. Non-partisan media have made a big deal of just what a big scandal the whole deal is, regardless of the reason. Even the Wikipedia entry for University of Notre Dame has been edited to include the controversy, suggesting that this event is now an integral part of the university’s 160 year history.
What the media haven’t covered is the actual commencement address. When the extreme minority of community in South Bend who did oppose Obama’s commencement address spoke out, a much larger part of the community reacted harshly. When a few people inside the ceremony interrupted the President’s speech with pro-life rhetoric, they were very quickly drowned out by a huge unison chant of “Yes we can, Yes we can,” the rallying cry of Obama supporters. The fact is that the vast majority of students, faculty, and community members seemed to be honored to have the President grace them with his company, and though they haven’t been given the same voice as the protesters, have tried to make it clear that they were proud of their University’s tradition of attracting such influential speakers.
I guess the truth just isn’t as salacious.
What the media haven’t covered is the actual commencement address. When the extreme minority of community in South Bend who did oppose Obama’s commencement address spoke out, a much larger part of the community reacted harshly. When a few people inside the ceremony interrupted the President’s speech with pro-life rhetoric, they were very quickly drowned out by a huge unison chant of “Yes we can, Yes we can,” the rallying cry of Obama supporters. The fact is that the vast majority of students, faculty, and community members seemed to be honored to have the President grace them with his company, and though they haven’t been given the same voice as the protesters, have tried to make it clear that they were proud of their University’s tradition of attracting such influential speakers.
I guess the truth just isn’t as salacious.
20090514
As the GOP falls
Nearly every political scientist is insisting that the Republican Party is not in danger of collapsing, that both major parties have survived far worse than the GOP are now. Well, if they don't collapse, it won't be for lack of trying.
You may have heard that recently the Republican Party, after a failed effort to rebrand themselves, have decided to rebrand the Democrats instead. They have resolved and pledged to now refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democratic Socialist Party.”
The result? In a recent poll done by a conservative polling company owned by Rupert Murdoch, studies have found that only 53% of Americans consider capitalism to be superior to socialism, meaning that nearly half of Americans do not see anything wrong with socialism; in fact, 20% now consider socialism to be superior. In an effort to scare people away from the Dems, they have associated Democrats with pinkos… and because of peoples’ high opinions of Democrats, their response is now “well, maybe then being a pinko isn’t so bad.”
The only group that this did provoke outrage from, in fact, is the actual Democratic Socialist Party of America, who are outraged that the Republicans are applying the moniker to their sworn rivals, the Democrats. So the effect of this decision is that moderates now think more highly of left-wing radicals, and left-wing radicals now think even less of right-wing conservatives!!!
You may have heard that recently the Republican Party, after a failed effort to rebrand themselves, have decided to rebrand the Democrats instead. They have resolved and pledged to now refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democratic Socialist Party.”
The result? In a recent poll done by a conservative polling company owned by Rupert Murdoch, studies have found that only 53% of Americans consider capitalism to be superior to socialism, meaning that nearly half of Americans do not see anything wrong with socialism; in fact, 20% now consider socialism to be superior. In an effort to scare people away from the Dems, they have associated Democrats with pinkos… and because of peoples’ high opinions of Democrats, their response is now “well, maybe then being a pinko isn’t so bad.”
The only group that this did provoke outrage from, in fact, is the actual Democratic Socialist Party of America, who are outraged that the Republicans are applying the moniker to their sworn rivals, the Democrats. So the effect of this decision is that moderates now think more highly of left-wing radicals, and left-wing radicals now think even less of right-wing conservatives!!!
20090423
If you don't take your shorts off, we can't pull the stick our of your ass.
Another day in Tualatin, another God-crazy politician trying to impose his beliefs on his denizens. Stars Cabaret, a dingy strip club, is moving into Tualatin. In Lake-O, they tried to block a new strip club. They failed. In Twally, they tried to block Stars' liquor license. They failed. Now they're trying to add an amendment to the state constitution to block strip clubs. They will fail.
Let's start with step one. The role of government is to cover needs and services of the people. They also have policing responsibilities, to keep people safe. That's why there are liquor licenses— bars have to be accountable for their patrons, ensuring that people are cut off at a certain point, minors aren't given (too much) booze, and no drunken brawls break out. That has NOTHING to do with looking at naked people. Blocking their liquor license is a perversion of their responsibilities and an abuse of power. That is not why they are given licensing authority, and the effort is clearly for the sole purpose of dissuading people "different from them" from doing what they want to do. It is the exact same thing, and I will fight you to the death on this, as preventing Jews from moving into your city because you don't like accountants. It's presumptuous, it's bigoted, and it's flat out fucking prejudiced.
If I lost any of you on that comparison, let's come back for a second. I'm not saying that people who go to strip clubs do so for religious purposes (though some of them might). I'm saying that the only reason why someone would try to ban a strip club is because they have it in their fucked up little Christian heads that anyone who goes to nudey bars does so purely because they have an evil Satan voice in their heads telling them that women are to be used and subordinated, and that the patrons all fantasize about raping the girls as they dance. That is an absolute fucking insult, and borderline hate crime, against professional strippers. Just because you fucking churchies can't go five minutes talking to a little boy without ramming his dick in your mouth doesn't mean the rest of us have demons to expel.
People go to strip clubs purely for entertainment purposes. Believe it or not, it's not even sexual. Very few men (or women) get aroused when they go to a strip club. They just get tired of spending all day and night pretending that there's nothing to appreciate in the female form. It's one of the few things that crazy right-wing puritans and crazy left-wing liberals can agree on: people should be ashamed for having an interest in the female body. No, I don't want to get to know every girl that I want to see naked. Kind of like how I don't want my doctor to fix my car. They're two completely unrelated proficiencies.
So I get fucking tired of forcing my eyes up when a girl walks by. I get tired of people looking aghast at me when I check someone out and proclaim, "you're married!" Most of all, I get tired of dimwitted, bitchy women who spend 4 hours a day making themselves look good getting offended because I don't like their personalities any better now that they got a boob job. To have a place where you can walk in and look straight at a woman and think, "I want her to take her clothes off without me talking to her about her favorite movie," and lo and behold, off comes the top... well, I'd pay good money for that.
So would a lot of people. A lot of people who have no desire to associate with these women otherwise. I actually found out once in college that a stripper I'd seen a couple times went to school with me. She was actually incredibly nice, and I had some great conversations with her, but then I couldn't go to her strip club anymore because I'd feel guilty. It was too... intimate, once I knew her. So you see, I have no idea to get to know these women, let alone get intimate with them. The whole idea is that I can drop the 19th-century conventions that we're held to for one night and watch them do their thing. And you know what? The good ones enjoy it. They've worked hard on their bodies, and they get tired of having to hide them. They want to be able to just shove their implants in some guy's face and say "look at these, fucktard. You want them, don't you? You want these big titties? DON'T FUCKING TOUCH!" Then the guy thanks them and gives them a dollar.
Disgusted? Fucking deal with it.
These are people different from you. I don't fucking understand. People don't like fatty foods, so they want to close down McDonalds. People want to drive by themselves to work, so they want to shut down the bus. People like taking the bus, so they want to install toll bridges. How about we pretend that we're a country that allows you to do whatever the fuck you want to do. Hell, I remember there was a strip club in Idaho that was shut down because neighbors didn't "feel safe knowing it was there." Sharing a building with the strip club was a gun store and a head shop. What the fuck do you care what we do behind the big black door? Hell, even if you happened upon it by accident the bouncer wouldn't let you in.
Which brings me back to the politicians in Tualatin, who should all be fired. Here's the basic math: if your constituents really don't want a strip club nearby, they won't go to the strip club. They're really expensive anyway. If the strip club doesn't go out of business, it's because THE RESIDENTS OF TUALATIN WANT A FUCKING STRIP CLUB.
Don't worry, we deviants in Portland will not be making the drive down to the Twally to check out your nickel-and-dime pastie dancers. We've got clubs here that serve you a porterhouse while the stripper grinds the ketchup. We have peep shows where for five bucks you get to yell "stick your finger in it." We've got an old fuckhouse with heroine needles in the drywall that's being converted into a family restraunt, and—pay attention, now—part of their mission in remodeling is to retain the flavor of the original establishment. So no, you don't have to worry about a new strip club "attracting an undesirable element" into the city. All it will do is give the undesirable element something to do on Saturday night. And in exchange, they'll sleep in Sunday morning, instead of trying to pass legislation to shut down your church.
Let's start with step one. The role of government is to cover needs and services of the people. They also have policing responsibilities, to keep people safe. That's why there are liquor licenses— bars have to be accountable for their patrons, ensuring that people are cut off at a certain point, minors aren't given (too much) booze, and no drunken brawls break out. That has NOTHING to do with looking at naked people. Blocking their liquor license is a perversion of their responsibilities and an abuse of power. That is not why they are given licensing authority, and the effort is clearly for the sole purpose of dissuading people "different from them" from doing what they want to do. It is the exact same thing, and I will fight you to the death on this, as preventing Jews from moving into your city because you don't like accountants. It's presumptuous, it's bigoted, and it's flat out fucking prejudiced.
Sidenote: So prejudiced, in fact, that this is how they're trying to include it into the state constitution—where the Constitution states that "no law shall be passed restraining... free expression," they want to add onto the end of it (this is verbatim) "nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or prohibit a local government from imposing... restrictions on the operations of nude dancing businesses."
Let me reiterate: Where the Constitution specifically states that the government shall not impose their beliefs on the people they represent, the city of Tualitin wants to add "except for when the government wants to impose their beliefs on the people they represent." Fucking assholes.
If I lost any of you on that comparison, let's come back for a second. I'm not saying that people who go to strip clubs do so for religious purposes (though some of them might). I'm saying that the only reason why someone would try to ban a strip club is because they have it in their fucked up little Christian heads that anyone who goes to nudey bars does so purely because they have an evil Satan voice in their heads telling them that women are to be used and subordinated, and that the patrons all fantasize about raping the girls as they dance. That is an absolute fucking insult, and borderline hate crime, against professional strippers. Just because you fucking churchies can't go five minutes talking to a little boy without ramming his dick in your mouth doesn't mean the rest of us have demons to expel.
People go to strip clubs purely for entertainment purposes. Believe it or not, it's not even sexual. Very few men (or women) get aroused when they go to a strip club. They just get tired of spending all day and night pretending that there's nothing to appreciate in the female form. It's one of the few things that crazy right-wing puritans and crazy left-wing liberals can agree on: people should be ashamed for having an interest in the female body. No, I don't want to get to know every girl that I want to see naked. Kind of like how I don't want my doctor to fix my car. They're two completely unrelated proficiencies.
So I get fucking tired of forcing my eyes up when a girl walks by. I get tired of people looking aghast at me when I check someone out and proclaim, "you're married!" Most of all, I get tired of dimwitted, bitchy women who spend 4 hours a day making themselves look good getting offended because I don't like their personalities any better now that they got a boob job. To have a place where you can walk in and look straight at a woman and think, "I want her to take her clothes off without me talking to her about her favorite movie," and lo and behold, off comes the top... well, I'd pay good money for that.
So would a lot of people. A lot of people who have no desire to associate with these women otherwise. I actually found out once in college that a stripper I'd seen a couple times went to school with me. She was actually incredibly nice, and I had some great conversations with her, but then I couldn't go to her strip club anymore because I'd feel guilty. It was too... intimate, once I knew her. So you see, I have no idea to get to know these women, let alone get intimate with them. The whole idea is that I can drop the 19th-century conventions that we're held to for one night and watch them do their thing. And you know what? The good ones enjoy it. They've worked hard on their bodies, and they get tired of having to hide them. They want to be able to just shove their implants in some guy's face and say "look at these, fucktard. You want them, don't you? You want these big titties? DON'T FUCKING TOUCH!" Then the guy thanks them and gives them a dollar.
Disgusted? Fucking deal with it.
These are people different from you. I don't fucking understand. People don't like fatty foods, so they want to close down McDonalds. People want to drive by themselves to work, so they want to shut down the bus. People like taking the bus, so they want to install toll bridges. How about we pretend that we're a country that allows you to do whatever the fuck you want to do. Hell, I remember there was a strip club in Idaho that was shut down because neighbors didn't "feel safe knowing it was there." Sharing a building with the strip club was a gun store and a head shop. What the fuck do you care what we do behind the big black door? Hell, even if you happened upon it by accident the bouncer wouldn't let you in.
Which brings me back to the politicians in Tualatin, who should all be fired. Here's the basic math: if your constituents really don't want a strip club nearby, they won't go to the strip club. They're really expensive anyway. If the strip club doesn't go out of business, it's because THE RESIDENTS OF TUALATIN WANT A FUCKING STRIP CLUB.
Don't worry, we deviants in Portland will not be making the drive down to the Twally to check out your nickel-and-dime pastie dancers. We've got clubs here that serve you a porterhouse while the stripper grinds the ketchup. We have peep shows where for five bucks you get to yell "stick your finger in it." We've got an old fuckhouse with heroine needles in the drywall that's being converted into a family restraunt, and—pay attention, now—part of their mission in remodeling is to retain the flavor of the original establishment. So no, you don't have to worry about a new strip club "attracting an undesirable element" into the city. All it will do is give the undesirable element something to do on Saturday night. And in exchange, they'll sleep in Sunday morning, instead of trying to pass legislation to shut down your church.
20090422
The History of Liberia
After Jim Crow laws were passed stating that no blacks were safe in the United States, even in free states, some of the founding fathers of the U.S. (most prominently Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner) decided that black Americans needed somewhere they could really feel safe if they were freed, so why not Africa? A team of Americans , including Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay and Paul Cuffe, a Native American slave ship captain, secretly sent a ship to Africa, taking with them 33 African Americans and settled an unmapped city in West Africa called "Freetown." Over the next sixty years, slave ships going to pick up more slaves would secretly ship escaped or freed blacks back to Africa, slowly populating the secret civilization called the ACS (American Colonization Society) and helping them establish a shadow government in Africa. When the Civil War seemed inevitable in the late 1840s, many Southerners who had been part of the ACS movement started sending boats FULL of blacks over to Freeville.
When Great Britain discovered this secret colony, they made an attempt to annex it as part of the United Kingdom. They figured that the United States would be afraid to admit what they had been building and would abandon the colony, giving the UK prime coastal land in West Africa. Instead, the United States officially granted the ACS their independence and renamed them Liberia. Five states—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maryland, and the southern state of Virginia, who founded the ACS—all pitched in interest free loans to the Liberian government so they could fund an army. In nearly bankrupted the states, but they felt morally obliged to act.
In 1847, Liberia drafted their constitution and was founded as a free Republic. They renamed Freeville to "Monroeville," in honor of James Monroe, who had raised over $100,000 for the colony while he was sitting President of the United States. Though it's just as rife with conflict and war as any African country, it is still a sovereign nation, still in good standing with the Anglican world, and this year elected their first female President, in an election which was completely free of corruption, and are on their way to drafting a balanced budget.
So you tell me that American History isn't just as fascinating as European.
When Great Britain discovered this secret colony, they made an attempt to annex it as part of the United Kingdom. They figured that the United States would be afraid to admit what they had been building and would abandon the colony, giving the UK prime coastal land in West Africa. Instead, the United States officially granted the ACS their independence and renamed them Liberia. Five states—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maryland, and the southern state of Virginia, who founded the ACS—all pitched in interest free loans to the Liberian government so they could fund an army. In nearly bankrupted the states, but they felt morally obliged to act.
In 1847, Liberia drafted their constitution and was founded as a free Republic. They renamed Freeville to "Monroeville," in honor of James Monroe, who had raised over $100,000 for the colony while he was sitting President of the United States. Though it's just as rife with conflict and war as any African country, it is still a sovereign nation, still in good standing with the Anglican world, and this year elected their first female President, in an election which was completely free of corruption, and are on their way to drafting a balanced budget.
So you tell me that American History isn't just as fascinating as European.
20090420
Blessed Economy
My wife is essentially a student—she's self-teaching so that she can get licensure to work in a specialized field, so as a result she isn't employed. In a good economy, that would be a problem. In the shitheap we live in now, though, my high-end-of-average paycheck ($1k every 2 weeks), we're doing quite well. We don't shop the good stores, but every time we see a liquidation sale, we march in with a fistful of bills and walk out sitting pretty. The missus has doubled her wardrobe, and I've been scooping up all the old games and software that people have been hawking, desperate for money. We've also gotten ourselves a new HDTV, one of those digital frame thingys, and we're moving into a much bigger and better apartment that (after incentives) will end up costing us hundreds less than where we're living now, since they're desperate to get tenants of any kind.
I feel guilty, to a certain degree. I really do feel like I'm profiting off of other people's mistakes. But then, isn't that how it should work? All those pretentious fucks I knew in college kept saying to me in their most condescending voices, "you're an idiot for renting an apartment. You're throwing your money away, not buying a house." Meanwhile, 80% of their house payments went to the bank, and the bank just blew the money on nothing, and then reneg'ed on their loan, and their house depreciated by more than they paid for it. That's not even considering all the money they spent on yard improvements, sewer lines, maintenance, and all the other stuff that's built in to a rental price, but they have to pay for themselves (which doesn't improve the value of their house).
All those fucktards kept chiding me for getting an English degree while they were out getting their MBAs. Then they got a lucrative job at Washington Mutual, while I devoted myself to being a big fish in a little pond, and now they're getting laid off because their company realized they provide no actual value to their employer, while my income has increased steadily and unwaveringly by 28% a year. And because I have practically no investments in high-risk stocks (all my money is in CDs and annuities), I haven't really lost any money in this economy. And once my wife does get her license, she'll be applying for jobs almost completely unopposed, because for all those snobby little assholes who were skating through med school with 'C' grades, their parents started questioning whether it was worth it paying 6 figures on an education that their kid clearly doesn't give a fuck about. So while the health industry itself is recession-proof, and riding a wave of support from a President who wants to amp up health care, there aren't any new doctors coming out of the college circuit, and the ones who are coming out don't know shit about the actual work, they just knew it was a high-paying enterprise. So as the hospitals try to keep costs down so they'll qualify for some of that sweet, sweet government subsidy, they spend a lot more time looking at these alternative-certification doctors who really know their shit, and couldn't care less how much they spent on their education. As Keith Olbermann is fond of pointing out—the fact that he went to Cornell A&M just means he was paying $500 per class for his Cornell education instead of $3,000; the classes were all the same.
So you know what? I take it back. Fuck all you self-congratulatory blowhards. You were wrong—that's what happens when you get your life philosophy off the cover of Greedy Fucker magazine. I learned all my life lessons by living. You see, things make more sense when you find them by thinking things through.
P.S. See my new fiction blog, The New Republic, at http://web.me.com/bonwell.parker/The_New_Republic/Blog/Blog.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
