Greatest at what, exactly?

I'm just SO sick of people older than I am going on and on AND ON AND ON about "The Greatest Generation". No offense meant to the actual members thereof, but Who The Fuck Cares?

These are the same people who piss & moan that my generation Does Not Love Our Country; that We Don't Appreciate What They've Given Us, etc. etc. etc.

Why should we bother to try to live up to your pathetic opinion of us? What do you actually expect a group of people to achieve who are told over and over that they're mediocre?

It's not as if we have a war to fight to keep up with them.
... oh, wait ...
It's not as if we have a war to fight that anyone actually approves of
... oh, wait ...
well, the THREE or FOUR goddamn wars that the "Greatest Generation's" Children got us into ('cause we sure as shit didn't get ourselves into them) are 3rd page below the fold news. We don't even have the courtesy of a daily body count.

I sit back and watch the Greatest Generation's Children, a.k.a. Baby Boomers, piss away my country's everything: economy, environment, international good-will, domestic integrity, etc. by looking at their parents' dreams and deluding themselves into thinking they deserved to have it all.

Expect life to get better? Who the fuck actually thinks that the Baby Boomers are going to leave the rest of us a pot to piss in? I don't. No one else I know does, either. And, if this is only just occurring to y'all, then it's because you haven't been stuck with some damn X to your name because the Baby Boomers didn't want to admit there was a future that didn't include their self-centered existence.

7 words

George Carlin’s 7 deadly words - transcript of his monologue. This is sort of wandering.

I tried to think of what they were, and could only come up with 3. I asked Mr.Gopher and he came up with the same 3. (definitely not allowed to hog the dictionary for Quiddler, honey!)
Fuck, Cunt, Shit, Piss, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.

The FCC stated that it would address the legality of broadcast language on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the context presented, use of the “F-Word” [fuck] or other words as highly offensive as the “F-Word” [fuck] may be both indecent and profane, if aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

and then there's: highly offensive vs. indecent vs. obscene vs. just-a-little-offensive??

FCC rule bout what is okay
#3. whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

And they apparently think it’s okay for Fox-TV to have a bunch of sex fetishists running around dressed up in horse-bondage paraphernalia on a TV show at 7 p.m. ...??? What the hell else is that, if not intentional titillation (does that count as “tit”?) or shocking? I was pretty shocked. Admittedly, I was shocked because of the time of day and the fact it was on regular TV. After 10 p.m. would have surprised me that it was on regular TV, but it wouldn't have enraged me.

How many shows are there with a message “some content may be unacceptable to children” at 7 or 8 p.m. (because "local time" here = EST not CST) where there’s . Fine, if you need to put it there to make some righteous idiot turn off the TV to avoid seeing some woman’s cleavage = the one in front, ‘cause if you ever watch the beginning of CSI:Miami, you sure as hell have seen the one in the back with no warning notice. And that's not titillating? [well, I don't think it is, but I'm also not the target audience for them] Except, I've never seen that warning with sex, only with blood/guts/gore.

This came up with discussion about regulating cable more. Strange bedfellows, with some fearing any increase in the Fed's ability to regulate anything vaguely involving the 1st amendment on the same side as those arguing that "free market" forces means letting the customer pick which cable channels she wants, rather than be forced to buy bundled channels.

I would be very, very leery of any additional regulation given to the FCC over cable companies. They already bend & spread 'em to the wimpy wimpy wimpy whiners over those 7 words. Have you seen movies where the "offensive" language was cut/re-dubbed? It's like the Daily Show - any idiot with a 1/2 baked brain knows perfectly well what they're saying during those little bleeps. Watch Battlestar Galactica (the new one, obviously) - the F-word is 'frak'. I can't figure if it is to avoid some FCC/idiot problem [yes!] or if it is simply an effort to make something familiar yet different. Because it is patently obvious what the script writers mean.

Then Jr.Gopher#2 yesterday exclaimed "darn it!"
hmmm... I'm confronted by where to draw the line about what's acceptable abrupt language. Is Sheiße okay? 'Cause Mr.Gopher uses it, but doesn't like me to say shit. In our house, being in a foreign language doesn't excuse it from acceptability. However, what happens when a word isn't as offensive in German as it is in English?

Back to Carlin ... tits? That's banned?? Well, shit. What cocksucker thought that was obscene, but 'boobs' isn't? Does fucktard become a banned word? How about infixes? (As opposed to suffixes or prefixes, an infix is inserting the extra part into the middle of the word, e.g. holy fucking cow, whoopty-fucking-do, et fucking cetera).

I'll go back to science, and the Boltzmann distrifuckingbution.
.

Financial whining

I'm so sick of listening to complaining about cutting government spending. Let's back up and look at it again, folks. How to fix the country's budget/spending problem:

1. Figure out how much money is actually coming in
2. Make a list of everything that you want the government to pay for.
3. Make a list - it'll be reeeaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllly long - of every last damn dime spent by Uncle Sam. Do NOT make this list first. Ignore, completely and totally ignore what we're spending today when you make the list of what you actually want to pay for.
4. Start spending and stop when your balance sheet hits $0.

The financial wizard/con-men are trying to screw you by including point #3 above. This is completely irrelevant to the solution. Ignore today's reality when trying to create tomorrow's. Really. Seriously.

"Cutting Spending" is the modern mantra. It's bullshit. You don't want to pay for the state's maternal and child welfare (a.k.a. WIC) ... just don't put it on the We Want To Pay For It list. Cut everything!
Start from Zero. Not from the current budget.
What do you want? Can you pay for it? Figure out what you can afford. Everything else will be eliminated anyway, so stop arguing about whether or not to cut it.

Back up.

1. Decide whether or not you want to live with Capitalism. If you don't, please go away. If you do, please wake up and smell the coffee. You don't live in a capitalistic economy, if you live in the USA. I hate to break it to you, but all of you already live in a socialist state which has NOTHING to do with whether GW or Obama is in office.

2. Eliminate every last goddamned penny of federal subsidies. Take the resultant $1.6 Trillion* and cut the federal deficit by half.

Subsidies are economic engineering. A True and Pure Capitalist would refuse to take them. A real capitalist would ... well, actually she would take them. And any other damn thing the federal government threw her way.
Then she would start to rely on them.
Then she would demand them as her due.
Then she would claim they were her right as a business owner.
Then ... one day she might look in the mirror and realize that she's been sucking off the teat of the American Taxpayer and has committed Capitalistic Heresy and Apostasy.

If you want subsidies, that's fine. Just don't ask for them and then delude yourself into thinking you're a Capitalist.


As I listen in painful agony every weekday morning to 91.1 FM, I hear people of all parties saying they want to cut spending. And I never ever ever ever hear them say exactly what they want to cut.

The following need to be removed from any conservative (that is, the American ones) whining about social problems. None of this would be a problem if you just sucked it up and did what you're supposed to be doing according to the Word of God and Conservative Society:

1. birth control: if you ain't married, you don't need it because you aren't having sex
   
2. abortion: since the only way you'd get pregnant is if you're married, you can't need an abortion
   
3. financial aid: if you can't afford to pay tuition, you need to get off your ass, get a job, and save up your money. You cannot sit back and expect me to pay for you to go to college.
4. unemployment benefits: you'd have a job, if you just got off your ass and made a real effort
5. unemployment benefits: if you'd saved your money like a responsible person, you wouldn't need to worry about a year of being without a job because your neighbors and fellow parishoners will be helping you like Good Folk Should
   
6. job safety: if you just do your job properly, there wouldn't be any accidents.
7. drug safety: if we just let Pharma alone, they'll be more than happy enough to let us know if there's a problem with their products
   
8. food safety: if it isn't safe, don't buy it and the market will realign itself to reflect the customer demand.

Holy cow - think of how much money we could save by eliminating all of the government agencies or laws which regulate the above items?
OSHA
MSHA
USDA/APHIS/PHS
EPA
CSB
FDA

This, plus cutting all subsidies should fix the Whole Financial Crisis and we could get back on with our lives.

Respecting the Law ... but not my intelligence

I am perhaps more critical of writing which starts by pissing me off.

America, we have a problem. Millions upon millions of people want to move here. Permanently. Even a country as prosperous as ours cannot possibly absorb so much humanity.
1st sentence of the NRO article Respecting the Law

bullshit.

So what happens now? The bullshit detector is on.

next sentence:

As problems go, however, this is not a bad one to have. For the day that “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” no longer besiege America is the day we will have to admit that America has lost its “magic formula.”

well, maybe an intelligent neo-nationalist

8th paragraph, following rah-rah-ain't-we-wonderful self-aggrandizement of the United States of America:

Respect for the rule of law seems natural to most Americans, what America does he live in? and can I get a visa? but it is largely an anomaly in the history of other nations. really? Would this be the 'other nations' whose legal system we adopted, like England? Or China, the oldest country in the world, which has had a rule of law for centuries? Or maybe he really means a 'democracy', which really has little to do with a rule of law? Nowhere is this more evident than in Latin America. South and Central America have seen scores of military dictatorships and autocracies, despite endorsing democracy and democratic institutions, since freeing themselves from the shackles of Spanish colonialism. Because we keep funding the groups which remove the democratically elected people we don't like. ... Far too many of the region’s leaders have learned the fine art of manipulating electoral politics FROM US in order to install themselves as autocrats or dictators with our money and political backing.

The inconsistent adherence to the rule of law has made it difficult for democratic institutions to flourish in Latin America. there? what about here? Moreover, repeated flouting of the law by political and military leaders undermines respect for the law among the general public. only if you're a progressive This is evidenced in everyday life: Consider the streets of many Latin American countries, where simple traffic laws are violated almost universally, and with near-total impunity. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Has this man seen the streets of America? oh, right ... we've already established he doesn't live in the same America I do. Like Michigan, which treats stop signs as general guidance, and Minnesota where running red lights is a local sport on par with jay-walking in Michigan.


It’s no surprise, then, that some immigrants from Latin America evince a residual disrespect for the rule of law in this country. trans: I come from a country without traffic enforcement, therefore I will become a felon here, rape your daughters, steal your dogs, and suck on the teat of American social security.

It explains why so many ______ remain convinced that they have done nothing wrong by _________. Their desire to work hard and provide for their families is, for them, enough to justify their actions — the rule of law is an extraneous concept.

Now, class, let's fill in the blanks above. Is the correct answer:

American politicians // fucking the poor
American politicians // fucking our children's future
American politicians // waging unfunded wars abroad
unemployed illegal aliens // being hired by American companies
undocumented workers // entering our country illegally

If you answered a, b, c, or d - your head is sufficiently far enough out of your ass to smell shit when it's there.
If you answered e, you read Mr. Ortega's article.

Why is it that I think they assigned this piece of propaganda bullshit to a person with an Hispanic family name?

So, in summary:
Latinos have no traffic control and therefore are inherently incapable of obeying any law and therefore are unworthy to enter the hallowed borders of a country which worships the rule of law.

by the way ...

I filed suit yesterday in small claims court against someone in this Rule of Law Worshiping Society who rear-ended me, stove in my back hatch, and has no insurance while driving a vehicle belonging to someone else with no insurance, who then drove off before the cops came, after being monumentally stupid enough to stop and talk to me. If she'd just driven off, no one would ever have been able to prosecute her, since it wasn't her car.
She must have been an illegal immigrant.

what not to watch

I'm stuck: too many movies, not enough time? No - more like not enough time and still not enough movies. No, unlike STFU&GBTW I do not need to keep up to date with the newest Hollywood CGI banquet. Minimal time w/ Mr.Gopher & what to see? Well, it's not our different tastes limiting my options. It's June. Summer movie season is supposed to be here. Even if I look at the AMC options (and not our theater, as the Riverview does 2nd runs), I'm still stuck.

Robin Hood: These look like the worst critiques of Crowe's work I've seen in a long time. At least in this version, Richard is dead. Although for once I really wish the Robin Hood character was "fighting" against Richard, the king who decimated the royal treasury by futile crusades, rather than John, who at least gave us the Magna Carta.

Prince of Persia: you must be kidding. Who in the hell thought Gyllenhaal would be a good choice as a Persian? Okay, he's a serious improvement over Brad Pitt in Troy (another surely-you-jest casting epic), in that at least he's not blonde. Isn't there any A-list actor who could look like he's from the Middle East, rather than Wales? Like, say, Alfred Molina? At least they didn't cast Russel Crowe. And, while we're at it ... why give it a sub-title, unless they're planning to make more than one? Why not just call it Sands of Time OR just prince of Persia?

Date Night: Romantic Comedy is generally portrayed as "The Man Will Attend To Placate His Woman, Not Because He Likes It". I suspect that if we went, I'd like it and Mr.Gopher would suffer through 90 min, eliminating it from post-movie dinner discussion. We would be forced to discuss ... hmmm.....

Iron Man 2: well, it probably isn't bad. But, if I only have one movie to pick, this isn't going to be it. And, of course, there's the "Mr.Gopher doesn't do superheroes" factor.


What else is playing in town ...

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: we did see. It was good; I'll try to put a review together. Mr.Gopher managed to watch the whole thing ignoring the subtitles.

The Secret in Their Eyes: hmmmm.... this looks interesting.

Metropolis. Definitely worthwhile; haven't seen it; and, afterall, it's in German.


ah, well ... perhaps I should go back to my thesis.
.

Our Forefathers

You don't need to be a member of any specific political party to realize that our government is and has been for some time spending money just they way that the voters have been letting them.

It is our duty as Citizens to tell our representative what we want.

As Citizens, it is our civic duty to vote them out of office if they don't do it!

Our civic duty demands we risk of voting for what we want, rather than for a label. Too many people vote for a party rather than the candidate.

The Two Party system has the average person over a barrel. We fear voting for something else, which results in our representatives not bothering to vote Our Way. They don't need to! They realize that, once in office, they need never fear their own party ousting them.

If you’re dissatisfied with the current representation, find someone else to put on the ballot. Protesting in the streets is only as effective as its 30-sec sound bite before the sports & weather. Hit the streets and work for it.

Your voice only truly works at the ballot box. This is the ultimate place where you have the power to negate all of the obscene electioneering money.

It is our Civic Duty to be include the rest of America in our political decisions. Ourselves and our children. On Independence Day, we reverently read: “... Our forefathers brought forth onto this continent ...”

Each political decision should consider: "What kind of forefathers will this make us?"

we owe them ... what??

The kind of politics that teaches us all we owe to those who came before us and those who will come after. That each of us has drunk from wells we did not dig; that each of us has been warmed by fires we did not build.
-- Mark Shields

The people running this country (the ones with political power every day, as opposed to you & me, who only get it on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even numbered years) fail to get the part about "we owe to ... those who come after [us]."

I am sick & tired of hearing about how we owe all this to those who came before us, intoned in quiet voices of reverential awe, or strident ringing admonitions. That would be 'those who came before us' and bequeathed us a world riven with environmental destruction and economic disasters and globalization of war and the privatization of governmental ethics.

I don't care if the world does revolve around you - it's still there, and without anything circling you, you're just a useless point.

Retarded: redeux

Retarded.

Apparently the newest target of PC-mania. "developmentally disabled", "developmentally challenged" "otherwise abled" ... ???

How about just "fucked up just like everyone else in the world"?

I am handicapped ... or is it developmentally impaired (maybe that's 'retarded') ... or crippled ... or otherwise-abled ... ?

Hell if I know what you want to call me - I just go with whatever the government form has in its demographics:
Race: Other
Gender: F
Military Status: No
Handicapped: Yes

Now ... don't be pissin' me off about this. I am handicapped (or whatever), therefore I get to pick whatever damn term I want to talk about myself or my fellowly-abled.

This is right up there with being black and calling your friends niggers. They get to because its a self-reference? But I can't, because it's grossly offensive? Is it only offensive because I'm white? Would it be equally offensive if I was Asian & calling someone nigger?

What about calling people Black rather than African-American? Is that okay these days? Or what about Colored? Is that as equally offensive as nigger? At least one person I know, who is African, didn't particularly care for being called "African American" since he was white.

Who thinks they're appointed by Linguistic Gods to tell me what I can or cannot use? I'll use any word I want any time I want. If you don't like it ... oh, well. Mind you, I do have a sense of social propriety. I'm not going to yell, "yo, cunt!" across the table of some executive business meeting.

Most women I know find 'cunt' to be the maximum offensive euphemism for 'woman'. Why? Because it's only used when trying to be offensive? I guess the Vagina Monologues wouldn't have the same advertising draw as the Cunt Monologues, or the Pussy Monologues. (One of the scenes in the play is a list of every single word possible in the English language to use as a euphemism for vagina - wow.)

Know what ...? letting Them get away with this is tantamount to signing away one's power.

By being offended at a given term, you give Them power over you.
Making Them stop using a word is not exercising power over Them; it's giving them the power to offend you.
Sure, being called a nigger by some red-neck home-boy is likely on par with being called cunt by some red-necked home-boy. Know what ... I don't give a damn.

Yup, I've been called a cunt. And ... I didn't give a damn then. Don't care now. If he was so g-damned stupid to think that his pie-hole-noise would somehow hurt me ... he's even stupider than his actions would indicate.

It isn't the word. It's how its used. The [person] who complained on my blog

... what's with using the word retarded? just wrong any way you look at it.

apparently failed to notice the term 'retarded' was applied to the Catholic Church, and not some 'developmentally disabled' person. The term 'retarded' was also immediately followed by "retarded ... as in developmentally retarded' - explicitly stating the application of this word was not about a person.

I'm a scientist; whether or not I have finished my MPH (almost there, almost there, almost there), I was a scientist long before grad school. When I wrote "retarded growth of the microorganisms" ... I was not referring to "developmentally disabled bacteria".

John Stewart Mill, a famous sociologist of the late 19th Century, wrote in his 'Sociology':
"However much their pursuit of these objects may be for the present retarded by want of electoral organization," should this monumental text be re-edited? (maybe to accommodate inadequate 21st Century education to realize that he meant "these people don't have their political shit together"). Are these pursuits are "otherwise abled"? no ... His point is that they hadn't grown and whether or not they would was yet to be determined.

The word retarded has meaning outside of a person's physical or mental development. By demanding Society ignore those other meanings detracts from the rich melange called the English language.

There are so many different physical manifestations that are today considered to be "handicaps". No one would look at me and call me a cripple - during martial arts classes or biking to school or carrying my 3 year old son.

I'm not sure if people would be understanding of assigning me to a category of "handicapped", since it's not obvious. Is it still a "handicap" if it's not obvious?

Am I handicapped? Some times I wonder myself.

Yet, I can't drive without having my neurologist reassure the DMV every 6 months that I'm safe. I can't go anywhere without my medication, on the off chance I get stuck somewhere, e.g. another unplanned 3-day stay Children's Hospital. I really shouldn't do contact sports. A serious amount of pharmacological attention to detail before/during/after pregnancy. This does handicap my life. Yet "crippled" seems more severe. That, to me, is a perception of severity. Even I wouldn't apply that term to myself.

A co-worker's sister is retarded. She doesn't seem to feel comfortable with any particular term for this, seeming equally uncomfortable with retarded (due to PC-ness) or 'developmentally disabled' (because it's long and sounds euphemistic).

Developmentally disabled is a euphemism. So are most words related to bodily functions or parts. We use euphemisms for things that make us feel uncomfortable. We curse what makes us feel uncomfortable, usually using euphemisms to help distance ourselves psychologically.

The problem is not society's use of a word. The problem is society's delusional beliefs about what that rate/level of development means about a person's intrinsic value. Changing the word ain't gonna do squat to change Society.


Therefore, move out of my way; let the handicapped get on with her life and change society, not her language.

.

Gravely Imperilled

The future of mankind will be gravely imperilled, if great questions are left to be fought over between ignorant change and ignorant opposition to change.

John Stewart Mill, Sociology, 1879.

he also wrote in his introduction to the book well the commentary is mine:

The great increase of electoral power which the Act places within the reach of the working classes is permanent. ha ha ha The circumstances which have caused them, thus far, to make a very limited use of that power, are essentially temporary. 131 years later, does it still count as 'temporary'? It is known even to the most inobservant The powerful certainly observed this, that the working classes have [... for good or ill realized their goals/opinions are in conflict with the powerful...]. However much their pursuit of these objects may be for the present retarded seriously retarded by want of electoral organization, by dissensions among themselves, or by their not having reduced as yet their wishes into a sufficiently definite practical shape, it is as certain as anything in politics can be, that they will before long before 2010? find the means of making their collective electoral power effectively instrumental to the proportion of their collective objects.

His introduction is poignant in its delusional futility. He - and perhaps the rest of Socialists in general - completely and totally underestimated the willpower of the disenfranchised classes. Their will to do nothing is astonishing. He also completely and totally underestimated the lengths to which the propertied/powerful would go, in order to protect their status quo. Or the awe inspiring, subtle creativity they would employ.

The disenfranchised have had their "collective objects" co-opted by the rich & powerful. The powerful, fearing to loose their proportion of that power, have convinced the Little Guy that "you can be just like me". So, all these tea-party idiots are running around defending the rich & powerful because they think they, too, can become rich and powerful, and want to have those power-perqs.

What better way to fuck the little guy, than to get her to do to herself?

Be a lady

Arlen Spectre tells She Who Must Not Be Named (R-MN) to act like a lady, to wit:

"I'm going to treat you like a lady," Mr. Specter shot back. "Now act like one."

Ah, all the more reason to rejoice that he became a democrat: no party harangue after such an honest reminder of common courtesy. This article, however, gave grave cause for fear & trepidation. She Who Must Not Be Named (R-MN) is apparently hosting She Who Must Not Be Named (R-AK) at some rally. I will definitely be somewhere else that day.

I thank God that I don't live in the 6th District. Keith Ellison could board a Northwest flight with explosives in his underwear & I would still prefer him to Bachmann. Come on - complaints about Ellison going on Hajj - or complaints about Bachmann lying about health care bills?

Truth-o-Meter Lie of the Year:

61% Palin ... claims ... uh, lies ... about death panels

3.8% Bachmann ... claims ... uh, lies ... about health care bills

Now, lest you think this is just a bunch of "liberal elitists" slamming "poor misunderstood Christian conservatives":
7.1% of their readers thought that Pres. Obama's claims about "preventative care saves money" was a lie.

Why spend money on basic education, when PR campaign dollars are so much cheaper and quite obviously so much more effective?

Biblical regulations

"We're also going to bring a transparency to the regulatory jungle that is unprecedented in the federal government," Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao told business owners in a speech on June 2002. "There are more words in the Federal Register describing OSHA regulations than there are words in the Bible. They're a lot less inspired to read and a lot harder to understand. This is not fair."

I try to console my outraged sense of morality and ethics with my mantra:

... one day, you will stand before God and have to explain what you did with your life ... and boy, you will be fucked ...

I also think this is a good touchstone for moral decisions in my own life.


(former) Sec. Chao's primary function as a lawyer was union-busting. Only a Republican toadying to the Christian-zealots would compare the Federal Register with the Bible. The former is the source of all federal regulations, including all of the OSHA & EPA "regulations", i.e. what you need to do to be in compliance with the law. And I'm willing to bet that Ms. Chao hasn't actually read either one, unless it was to figure out how to justify fucking the little guy with the contents.

Of course, pointing to the royally retarded (and I mean that in the scientific sense, as well as the social one) approach to labor laws under Bush II, saying "this is a new administration" rather much ignores the pathetic approach to labor law for the past 40 years. The Democrats aren't any better at this. And they are - in my opinion - sinking just as fast. They have the majority... just Fuck the Republicans and just get on with doing what it right! Just DO what you been whining about for the past 8 years. aaaaarrrrgggghhh.

Where does your child play?

Go to University Ave. in St. Paul, just east of Fairview. I honestly don't recall the name of the specific street, it's the first one east of Fairview. On the north side of that intersection is a YMCA and a small school building. The school has 2 signs: Avalon School (sign says its a public 7-12 school) and Twin Cities German Immersion School (is a K-5 public charter school).

Stand on the sidewalk in front of the school. There's a fence.

Look at vast expanse of wood chips. This is my son's play ground. Is there any grass? No. The grass off to your right is the front yard of the business there.

Walk into the play ground and look around. There's no gate in the fence to keep my kindergarten son in. There's no gate to keep you or any other member of society out. Why?

Look at the sign in front of the fence where you're standing. It reads: St. Paul Park & Recreation Board.

This was brought up at the German School's Board Meeting earlier this year. "The planning is complicated by the fact that the area in front of the school is owned by the City of St. Paul and forms part of a public park. Fencing and landscaping are both seen as high priorities, but both require permission from the city."

The school isn't allowed to do anything - not even landscaping - because the City of St Paul is ... well, I have no clue what they're doing.

The following was mentioned by Mr.Gopher: The park was donated to the city in 1906 (or so), with the caveat that it be a park. Nothing has been done with it in the intervening, um ... 103 years. Yeah, not '96, but '06. And so long ago, that one needs to ask which '06.

Now, go to St Paul's website. Click on the page to find one of their lovely Parks. You can't find this one. aaaaaahhh ... I guess the park is so important that someone lost it & they don't even know they have it ...

Go back to the fence & look east. There's grass in front of the first building, and then it turns into businesses' buildings and parking lots.

Look west. The YMCA has a fenced in yard (and apparently installed the playset without city permission - a great example of forgiveness being easier to get than permission). After that, the Griggs Building has its parking lot on the "City Park Land". The corner of Fairview & University has a bus stop. The "Park Information Sign" is there, but there's no park near it, just the Griggs' parking lot.

Someone in St. Paul went through the bother of paying for the nice, colorful sign with multicultural images. For a park that doesn't exist. But they can't allow the schools to put in grass? Even if the schools pay?

Insert lots of frustrated profanity.

Insert more.

Why won't the city just let the schools make the place nice for the children? It's not as if they could actually honestly claim "we're about to do something intelligent with the property".

Can you honestly imagine any public school letting total strangers into the school's playground? I could go sit on this school's playground and they'll have to let me because it's a "public park".

Now, mind you, I'm not paranoid about sex offenders or such. But I am really annoyed that the general public is allowed to wander around where these kids play and can interrupt them. I'm really, really annoyed that my kid is stuck trying to play soccer on wood chips. And, by far, I'm *most* annoyed that there's no complete fence to keep the balls and kids from running into University Avenue. That's not an annoyance factor - this is basic bodily safety.

and they wonder?

okay, so I wrote this at the end of July as I was planning my trip back to Lansing

MSP - ORD - DTW: . . . Northwest Airlines: there & back = $219

MSP - LAN: . . . Northwest Airlines: there & back = $475

MSP - LAN: . . . VW Passat: there & back = $120

StPl - Lansing: . . . Amtrak train: there & back = $192

And they think they'll convince me to fly? And then have to rent a car & pay for gas anyway? And they wonder why they're losing money? I might do it if I thought there was a snowball's chance in Hell of

a) getting a comfy seat without someone's elbows in my ribs
b) getting anything to eat
c) arriving on time

just getting (a) and (c) would be great.

Amtrak would get me (a) and (b) and (c) ... but it would also take an entire day to get there plus an entire day to get back.

.

CSPDGF

Not to be surpassed but Brother #1, Mr. STFU & GBTW, we have the CSPDGF. [adult content]

Ring ring... beep ...
if you want to pay usurious pay-by-phone-get-fucked fees please press 1 ...
if you want to just get fucked, please press 2 ...
para habla Espanol 4 ...

They never mention on these dickwad menus that you can press 0 and reach a real human being. Why? because they don’t want you to. They want you to think your only option is to pay them. They want you to get so frustrated by your apparent inability to get your way that you forget to demand it and wander off into the financial fog of fraud that constitutes the modern mortgage market.

They never mention that there’s a $15 pay-by-phone “convenience” fee. Why? because they want to fuck you.

I spoke to the Cock-Sucking Pencil-Dicked Goat-Fuckers (CSPDGF, alias GMAC the evil empire) to bitch that their computer system won’t let me on so that I can pay them. There’s no option for “fix your damn system”. There’s only “pay now” or “can’t pay now”. I - of course - pushed 0.

Am I going to get charged for paying over the phone?

mumble mumble mumble $12.5.

I don’t want to get charged, I want to pay on-line where I won’t get charged. I want to talk to someone to fix my on-line access.

Well, ma’am I can reduce the fee to $7.5.

I don’t want to pay anything. I want to pay on-line. I don’t get charged on-line. Can you please transfer me to the person to fix this? Or can you tell me who I do need to call.

Well, ma’am I can waive the fee for a one-time courtesy.

Well, at least this time they’ll find the KY.


-->> Gopher Tip: next time you're confronted with someone demanding "convenience fees" for paying over the phone demand to have the waived.


They wanted to know why this month’s payment was late.

Well, let’s see: Your computer system is so clearly designed to fuck me & fuck my bank account that it won’t let me set up a monthly automatic payment.

Why is that so?

'Cause they want to fuck you.

Their lame-ass excuse is that my monthly payment isn’t always the same (escrow changes sort of thing). Their lame-o excuse is that they would need prior authorization any time my payment changed.

Well, Xcel Energy, T-Mobile and Consumer’s Energy all seem perfectly willing to bill me monthly with whatever that month’s utility bill is.**

This is up there with the We Are Servants Of The Computer mentality that I got from HSBC.


** addendum:
gee, guess what? GMAC does actually have a monthly payment option. Why tell anyone it's there? And, if you do happen to sign up for it, the maximum amount you can pay at once is $25,000. First I thought I'd misplaced the decimal. $25k? Who the hell would pay 25 Gs at once? And, why in the world would the mortgage company want to limit the amount of money you can pay them? In chorus, class: Because they want to fuck you.

Cockroaches in the house (the one with a capital H)

"Should Democrats respond with a powerful and aggressive response to the vocal minority objectors?" apparently the question to seduce you into listening to the next segment of the news. I hope this was a rhetorical question. If not, I have an answer:

Hell, yes!

Squash them like the cockroaches they are!

No one is going to vote for you if you're not powerful. Just accept that the loud minority of dickwads are never going to vote for you, squash them like roaches, and get on with running the country.

You have power! After an aeon of dickwad Conservatives running (a.k.a. totally fucking up) the country, you've got the reins of power! Use them! You'll likely get voted out of office anyway, so what the hell? Go for broke & just DO something morally righteous & spit in their eye if they bitch. They are up for re-election, you're not.

Now, I'm never going to run for office (shoot me first, please) and I doubt anyone in Washington will be struck by enough Divine Insight to offer me the job of running OSHA (where I would be soooo fired after about 4.2 minutes), so I can say what apparently gets you fired: Republicans are assholes. Conclusion? Crazy evil morons make up things for Obama to do, and he does it. [Bill Maher]

Now, sure, you're going to complain that this is so over-generalized & stereotyped. Maybe. Progressives in this country are pussies. Over generalized & stereotyped? Maybe. But,what the hell? It's true. Something can be offensive and still be true. Cogent example:

This morning Jr. Gopher #1 wanted me to turn off MPR news & turn on Button 2. (This is the only decent rock & roll station in town.) Of course, he wanted to know why I said no.

Why?

Because the people talking on that station in the morning are offensive.

Silence.

Are they lying or telling the truth? (wow, now there's an amazing question from a 5 year old in this situation.)

... Silence. ... Struggle to find an honest answer.

Some of what they say is the truth. But the way they explain it is offensive.

Can you turn on Button 2 in the afternoon when you pick me up?

Definitely.

Cars vs. Twins

If they can't afford car payments or maintenance, they can't afford to buy Twins tickets in the new stadium, so fuck 'em.

I have read & understood

Seriously, do you ever read - or even look at - the Terms and Conditions when registering with a website for free access? Or even prior to signing up for a fiduciary relationship, like Amazon?

If you do ... are you lying when you indicate you actually understand it?

.

Cash for Cretins

Cash for a car? All of the criteria simply drive home the point that this legislation was created by the rich for the rich.

The well-to-do -- who can more easily afford to buy a new car -- get the benefits. I can't afford to buy a new car at all, regardless of my current mpg and regardless of $3000. Can I buy a VW Jetta TDI (capable of passing California's emission standards, 41 mpg highway) for $3k? Uhhhhh ... ... no. They're about $25k. (I would like one, though. Salsa Red.) It is, however, the 4th most fuel-efficient car on the market.

The other 3 models with better mileage also cost more. I notice that none of them are American. I also notice that my 9 year old VW Passat wagon gets 23 mpg around town, which puts it ahead of the brand-new Chevy at #11.

This does nothing to reduce our reliance on petroleum based fuel. In fact, it encourages us to continue to buy it, rather than switch to other engine types or mass transit. If the people don't feel the pain, they won't change their behavior.

And ... what does more for the economy? Me buying a used car outright (i.e., no loan), or me paying interest to some blood-sucking financial institution? I replaced my '99 VW with an '00 VW in January. Yes, I bought an 9 year old car. I was stuck with the insurance check from the ditz who totaled my 25 mpg car (which was 10 years old). Know what? you can't get much for $5400.

Never the less, my money is currently going to pay for food, clothes, school, etc. Where is it going? Into our lagging economy. Or my savings account, so that when my husband loses his job, we can pay our mortgage. Where is the money going for all of these people buying new cars? Into the blood-sucking gaping maw of money lending agencies, who sure aren't putting it back into the economy. Not even paying themselves bonuses puts much money into the economy. Where is this $3000 for a junker coming from? Our taxes. Which are being paid by everyone.

I would rather pay for unemployment benefits to be extended another week rather than for someone to buy a new car. Can't the government find something useful to do with my tax dollars? Like extend unemployment benefits or pay for COBRA? Support programs that refurbish homes in blighted neighborhood to encourage people to move there? Extend the tax write-off you can get by donating your car to charity organizations?

This rebate is superficial, feel-good legislation that lets us pretend our problems are being fixed.

Stop pandering to financial lending-institutions by "giving away" money to encourage people to borrow money. The only agency which benefits is the bank. Because this new car buying spree means more people pay more interest on their loans. More interest to bank = less money for them.

Hee Hee Health Care

Saying you're going to do health care reform without a public option is kind of like saying you're going to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan by invading Iraq. It misses the point -- on purpose.

Race v. Class

This is my newest sociopolitical pet peeve. I don't give a damn what color or ethnicity or national origin anyone is. Who gets screwed? The poor & politically disenfranchised.

Race Crimes? Not to belittle them - but they pale, they totally beyond comprehension pale compared to Class Crimes. Why do the majority of Blacks have no/little health insurance? It ain't because they're black, it's because they're poor.

"Inciting racial hatred is a crime and one which seems to occur too regularly." Quoted by the BBC. A pair of men were convicted in England of producing and providing on-line materials inciting racial hatred. The fled to L.A. and applied for asylum, which was rejected. Apparently is is a crime to produce "obnoxious and abhorrent'' books, pamphlets and web pages. Hmmmm. I suppose the right to vote for women is pretty abhorrent. And, somehow I'm sure the gov't thinks the pestering little people screaming for public health care are pretty obnoxious, too.

All of the people railing against universal health care need to be indicted for producing "obnoxious and abhorrent" materials inciting class hatred.