Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Jacked from Ania, and I love it
Whatever you give a woman, she will make greater.
If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby.
If you give her a house, she'll give you a home.
If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal.
If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart.
She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her.
So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Come back here
Where does the time go?
September is on her way out and October is knocking at the door. As fall approaches, the leaves aren't the only ones changing.
Time certainly flies by though. And although I try to live my life to the fullest everyday... some things take time to take shape and therefore it seems like nothing is really getting accomplished.
Story. Of. My life.
I tend to start a lot of things and never finish them. I need to work on that.
In the meantime, I'm enjoying the fast pace. It means I'll be out of here (SCV) soon.
September is on her way out and October is knocking at the door. As fall approaches, the leaves aren't the only ones changing.
Time certainly flies by though. And although I try to live my life to the fullest everyday... some things take time to take shape and therefore it seems like nothing is really getting accomplished.
Story. Of. My life.
I tend to start a lot of things and never finish them. I need to work on that.
In the meantime, I'm enjoying the fast pace. It means I'll be out of here (SCV) soon.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Quote of the day
"Our biggest obstacles in life are always ourselves."
Today is the 6th day of not smoking.
Hopefully I don't fail tonight as I get hammered with a bunch of polacks at my church.
Today is the 6th day of not smoking.
Hopefully I don't fail tonight as I get hammered with a bunch of polacks at my church.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Festivals to do list
When I'm down, depressed and hating my life, I dive into the world of the Web and find things I'd be interested in doing.
Sometimes it depresses me even more since I know I will never be able to actually do them... but it still lifts my spirits at the possibility of me going.
Here are a few festivals that I want to attend before I die.
1. Tomatina
Sometimes it depresses me even more since I know I will never be able to actually do them... but it still lifts my spirits at the possibility of me going.
Here are a few festivals that I want to attend before I die.
1. TomatinaWhat: About 30,000 people descend on a little town to participate in the world’s largest food fight mostly using tomatoes. Never had that massive cafeteria food fight when you were younger?
When: The last Wednesday in August.
Where: The tiny town of Buñol in the Valencia region of Spain
2. Burning Man
What: An 8 day festival that culminates in the burning of a 72ft wooden man, this festival is where you can cut loose. Each year has a theme and last year 47,000 people decided to join the fun.
Photo by colvid daorado
When: Starts 8 days before the American Labor Day, September
Where: Blackrock Desert, Nevada USA
What: It’s supposed to be a 7 mile foot race but instead it’s a 7 mile costume party and keg race that goes through downtown San Francisco. It began in 1906 to keep people’s sprits up after the earthquake and locals are still keeping that alive. Over 70,000 people, congregate downtown in costumes (or nothing at all) and shopping carts filled with kegs.
Photo by weylandphoto
When: The third Sunday in May.
Where: San Francisco, California
4. Mardi Gras
What: You know what
When: Around Ash Wednesday
Where: Louisiana
5. Oktoberfest (the real one. I've been to the one at Alpine Village)
 |
What: Beer beer beer beer and more beer
When: Around September 18 to October 3
Where: Germany
*sigh*
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Thanks Alex
"Always be who you are, and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."
-Dr. Seuss
-Dr. Seuss
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Reality is sicker than fiction
Phillip Garrido is one person who should be banned from living in society.
Maybe just banned from living, period.
What a sick, sick fuck.
And he has a wife? How is that possible?
This story is horrifying. Reading about it makes my heart heavy and I feel like crying. For Jacyee. For her two naive and ignorant daughters. And for her poor mother.
Can you imagine reuniting with your own child after 18 years? 18 years! EIGHTEEN FUCKING YEARS.
It absolutely blows my mind.
What pisses me off the most is that Garrido has done something similar before, got caught, and then was set free.
He abducted a woman when he was 25 years old and blamed her. "It's her fault for being so attractive."
He tied her up and kept her in a storage unit in Reno. She was tied up and raped. He called the storage unit "a palace."
He was sentenced to jail to serve a 50 year term. He only served 11 years.
This is all after he admitted he only liked "sex when it's forced."
You don't let people like this free. I don't care how long they serve, or how good they are in jail. This people should be mentally screened before being released again. If he had actually served his full term, he would have never abducted Jaycee in the first place.
She's 29 years old now. With 2 kids. One is 15 and the other is 11. She had her first child when she was 14 years old, 3 years after being abducted.
Think about where you were when you were 14. Can you imagine being pregnant. Living in a tent in the backyard 170 miles away from your family?
I have so many questions. Some of which will probably never be answered.
Garrido is now suspected of murders around his residence in the 1990s. As grateful as I am for Jaycee's mother to be reunited with her child, Garrido robbed both of them of 18 years.
Jaycee never had a chance to date. To go to prom. To play in the band. To fail a class. To play a sport. To argue with her parents. The most important decades of her life were taken away from her.
And for a mother to miss out on watching her baby girl grow up is heart-breaking.
And both Garrido and his wife are pleading not-guilty.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
If don't know what I'm talking about read this.
Maybe just banned from living, period.
What a sick, sick fuck.
And he has a wife? How is that possible?
This story is horrifying. Reading about it makes my heart heavy and I feel like crying. For Jacyee. For her two naive and ignorant daughters. And for her poor mother.
Can you imagine reuniting with your own child after 18 years? 18 years! EIGHTEEN FUCKING YEARS.
It absolutely blows my mind.
What pisses me off the most is that Garrido has done something similar before, got caught, and then was set free.
He abducted a woman when he was 25 years old and blamed her. "It's her fault for being so attractive."
He tied her up and kept her in a storage unit in Reno. She was tied up and raped. He called the storage unit "a palace."
He was sentenced to jail to serve a 50 year term. He only served 11 years.
This is all after he admitted he only liked "sex when it's forced."
You don't let people like this free. I don't care how long they serve, or how good they are in jail. This people should be mentally screened before being released again. If he had actually served his full term, he would have never abducted Jaycee in the first place.
She's 29 years old now. With 2 kids. One is 15 and the other is 11. She had her first child when she was 14 years old, 3 years after being abducted.
Think about where you were when you were 14. Can you imagine being pregnant. Living in a tent in the backyard 170 miles away from your family?
I have so many questions. Some of which will probably never be answered.
Garrido is now suspected of murders around his residence in the 1990s. As grateful as I am for Jaycee's mother to be reunited with her child, Garrido robbed both of them of 18 years.
Jaycee never had a chance to date. To go to prom. To play in the band. To fail a class. To play a sport. To argue with her parents. The most important decades of her life were taken away from her.
And for a mother to miss out on watching her baby girl grow up is heart-breaking.
And both Garrido and his wife are pleading not-guilty.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
If don't know what I'm talking about read this.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Great column about healthcare
This is pretty much what I wanted to say, but he has a bit more credibility since he is a doctor himself.
It's a long one, but worth it. Read on!
Health care reform inching toward consensus
As of mid-August 2009, the health care insurance reform debate has produced as much vocal public response as any recent social problem — and rightfully so, since it will affect us all sooner or later.
However, instead of thoughtful deliberation and careful consideration of the facts, mainstream TV and print media has focused more on fringe distortions such as claiming the bill will lead to a “federal death squad;” screaming matches between politicians and their constituents or between the electorate itself; and gun-toting, angry mobs.
This column is presented to outline areas of common ground on both sides, identify points of disagreement and shed some light on the basis for them.
Since several bills are in the different houses of Congress, the final version has yet to be written, but farthest along is the Democrat-sponsored HR 3200.
No specific Republican bill has been presented but common themes emerge which this author has extracted from Calif. 25th House District Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon’s Web site.
First, all reasonable persons and both political parties agree we have a problem. The U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care, ranks about 38th in international health statistics — worst of the industrialized nations — and still has about 47 million people uninsured.
Failure to address this issue will inevitably lead to mounting federal debt that can only be resolved with increased taxes, something neither party nor the public wants.
We must do something. Estimates are that 18,000 people die each year for lack of insurance, and to cover uncompensated care, those with insurance pay over $1,000 in each year’s premium. We all lose if some remain uninsured.
Both parties also agree that some insurance company practices are no longer acceptable. These include denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and rescinding coverage on sick individuals at the next year’s premium renewal.
This alone should help stem medical bankruptcy, which is 50 percent of all bankruptcies — and two-thirds of those folks had insurance when they became ill.
So, we all agree on one big issue. Neither side wishes to allow plans to interfere with a patient’s relationship with his doctor.
As a physician, I know this currently happens in the private industry with HMO or PPO plans, a point Republicans conveniently overlook while they rail against “government” getting between you and your doctor.
In contrast, Democrats say their plan will “let you keep your doctor if you like him” while overlooking the fact that for most of us, our employer chooses our health plan options and if our doctor is not part of his chosen plan, we lose our doctor.
Nonetheless, both sides seek a solution that will not infringe upon the doctor-patient relationship.
Both sides also emphasize preventive measures as part of all plans. These can include incentives to stay fit, not smoke and keep weight under control, increased access to useful medical information, encouraging more doctors to become family physicians, support for community health clinics, payment for immunizations and encouraging school-based service provision.
While the parties differ in several of the particulars, the concept of health promotion is supported by both.
Unfortunately, from a medical/scientific perspective, the true positive benefit and cost savings from such measures have not proven to be as great as first thought, though more research is needed.
Neither side seems anxious to dramatically alter the delivery system by creating new federal facilities, forcing doctors out of fee for service reimbursement or compelling our overabundance of specialists to become family practitioners, nor does either wish to shift to a single-payer plan, something that for doctors and hospitals could dramatically reduce administrative cost, thereby providing additional money for patient services.
Both also wish to increase payments for primary care services, reward high-quality care and integrate different health care sectors to avoid redundancy that leads to increased expense.
Democrats want to reduce payment for medical treatment failures that lead to hospital re-admission; Republicans have not addressed this issue.
Republicans want to increase home care to reduce institutionalization; I’m uncertain if HR 3200 addresses this since I have not read the full bill and it was not mentioned in the summary.
Both parties support changes that allow young adults to remain on their parents’ policies up to age 25.
The Democrats want to establish a scientific body to identify quality measures that work and those that do not; Republicans are labeling this idea a tool for government to control medical care, forgetting that already scientific research drives “best practices” models that have become the standard for all treatment guidelines, including those used by private carriers.
Both sides espouse a policy of no rationing of care. The Republicans allege this is what happens in other nations with nationalized delivery systems and would occur with a “government plan,” failing to recognize that if you have no insurance, care is already rationed. And if you belong to an HMO or PPO, specialty services must be approved and are therefore subject to rationing.
The two main points of disagreement revolve around the “public option” and methods for financing the system revisions.
Democrats propose a public option as the only means to “keep the insurance carriers honest.”
Having practiced with the reforms of the late 1980s that lead to HMO and PPO plans as a tool to control cost, I have seen that insurance carriers did nothing to stem costs and must concur with this fear.
Republicans say this is the first step to “socialized medicine” and have seemingly drawn a line in the sand.
I remind the reader that not only was the same thing said when Medicare was proposed in 1965, but also at present almost 60 percent of health care bills are paid by state or federal entities and we do not call it socialized medicine.
President Obama has acknowledged in recent town hall meetings that government could compete unfairly if it repeatedly used tax funds to bolster the public option and has expressed a desire to “level the playing field.”
If we took the word of our last president about invading another country, perhaps we should hold the same level of confidence in our current chief executive. Maybe he won’t be able to do it, but if he says he will try, shouldn’t we trust him?
The Republicans seem to prefer to trust the private market. Since all major health care entities and pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded companies, we have no doubt about their allegiance to Wall Street. We have dramatic recent experience from the financial sector meltdown how much Wall Street cares about Main Street.
They used us till the house of cards collapsed, relied upon Main Street to bail them out, and now that they are starting to get back on their feet, reward themselves handsomely for their efforts.
Personally, these experiences cause me to trust Wall Street to only look after its “bottom line” and serve Main Street only to the degree that it benefits Wall Street’s profits.
Additionally, a look around the planet will note that the most successful and economical outcomes occur in nations with a strong national payer component, though not necessarily government-delivered service.
We should not seek to “reinvent the wheel” but learn from others who have taken this path before us — like Europe, which was in total collapse after World War II but has since rebuilt not only its economy but a health system much better than ours based on most objective standards.
On the other side is a fear of government intrusion into our lives. We tend to feel government is monolithic, bureaucratic and poorly responsive to the people’s needs.
We say, “Just look at the Post Office.” We hear claims of fraud and abuse of the federal Medicaid and Medicare systems. Many of these claims are probably true, but at the same time we must note that the greatest abuse of these systems has been perpetrated by private health insurance companies.
Additionally, we all trust government to look after our common welfare and safety through fire, police and Homeland Security entities. We don’t rely on private agencies for these services.
Is not health care an equal issue of common welfare and safety?
Concerning financing, both parties are willing to extend some assistance to our poorest to obtain insurance, but the Republicans prefer to do it with tax breaks.
However, if you are too poor to pay taxes, a tax break is meaningless.
Republicans would also do so for small businesses to put them on more even ground with larger corporations. This seems fair and only the amount is in question.
They also propose allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, another not-unreasonable proposition but one that would require common national standards for coverage, removing the issue from state jurisdiction which most Republicans usually prefer.
Republicans have also suggested we develop methods for lowering coverage cost to those aged 55-64 who are retired, pre-retired, semi-retired but have low to modest incomes.
Another option for this rather high-risk group is early inclusion into Medicare, but again Republicans fear that will be more “government” meddling.
To promote systemwide savings, Republicans bring out the tried and true tort reform (malpractice insurance) argument, not recognizing that this in actuality represents a small cost to the health care system and protects the people from medical mistakes that unfortunately are still too common.
They allege that “defensive” medicine drives up the cost, not acknowledging that such behavior is also good financially for doctors, which could be the more significant motivating factor.
The administration hopes to address this issue by better defining “best practices” and advocating coherence to that as a defensible standard, thereby reducing the vagaries exploited in malpractice cases.
A loud and repetitive fear is voiced as “How are we going to pay for it?” not realizing that our non-system is already paying for it in the form of payments to hospitals for uncompensated care from government and insurance, out-of-pocket costs that now represent almost 25 percent of annual spending, and excessive profits to health insurers and pharmaceutical industry not incurred by other nations.
If we already spend twice that of any other nation, we ought to be able to see where we overspend, identify a system that reduces it and avoid any significant overall increase.
Lastly, people fear this is being rushed through without ample debate. Most provisions of HR 3200 take several years to implement and the bill need only be completed by year’s end.
Therefore, we have plenty of time for thoughtful analysis and discussion.
However, if we persist in name-calling, fact-distorting and fear-mongering, our time spent will be in building divisiveness rather than consensus about an issue important to all personally and the nation collectively.
It should be media’s role to foster this discussion rather than give air/print time to the rabble-rousers or quote the latest polls as if the issue is a sporting event with only one winner or loser.
This is our health insurance problem. We all need to win or we will all lose.
I urge The Signal and other media to focus on issues and not rancor, assisting the citizens they serve rather than provoking their anxiety.
As noted above, currently there are more issues upon which we agree than disagree.
Sound, sincere efforts by all citizens and legislators should lead easily to resolution of the others with the recognition that if the chosen path does not produce the desired results, we reserve the right to change in the future.
It's a long one, but worth it. Read on!
Health care reform inching toward consensus
As of mid-August 2009, the health care insurance reform debate has produced as much vocal public response as any recent social problem — and rightfully so, since it will affect us all sooner or later.
However, instead of thoughtful deliberation and careful consideration of the facts, mainstream TV and print media has focused more on fringe distortions such as claiming the bill will lead to a “federal death squad;” screaming matches between politicians and their constituents or between the electorate itself; and gun-toting, angry mobs.
This column is presented to outline areas of common ground on both sides, identify points of disagreement and shed some light on the basis for them.
Since several bills are in the different houses of Congress, the final version has yet to be written, but farthest along is the Democrat-sponsored HR 3200.
No specific Republican bill has been presented but common themes emerge which this author has extracted from Calif. 25th House District Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon’s Web site.
First, all reasonable persons and both political parties agree we have a problem. The U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care, ranks about 38th in international health statistics — worst of the industrialized nations — and still has about 47 million people uninsured.
Failure to address this issue will inevitably lead to mounting federal debt that can only be resolved with increased taxes, something neither party nor the public wants.
We must do something. Estimates are that 18,000 people die each year for lack of insurance, and to cover uncompensated care, those with insurance pay over $1,000 in each year’s premium. We all lose if some remain uninsured.
Both parties also agree that some insurance company practices are no longer acceptable. These include denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and rescinding coverage on sick individuals at the next year’s premium renewal.
This alone should help stem medical bankruptcy, which is 50 percent of all bankruptcies — and two-thirds of those folks had insurance when they became ill.
So, we all agree on one big issue. Neither side wishes to allow plans to interfere with a patient’s relationship with his doctor.
As a physician, I know this currently happens in the private industry with HMO or PPO plans, a point Republicans conveniently overlook while they rail against “government” getting between you and your doctor.
In contrast, Democrats say their plan will “let you keep your doctor if you like him” while overlooking the fact that for most of us, our employer chooses our health plan options and if our doctor is not part of his chosen plan, we lose our doctor.
Nonetheless, both sides seek a solution that will not infringe upon the doctor-patient relationship.
Both sides also emphasize preventive measures as part of all plans. These can include incentives to stay fit, not smoke and keep weight under control, increased access to useful medical information, encouraging more doctors to become family physicians, support for community health clinics, payment for immunizations and encouraging school-based service provision.
While the parties differ in several of the particulars, the concept of health promotion is supported by both.
Unfortunately, from a medical/scientific perspective, the true positive benefit and cost savings from such measures have not proven to be as great as first thought, though more research is needed.
Neither side seems anxious to dramatically alter the delivery system by creating new federal facilities, forcing doctors out of fee for service reimbursement or compelling our overabundance of specialists to become family practitioners, nor does either wish to shift to a single-payer plan, something that for doctors and hospitals could dramatically reduce administrative cost, thereby providing additional money for patient services.
Both also wish to increase payments for primary care services, reward high-quality care and integrate different health care sectors to avoid redundancy that leads to increased expense.
Democrats want to reduce payment for medical treatment failures that lead to hospital re-admission; Republicans have not addressed this issue.
Republicans want to increase home care to reduce institutionalization; I’m uncertain if HR 3200 addresses this since I have not read the full bill and it was not mentioned in the summary.
Both parties support changes that allow young adults to remain on their parents’ policies up to age 25.
The Democrats want to establish a scientific body to identify quality measures that work and those that do not; Republicans are labeling this idea a tool for government to control medical care, forgetting that already scientific research drives “best practices” models that have become the standard for all treatment guidelines, including those used by private carriers.
Both sides espouse a policy of no rationing of care. The Republicans allege this is what happens in other nations with nationalized delivery systems and would occur with a “government plan,” failing to recognize that if you have no insurance, care is already rationed. And if you belong to an HMO or PPO, specialty services must be approved and are therefore subject to rationing.
The two main points of disagreement revolve around the “public option” and methods for financing the system revisions.
Democrats propose a public option as the only means to “keep the insurance carriers honest.”
Having practiced with the reforms of the late 1980s that lead to HMO and PPO plans as a tool to control cost, I have seen that insurance carriers did nothing to stem costs and must concur with this fear.
Republicans say this is the first step to “socialized medicine” and have seemingly drawn a line in the sand.
I remind the reader that not only was the same thing said when Medicare was proposed in 1965, but also at present almost 60 percent of health care bills are paid by state or federal entities and we do not call it socialized medicine.
President Obama has acknowledged in recent town hall meetings that government could compete unfairly if it repeatedly used tax funds to bolster the public option and has expressed a desire to “level the playing field.”
If we took the word of our last president about invading another country, perhaps we should hold the same level of confidence in our current chief executive. Maybe he won’t be able to do it, but if he says he will try, shouldn’t we trust him?
The Republicans seem to prefer to trust the private market. Since all major health care entities and pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded companies, we have no doubt about their allegiance to Wall Street. We have dramatic recent experience from the financial sector meltdown how much Wall Street cares about Main Street.
They used us till the house of cards collapsed, relied upon Main Street to bail them out, and now that they are starting to get back on their feet, reward themselves handsomely for their efforts.
Personally, these experiences cause me to trust Wall Street to only look after its “bottom line” and serve Main Street only to the degree that it benefits Wall Street’s profits.
Additionally, a look around the planet will note that the most successful and economical outcomes occur in nations with a strong national payer component, though not necessarily government-delivered service.
We should not seek to “reinvent the wheel” but learn from others who have taken this path before us — like Europe, which was in total collapse after World War II but has since rebuilt not only its economy but a health system much better than ours based on most objective standards.
On the other side is a fear of government intrusion into our lives. We tend to feel government is monolithic, bureaucratic and poorly responsive to the people’s needs.
We say, “Just look at the Post Office.” We hear claims of fraud and abuse of the federal Medicaid and Medicare systems. Many of these claims are probably true, but at the same time we must note that the greatest abuse of these systems has been perpetrated by private health insurance companies.
Additionally, we all trust government to look after our common welfare and safety through fire, police and Homeland Security entities. We don’t rely on private agencies for these services.
Is not health care an equal issue of common welfare and safety?
Concerning financing, both parties are willing to extend some assistance to our poorest to obtain insurance, but the Republicans prefer to do it with tax breaks.
However, if you are too poor to pay taxes, a tax break is meaningless.
Republicans would also do so for small businesses to put them on more even ground with larger corporations. This seems fair and only the amount is in question.
They also propose allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, another not-unreasonable proposition but one that would require common national standards for coverage, removing the issue from state jurisdiction which most Republicans usually prefer.
Republicans have also suggested we develop methods for lowering coverage cost to those aged 55-64 who are retired, pre-retired, semi-retired but have low to modest incomes.
Another option for this rather high-risk group is early inclusion into Medicare, but again Republicans fear that will be more “government” meddling.
To promote systemwide savings, Republicans bring out the tried and true tort reform (malpractice insurance) argument, not recognizing that this in actuality represents a small cost to the health care system and protects the people from medical mistakes that unfortunately are still too common.
They allege that “defensive” medicine drives up the cost, not acknowledging that such behavior is also good financially for doctors, which could be the more significant motivating factor.
The administration hopes to address this issue by better defining “best practices” and advocating coherence to that as a defensible standard, thereby reducing the vagaries exploited in malpractice cases.
A loud and repetitive fear is voiced as “How are we going to pay for it?” not realizing that our non-system is already paying for it in the form of payments to hospitals for uncompensated care from government and insurance, out-of-pocket costs that now represent almost 25 percent of annual spending, and excessive profits to health insurers and pharmaceutical industry not incurred by other nations.
If we already spend twice that of any other nation, we ought to be able to see where we overspend, identify a system that reduces it and avoid any significant overall increase.
Lastly, people fear this is being rushed through without ample debate. Most provisions of HR 3200 take several years to implement and the bill need only be completed by year’s end.
Therefore, we have plenty of time for thoughtful analysis and discussion.
However, if we persist in name-calling, fact-distorting and fear-mongering, our time spent will be in building divisiveness rather than consensus about an issue important to all personally and the nation collectively.
It should be media’s role to foster this discussion rather than give air/print time to the rabble-rousers or quote the latest polls as if the issue is a sporting event with only one winner or loser.
This is our health insurance problem. We all need to win or we will all lose.
I urge The Signal and other media to focus on issues and not rancor, assisting the citizens they serve rather than provoking their anxiety.
As noted above, currently there are more issues upon which we agree than disagree.
Sound, sincere efforts by all citizens and legislators should lead easily to resolution of the others with the recognition that if the chosen path does not produce the desired results, we reserve the right to change in the future.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Jaded
People tell me I'm too young to be jaded.
Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not.
I like to think of myself as an optimistic pessimist.
I do struggle though. Not so much with my emotions. But with other people's emotions.
I try to understand. But in the end, you can only understand if you yourself are in that situation, whatever situation that may be.
I have a fairly difficult time trusting people. Even people I've known for years.
I just believe most people hide. They hide their true feelings, true opinions, true thoughts. People keep things to themselves because society might have labeled those feelings, opinions, thoughts as inappropriate. Or wrong. And people fear being judged. They fear rejection.
I feel like people pretend a lot. And although I always have my gut-feeling when someone isn't being genuine, how do you call a person out on that? They only end up covering it up with more lies, tightening the mask they have strapped to their face.
I'm guilty of all of this, too. And I fucking hate it.
I guess it's a part of being human?
Shit sucks.
Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not.
I like to think of myself as an optimistic pessimist.
I do struggle though. Not so much with my emotions. But with other people's emotions.
I try to understand. But in the end, you can only understand if you yourself are in that situation, whatever situation that may be.
I have a fairly difficult time trusting people. Even people I've known for years.
I just believe most people hide. They hide their true feelings, true opinions, true thoughts. People keep things to themselves because society might have labeled those feelings, opinions, thoughts as inappropriate. Or wrong. And people fear being judged. They fear rejection.
I feel like people pretend a lot. And although I always have my gut-feeling when someone isn't being genuine, how do you call a person out on that? They only end up covering it up with more lies, tightening the mask they have strapped to their face.
I'm guilty of all of this, too. And I fucking hate it.
I guess it's a part of being human?
Shit sucks.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Best of testsfromlastnight.com
Anytime I am having a bad day or I feel shitty about myself, this Web site reminds me that my life really isn't that bad.
(706): Apparently I think casual Friday means I can show up unshaven in yesterday's clothes and reeking of booze.
(310): we better have passed that bar exam - i dont want to have to drink like this again
(905): Just found a glow stick inside of my vagina..
(1-905): With the amount of traffic your vagina gets, it was only a matter of time before someone threw a rave there.
(412): i know they say sex burns calories but i think i actually gained weight from just lying there for the whole 2 minutes
(502): i just woke up and its 10 o'clock and the words "Robbies Fave Restraunt" and written in sharpie above my vage. Help me.
(703): So for two years my friend Mark has been building a catapult in his basement. Yesterday he realized it's too big to get it out.
(1-703): You need to give me a reason immediately why he is your friend.
(219): I thought Christmas was going to come before I did
(519): i was puking in the toilet, he walked in and to talk to me and started puking in the sink.. Could this be my perfect man??
(402): P.S. theres no milk for breakfast, but theres plenty of beer or red wine. you decide.
(631): I'm pretty sure he jizzed in his pants, and no it wasn't even half as funny as that song.
(416): I think we should involve a squid next time we fuck.
(1-416): u kno there is a reason i dont tell mi friends about u
(314): My dad just told me if I'm going to smoke pot, to make sure I use a clean needle. WTF?
(413): He wanted me to blow him while he was playing guitar hero. there will not be a second date
(818): Do you reaalllllly want to put "porn editor" on your resume?
(484): then for some reason i googled "how much to buy a cannon"
(413): i gave him head before the novacaine wore off...i think his penis touched my lung
(541): If you made a robot out of pillows would he be nice? It's hard to imagine a mean pillow robot. And who came up with the idea of shaving their legs?
(978): my head feels like I tried to put alcohol out of business last night
(631): Just had a conversation with Jon gosselin
(856): Until you fuck him in front of his kids stop wasting my time with stupid texts.
(706): Apparently I think casual Friday means I can show up unshaven in yesterday's clothes and reeking of booze.
(310): we better have passed that bar exam - i dont want to have to drink like this again
(905): Just found a glow stick inside of my vagina..
(1-905): With the amount of traffic your vagina gets, it was only a matter of time before someone threw a rave there.
(412): i know they say sex burns calories but i think i actually gained weight from just lying there for the whole 2 minutes
(502): i just woke up and its 10 o'clock and the words "Robbies Fave Restraunt" and written in sharpie above my vage. Help me.
(703): So for two years my friend Mark has been building a catapult in his basement. Yesterday he realized it's too big to get it out.
(1-703): You need to give me a reason immediately why he is your friend.
(219): I thought Christmas was going to come before I did
(519): i was puking in the toilet, he walked in and to talk to me and started puking in the sink.. Could this be my perfect man??
(402): P.S. theres no milk for breakfast, but theres plenty of beer or red wine. you decide.
(631): I'm pretty sure he jizzed in his pants, and no it wasn't even half as funny as that song.
(416): I think we should involve a squid next time we fuck.
(1-416): u kno there is a reason i dont tell mi friends about u
(314): My dad just told me if I'm going to smoke pot, to make sure I use a clean needle. WTF?
(413): He wanted me to blow him while he was playing guitar hero. there will not be a second date
(818): Do you reaalllllly want to put "porn editor" on your resume?
(484): then for some reason i googled "how much to buy a cannon"
(413): i gave him head before the novacaine wore off...i think his penis touched my lung
(541): If you made a robot out of pillows would he be nice? It's hard to imagine a mean pillow robot. And who came up with the idea of shaving their legs?
(978): my head feels like I tried to put alcohol out of business last night
(631): Just had a conversation with Jon gosselin
(856): Until you fuck him in front of his kids stop wasting my time with stupid texts.
Monday, July 27, 2009
So true
"Most of the time, your greatest pleasures come from poeple, not things. So in order to be happy, all you have to do is hang out with friends who enjoy life as much as you do."
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Life is funny. People are funny.
I hate competition.
I don't care for it. It makes me feel like an awkward turtle.
That's why sports don't really interest me. I always feel bad for the losing team.
As soon as I feel someone is competing with me, I usually lose on purpose. I'd rather be the loser so that the true loser feels good about themselves.
And it's not like I'm being noble, either. I'm being apathetic.
I also know my self-worth, and I don't need to win a competition to make me feel "good" or "better" or "awesome." I already feel good. I know I'm better. And, I'm super awesome.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the significance in competition. I understand it could be healthy is certain ways. It could push you to be the best you can be, especially if you're competing against someone/something you don't like.
What I don't understand is why you have to compare yourself to someone close, someone you call a friend, in order to make a goal for yourself.
Shouldn't you be making goals for your own self gratification?
Does it really bring so much pleasure to be "better" than a friend? Is that person really a friend if you're competing with them?
Life is funny. People are funny.
And by funny I mean fucked up.
And another thing, why do you care so much about the opinion of others?
I think you are scared of being labeled selfish. Why? It's not a bad thing.
I think you're also scared of not being accepted, and hence look to others for approval.
A friend of mine the other day had a bit of a dilemma and asked me for advice.
She has a tattoo. Her friends think it's awesome. Her girlfriend absolutely hates it. The opportunity to get some ink done (for cheap) presented itself, and my friend didn't know what to do.
That's all she told me.
The first thing that popped into my head was the fact that she didn't mention her own opinion of her tattoo. Did she like it? Did she hate it? (I still have no idea.)
I told her she shouldn't care what other people thought. It's her body. Her tattoo. I also told her that getting work done just because it's cheap isn't a good idea, but that's just my opinion (of which she could discard if she so chooses).
I just find it funny that most people make their decisions solely based off of the opinions of others.
Know yourself. Know what you want, and go for it. Listen to the opinions of others to get a new perspective, but don't let them solely dictate your actions.
And most importantly, be heppy. God is the only one who'll judge you in the end. Fuck everyone else in the meantime.
I don't care for it. It makes me feel like an awkward turtle.
That's why sports don't really interest me. I always feel bad for the losing team.
As soon as I feel someone is competing with me, I usually lose on purpose. I'd rather be the loser so that the true loser feels good about themselves.
And it's not like I'm being noble, either. I'm being apathetic.
I also know my self-worth, and I don't need to win a competition to make me feel "good" or "better" or "awesome." I already feel good. I know I'm better. And, I'm super awesome.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the significance in competition. I understand it could be healthy is certain ways. It could push you to be the best you can be, especially if you're competing against someone/something you don't like.
What I don't understand is why you have to compare yourself to someone close, someone you call a friend, in order to make a goal for yourself.
Shouldn't you be making goals for your own self gratification?
Does it really bring so much pleasure to be "better" than a friend? Is that person really a friend if you're competing with them?
Life is funny. People are funny.
And by funny I mean fucked up.
And another thing, why do you care so much about the opinion of others?
I think you are scared of being labeled selfish. Why? It's not a bad thing.
I think you're also scared of not being accepted, and hence look to others for approval.
A friend of mine the other day had a bit of a dilemma and asked me for advice.
She has a tattoo. Her friends think it's awesome. Her girlfriend absolutely hates it. The opportunity to get some ink done (for cheap) presented itself, and my friend didn't know what to do.
That's all she told me.
The first thing that popped into my head was the fact that she didn't mention her own opinion of her tattoo. Did she like it? Did she hate it? (I still have no idea.)
I told her she shouldn't care what other people thought. It's her body. Her tattoo. I also told her that getting work done just because it's cheap isn't a good idea, but that's just my opinion (of which she could discard if she so chooses).
I just find it funny that most people make their decisions solely based off of the opinions of others.
Know yourself. Know what you want, and go for it. Listen to the opinions of others to get a new perspective, but don't let them solely dictate your actions.
And most importantly, be heppy. God is the only one who'll judge you in the end. Fuck everyone else in the meantime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)