may 2021 donation

this month I donated to ProPublica because of their investigative journalism, and because, well, I didn't have access to my wallet so needed to donate using paypal. (seriously tho, orgs need to do better at this. I literally tried a half dozen other sites first because I've already donated to journalism and wanted to do a new field. plus, I know I'm not the only person who prefers to donate thru paypal. I had a couple Algalita supporters specifically ask about adding the option to our website.)

"ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force. We dig deep into important issues, shining a light on abuses of power and betrayals of public trust — and we stick with those issues as long as it takes to hold power to account."

their mission is "to expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."

favorite videos

a list of a few of my absolute favorite videos from the last year or so. they're mostly under a minute each because for some reason I don't have the patience for video. I wanted to make this list cause I keep loosing them on my twitter so I want a place I can come back to and keep laughing my face off. not going to bother embedding cause I'm too lazy. 

inventing the clock

vaccinated. let the party commence! 

angry ikea employee

put it outside!

harry and william

possum vs skunk (no sound)

dog at the beach

"but it got stuck in my butthole"

phil collins deer

not funny but awesome ditty about not needing to be polite to creepy men

best friends

a month ago, as I was walking Roux, a man on a bike kept circling back to us and complimenting Roux. eventually he asked "isn't he the best boy?" "yeah, he's pretty good" I replied. he did not seem to like this answer. he asked "isn't he your best friend?" "no" "why not?" "cause he's a dog."

my dog isn't my best friend partly because he doesn't conversate back. I don't know what he's thinking most of the time. in fact, my relationship with Roux is pretty one-sided. I provide him everything he needs, plus extra but he doesn't doesn't give me much of anything in return. he snuggles me sometimes, but I don't generally want or need that. I haven't had anything really bad happen in the last two years so I haven't needed his comfort, even if he were to offer it. (which apparently dogs are good for)

mostly tho, he's not my best friend because I have people for that. people who care for me more than for what I give them. people who may not always be happy to see me, but then, neither does Roux seem to be.

some people say their pets are their best friends because of the unconditional love. well, I don't need that either. I have human friends and parents who provide me close to unconditional love. and should they withdraw it, I should really take a good look at myself to see what I'm doing wrong. I don't need (nor want) a constant cheerleader telling me how much they love me or how well I'm doing. I would prefer someone to keep me accountable, someone who will keep me honest and good. less than that.

I may have written about this before, but I really do wonder how ethical it is to keep pets. they're mostly for our entertainment. they're little different from the animals at the zoo except that the cages are our own homes. they are expected to be obedient to us and sleep, pee, eat, play when we want them to. zoo animals can at least pee and poop when they want. as much as some would like to think that we're on semi equal ground, because we have to take them on walks, pick up their poo, provide separate meals and medications for them, we're not equal at all. at any moment you decide not to keep your pet, yet they have no such freedom. it's a little like slavery if you think about it. and how can you be best friends with someone who is so beholden to you? 

the one

I just finished watching "The One" on Netflix. I won't spoil anything, but the premise is that you can submit your DNA to a company and they'll "match" you to your "one," assuming they're in the database too, of course. when you meet your "match" it'll be like nothing you've experienced before. like you kind of already know them from somewhere, and they'll be irresistible to you, you both to each other, even if you don't know you're matched. 

an interesting "side effect" is that they are a lot divorces after current spouses take the test anyway and get matched to people who they're not currently married to. I can totally see this happening, lol. the british govt gets really antsy about the rising divorce rate (the show is set in London), but the founder of the company says that eventually marriages will be on the rise, and there won't be divorces at all anymore since everyone will be matched. supposedly, if you're already happy with your spouse, you won't submit your DNA.

an interesting side story is that a happily married woman submits her husband's DNA. he gets matched to another lady. she looks up the woman, befriends her by going to her yoga classes, and generally acts a crazy person. it comes a head when the husband (who knows nothing of this) goes thru the wife's phone and unwittingly invites his wife's new yoga friend to a surprise birthday party he's throwing for his wife. the matches meet at the party, have a connection, but don't know exactly why. eventually the wife tells her husband who this woman is. he ends up telling his match why their connection is so strong. blah blah blah. he eventually chooses his wife and the heartbroken match plans to move far away. but before she does, she asks the wife why she didn't submit her own dna rather than her husbands? the wife says that she loves her husband and she's secure enough with that.

I think the psychology is really interesting cause the science is obviously crazy. this actually happens several times in the show, but people obviously have a choice in who they decide to be with, regardless of their connection with someone else. worth mentioning that in the show you can also, albeit very rarely, be matched to more than one person (usually your match's sibling, or someone they share a lot of DNA with. [I did immediately think of identical twins when they were introducing the science, altho did you know that even identical twins don't have identical DNA?]) 

one more interesting tidbit is that, well, being matched to someone doesn't mean you'll be happy. there's a reference to this: this one promising young woman gets matched to a druggie repeat bad criminal guy. like, that does happen. people fall in love all the time with people who are "bad" for them. but again, you always have a choice. loving someone doesn't mean you have to be with them. and this is further demonstrated in that people are getting matched to others around the world. but like, what if neither of you can (or wants to) leave where you are? 

anyway, it's a howcatchem series of only 8 episodes, kind of dumb, but I did definitely enjoy it.

lie better

in the last couple weeks I've had two people tell me blatantly incorrect things. 

1: last week I was on the phone with a time share salesman (my parents called me during their meeting and had him speak to me). my parents said two years ago they paid for product A with his company. he said they didn't. I asked if could print out a copy of the contract from two years ago so that I could review it when they got home. he said that they were not allowed a copy of their contract. ...I asked him to clarify. indeed, he said my parents were not allowed to have a copy of the contact they signed with his company. I said that made no legal sense, especially since they had a copy at home anyway. I asked if it wasn't instead that he didn't have access to it? he said no, they just couldn't have it. we would have to call a different number to get permission for them to get us a copy.

2: I was on the phone with my financial advisor whom I have never communicated with but with whom my parents have had a relationship for well over a decade. he manages two accounts under my name and has for many years. I'm finally wanting to start learning about financial markets and my investments, etc. so I emailed him last week, introduced myself, the situation, and asked 3 general questions about my accounts. he emailed back with a phone number inviting me to call him. I was annoyed cause, like, email is easier and I don't know much so this way I can go look terms and stuff up later. but fine, whatever, I'll call this time. a couple days ago my dad mentioned that he had talked to the financial advisor who said that he doesn't prefer to email with clients because his company reads all his emails. I said, that's fine. I don't want to be doing anything illegal, so I'm glad his company is reading our emails and screening for that sort of thing. 

today I get on phone with him and he says that he prefers phone calls, to which I said I prefer email because this way I can look stuff up later since I don't know anything about stocks, etc. he said that his company didn't allow for FAs to email with their clients about their accounts. ...what? he clarified that, yeah, his company doesn't allow FAs to email clients answering questions from clients about what their FA was doing with the money we pay them to manage. I asked if he could find that policy in writing and send that to me because that seemed super weird. he said that no, he wouldn't, but that I could switch FAs. I said, okay, I might, but if he could send me a copy of the policy anyway because if this is a company-wide policy I would be in the same position with the next FA anyway. I want to know what the rules are so I don't keep breaking them, you know? he said no, and that my new FA may or may not comply and send me the policy themselves.

we moved on. but later in the conversation he says that technically he shouldn't have ever signed me on because 1. he's never actually communicated directly with me, just my parents, and that 2. one of my accounts was too small for his company to handle. I put two and two together and realized THAT'S why he lied about this ridiculous "company policy" about emails. he later also mentioned later that he's old so isn't good at computers, doesn't like email, and has an assistant handle this type of thing.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIE ABOUT THE DUMBEST MOST OBVIOUS SHIT?! first, you should never assume that people are idiots and don't know basic fucking things. second, don't double down on your dumbshit lie when I ask you to clarify, when I repeat to you in an incredulous tone your own stupid words. like, backtrack man, I obviously don't believe you. you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole by cementing to me that you're a liar. 

is this what it's like now in our "post-truth" world? did donald trump and his constant and consistent denial of basic verifiable facts break people's brains leading them to think that this type of behavior is okay? well, it's fucking not, people, wth.