Friday, September 28, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
will food for paddle
so annoyed. earlier this year the scdbc put on our inaugural la dragon boat race. most of the teams competing were random community teams. however, there was also a "Best Twelve" category, which was reserved for year-round teams like space dragons, guppies, etc. all the big teams (except space) in lb sent a boat or two. (lard sent three). why? cause there was a cash prize! 1st - $800, 2nd - $500, 3rd - $300. registration was $300. since space is having an amazing season, and the races were only one day, and not far, we were guaranteed to win money. we might not have won first (la races were on 10man boats) but, and i'm not at all being conceited here, space would've at the very least earned our registration money back (if we sent only one boat).
we didn't go because there was "not enough interest." ...tho i'm sure had the captains emphasized that we were pretty much guaranteed to win a cash prize, we would've gone. why? because we paddle anyway. why not paddle for money?
i get the the weekly space newsletter today and now they are asking for people to randomly donate money to the team because we're now a 501(c)(3). they've also announced yet another fundraising event: working the concession stand at the rose bowl. we've always done a garage sale, and in more recent years we've added a bake sale. this year we've also done a restaurant thing, and now this random selling food shit. ...wtf?
this is a dragon boat team. we paddle. that's the whole point. but when we're invited to paddle for get "free" money, we say no. instead we decide to sell food. i get that everyone eats but... this team's staff is so fucking ridiculous sometimes. i've had a lot of fun this year, at tournies, practices, getting to know people, blahblahblah. but some of the admin's decisions are just... they make no fucking sense. it's enough to make you want to quit the team! oh, right, that is the reason i want to quit. (btw, there's MUCH more than just the la race thing but i'm so tired of thinking about this team's fucking staff...)
we didn't go because there was "not enough interest." ...tho i'm sure had the captains emphasized that we were pretty much guaranteed to win a cash prize, we would've gone. why? because we paddle anyway. why not paddle for money?
i get the the weekly space newsletter today and now they are asking for people to randomly donate money to the team because we're now a 501(c)(3). they've also announced yet another fundraising event: working the concession stand at the rose bowl. we've always done a garage sale, and in more recent years we've added a bake sale. this year we've also done a restaurant thing, and now this random selling food shit. ...wtf?
this is a dragon boat team. we paddle. that's the whole point. but when we're invited to paddle for get "free" money, we say no. instead we decide to sell food. i get that everyone eats but... this team's staff is so fucking ridiculous sometimes. i've had a lot of fun this year, at tournies, practices, getting to know people, blahblahblah. but some of the admin's decisions are just... they make no fucking sense. it's enough to make you want to quit the team! oh, right, that is the reason i want to quit. (btw, there's MUCH more than just the la race thing but i'm so tired of thinking about this team's fucking staff...)
Saturday, September 22, 2012
chris brown
Laura Bates - Chris Brown's Tattoo Shows Exactly How Seriously We Take Domestic Violence
a. is it really a picture of a battered woman?
b. how long do wait to forgive someone of battery?
c. should we forgive chris brown?
a. i say no. it immediately reminded me of the day of the dead skull things. and his rep says it is based of a sugar skull design.
b. not for a very very long time. i think this is one of those things that your reputation can never / probably should never really recover from. it's like being a rapist or a child molester. can you wish you never did those things and would never ever again? sure. but that stuff's really bad. it's not like making a simple wrong decision, like shoplifting.
c. in brown's case, definitely not yet. he beat up rihanna really really badly. he strangled her, hit her, and did not stop. and this all happened only three years ago. since then he hasn't shown remorse ("It's not really a big deal to me now, as far as that situation. I think I'm past that in my life." ""I'm so over people bringing this past s**t up!!!" [...yes, because your feelings matter, not that of your victim.]). and he clearly still has an anger problem (last year's incident at gma, this year's fight with drake).
just because rihanna clearly seems to have forgiven him doesn't mean that the rest of us should. maybe she's really goddamn stupid. maybe he lies to her and she's bought it. maybe he does feel badly about the situation and has managed to hold on his anger (for now?). maybe he really has changed. or maybe not.
in any case, the thing that really bothers me is that brown himself seems to think that just because some time has passed, and that rihanna has forgiven him, nothing else matters. but what he did was really terrible. and he's a public figure so he does have to make it up to his fans. btw, time itself doesn't mean anything. just cause it's been three years (which is not even a long time) doesn't mean that you're automatically forgiven.
b. how long do wait to forgive someone of battery?
c. should we forgive chris brown?
a. i say no. it immediately reminded me of the day of the dead skull things. and his rep says it is based of a sugar skull design.
b. not for a very very long time. i think this is one of those things that your reputation can never / probably should never really recover from. it's like being a rapist or a child molester. can you wish you never did those things and would never ever again? sure. but that stuff's really bad. it's not like making a simple wrong decision, like shoplifting.
c. in brown's case, definitely not yet. he beat up rihanna really really badly. he strangled her, hit her, and did not stop. and this all happened only three years ago. since then he hasn't shown remorse ("It's not really a big deal to me now, as far as that situation. I think I'm past that in my life." ""I'm so over people bringing this past s**t up!!!" [...yes, because your feelings matter, not that of your victim.]). and he clearly still has an anger problem (last year's incident at gma, this year's fight with drake).
just because rihanna clearly seems to have forgiven him doesn't mean that the rest of us should. maybe she's really goddamn stupid. maybe he lies to her and she's bought it. maybe he does feel badly about the situation and has managed to hold on his anger (for now?). maybe he really has changed. or maybe not.
in any case, the thing that really bothers me is that brown himself seems to think that just because some time has passed, and that rihanna has forgiven him, nothing else matters. but what he did was really terrible. and he's a public figure so he does have to make it up to his fans. btw, time itself doesn't mean anything. just cause it's been three years (which is not even a long time) doesn't mean that you're automatically forgiven.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
child abuse?
Is Having Obese Children Child Abuse?
at first i was inclined to say no, but upon reading the article... i mean, shit, a 90lb 3yo or a 400lb 12yo? that's crazy! the sad thing tho, is not just that these kids are overbese (my term for not just obese, but way over it, like 50% body fat), but their parents are probably too. and they basically cannot lose the weight. either they don't know how, or they don't have the financial / emotional support to lose that much. losing over even 50lbs is a commitment, and it's a whole lifestyle change. that's hard!
i feel like in most child endangerment cases the parents know it's bad, but can't be bothered to care. having your kids do drugs or drink, drop out of school, become a ho, join a gang... a lot of the parents are doing the same thing. and a lot of them, don't see anything wrong with it. it seems a bit ineffectual to take the kids away only to send them back later. what's the point, really? they'll just fall back into the same lifestyle because that's what their parents are doing.
i guess part of the reason you take the kid away is to scare the parents into making the necessary changes. most parents love their kids and would do most anything to get that kid back. ...you'd think anyway. g is a lawyer representing some parents who had their kids taken away. and while they do want their kids back, sometimes... they just can't overcome their problems. i wonder if there's a better solution...
at first i was inclined to say no, but upon reading the article... i mean, shit, a 90lb 3yo or a 400lb 12yo? that's crazy! the sad thing tho, is not just that these kids are overbese (my term for not just obese, but way over it, like 50% body fat), but their parents are probably too. and they basically cannot lose the weight. either they don't know how, or they don't have the financial / emotional support to lose that much. losing over even 50lbs is a commitment, and it's a whole lifestyle change. that's hard!
i feel like in most child endangerment cases the parents know it's bad, but can't be bothered to care. having your kids do drugs or drink, drop out of school, become a ho, join a gang... a lot of the parents are doing the same thing. and a lot of them, don't see anything wrong with it. it seems a bit ineffectual to take the kids away only to send them back later. what's the point, really? they'll just fall back into the same lifestyle because that's what their parents are doing.
i guess part of the reason you take the kid away is to scare the parents into making the necessary changes. most parents love their kids and would do most anything to get that kid back. ...you'd think anyway. g is a lawyer representing some parents who had their kids taken away. and while they do want their kids back, sometimes... they just can't overcome their problems. i wonder if there's a better solution...
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
re-writing
Why Are People Still Having Weddings at Plantations Slaves Built?
this reminds me of the huckleberry finn controversy. and i wonder if people aren't a bit too sensitive about this? yes slavery is bad, most everyone recognizes that. but it's not as though if you have a wedding at a slave-built plantation, you're celebrating slavery. and if that were actually the case, we probably shouldn't have anyone living in the whitehouse either, cause that too was built by slaves.
slavery is an ugly part of our history. but it's not as if we can (or even should) forget that it happened. our country and culture is better for the contributions of the people who came over as slaves, or who are descended from. and no, you idiot, i'm not saying saying slavery was awesome or that only good things came out of it. but it did happen. so short of tearing down everything that was built by slaves, erasing all the music that stemmed from spirituals, actually re-writing all our history books, and everything else crazy, let's just agree that it was terrible and that we'll never do anything like it again.
as that saying from george santaya goes: those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
this reminds me of the huckleberry finn controversy. and i wonder if people aren't a bit too sensitive about this? yes slavery is bad, most everyone recognizes that. but it's not as though if you have a wedding at a slave-built plantation, you're celebrating slavery. and if that were actually the case, we probably shouldn't have anyone living in the whitehouse either, cause that too was built by slaves.
slavery is an ugly part of our history. but it's not as if we can (or even should) forget that it happened. our country and culture is better for the contributions of the people who came over as slaves, or who are descended from. and no, you idiot, i'm not saying saying slavery was awesome or that only good things came out of it. but it did happen. so short of tearing down everything that was built by slaves, erasing all the music that stemmed from spirituals, actually re-writing all our history books, and everything else crazy, let's just agree that it was terrible and that we'll never do anything like it again.
as that saying from george santaya goes: those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
sex strike
The Crossed-Legs Tactic: When Does It Make Sense to Go on a Political Sex Strike?
"But does abstinence ever make sense as a protest? And are the women who adopt this strategy ultimately undercutting their own political power?"
"At face value, this political tactic is as old-fashioned as it gets. It paints men as horny brutes and women as sacrificial gatekeepers. Sure, boycotts always involve self-denial, but the tone of a sex strike is never mutual sacrifice. It's women fighting against a male-dominated group that they feel they can't control except with their bodies. The basic assumption is that men are so dependent on boning that they'll crack at the slightest deprivation of sexual activity."
i'm think sex strikes are generally a publicity thing. nothing grabs headlines quite like sex. but i think one should only deny sex if it has to do with the issue they're striking over.
"Consider Second City's call earlier this year to stop fucking men who support defunding Planned Parenthood. Their logic was simple: men who don't think women's access to health care is important didn't deserve to have sex with women. This wasn't a call for women to abstain from sex in general—just to deny it to men who didn't care about their rights."
see, that example makes sense. denying sex to get roads fixed? ...not so much. and since it doesn't make sense, it undercuts your mission.
"But does abstinence ever make sense as a protest? And are the women who adopt this strategy ultimately undercutting their own political power?"
"At face value, this political tactic is as old-fashioned as it gets. It paints men as horny brutes and women as sacrificial gatekeepers. Sure, boycotts always involve self-denial, but the tone of a sex strike is never mutual sacrifice. It's women fighting against a male-dominated group that they feel they can't control except with their bodies. The basic assumption is that men are so dependent on boning that they'll crack at the slightest deprivation of sexual activity."
i'm think sex strikes are generally a publicity thing. nothing grabs headlines quite like sex. but i think one should only deny sex if it has to do with the issue they're striking over.
"Consider Second City's call earlier this year to stop fucking men who support defunding Planned Parenthood. Their logic was simple: men who don't think women's access to health care is important didn't deserve to have sex with women. This wasn't a call for women to abstain from sex in general—just to deny it to men who didn't care about their rights."
see, that example makes sense. denying sex to get roads fixed? ...not so much. and since it doesn't make sense, it undercuts your mission.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)