Like a pig in shit
06/12/2006
There is a strange wind blowing on the Internet: a lot of talk of politics, religion, and sexuality leading to angry rants.
I have been (gently) getting into it with another blogger. There are no flames, just views (very politely stated). It’s unusual for me, I normally stay out of it, but the “it” of this instance is fairly close to home (about 3 hours by car). We’re not actually discussing the politics of the situation, more the social constructs. I much prefer the conversation about social convention, because politics bore the hell out of me.
This whole silly 666 thing and the Biblical floodings of the Northeast may or may not have something to do with the trend. I had a great religious upbringing that included all the highlights: learning Hebrew, having a Bat Mitzvah, going to Poland and Israel. Great, I know my shit. Really I do. Okay, so maybe I know some of the stuff because of all the art course I took and those Renaissance guys really loved to use Biblical themes and all. But a lot of the stories I know are from the 10 years I spent getting all educated on why we are the chosen people.
These days my opinions are far different than the ones I use to hold so dear (I’m more of a I’m going to pray to god, any god, when I fall down a mountain), but I still have the far reaching mundania that wows and amazes in small bursts. I recently explained in great detail the myth of Lilith, she of hermaphroditic existence and redheaded stepchild to great and powerfully (blamed) Eve. My cat-like reflexes are equaled only by my pachyderm-like ability to reminiscence. That which makes me an excellent student makes me a terribly frustrating girlfriend, I remember things and then ten years later recall some stupid fact to make my point. (Bruce on the other hand is far more selective in that he recalls things he thinks may be of importance as he makes some sort of mental note like “This might be important, I should remember this.” He also answers many questions with: “I don’t know, I wasn’t really paying attention” Poor Bruce has no idea what he’s in for in a decade.)
Here a gay, there a gay, everywhere a gay gay. Let the gays get married, no don’t. Okay, enough. It’s going to happen, let it go. I think I might be tired of it because I live in Massachusetts. But, you there, gay person from another state, stop fucking chiming in on the debate about rights in MA, because if you want to move here and be legally wed, great, otherwise shut the fuck up and don’t talk about how you would move here except for the cost of living and the taxes. Taxes are high because we’re a bleeding liberal state that covers the cost of healthcare for people who can’t afford it and we like to fund things like education. We also are so bleeding liberal that we let the gays get married. See how that fucking works. And the cost of living, you don’t have to live in the city assholes, there are plenty of places outside of Boston that are perfectly acceptable places to live (I think they are called the suburbs, they have trees and shit) that don’t require a private loan to pay for food and utilities. Each state has the right to blah blah blah, so if you are all against the gay-love, coming to the State House of a state, in which you don’t live, to protest or hand out flowers or sing songs, thereby making me walk the long way to work, really pisses me off. And believe me when I say this: some of my best friends are gay (Hey Pussywillow! We have to plan some alone time when I go to London.) but I am tired of all the gayitude. Okay?
I know, I know, this is all very exciting, whether you believe gayness is a choice, genetic predetermination, disease, or lifestyle, but still there is really no more need for any more commentary. I don’t think anyone is all that surprised when Bush the younger is all, “Hey. I don’t want the gays to get married.” Why the sudden uprising of craziness on the Internet in response to something that we already know to be true? I mean if Baby Bush had said that he was hoping that Congress would pass a law dictating that all elementary-school aged children were to wear muzzles in public, I could understand the kind of resounding “Huh?” that would have swept across the land (except for those people who always complain about the loud children sitting next to them in restaurants and on planes. Those people would have been all: “Hell YEAH.” But I digress). Basically, I am requesting that people on the Internet stop being boring and stupid talking about boring and stupid things.
Also, I have come across some super disturbing shit on the Internet this past month. Bruce is probably tired of hearing about “WHAT I FOUND ON THE INTERNET TODAY!!!” (remember there was a bit on Sesame Street where the announcer would say something and it would be all loud and echoey like at the Monster Truck Rally, not that I’ve ever been to a Monster Truck Rally?). The most notable thing I have found thus far, a blog that may or may not be entirely real. I was with the couple until they talked about diapering. Seems that he’s “Daddy” and his wife of sometime likes to be a baby. In a diaper. In which she defecates. Even though she has all of the physical capacity to walk herself to the bathroom. And flush. There was more, but unless you ask for it directly, I am going to refrain from presenting you with a mental image that requires bleach and copious amounts of vodka to scrub your brain clean.
The Internet, there is strangeness.
PS. Turns out I have been Some Girl for a year and ten days.
PPS. Just in case you think I am mocking or in any way derogatory regarding the diapering couple, what you do with your own time and space is your business, and trust me I’ve got my own things, I just have a hard time with excrement. That shit grosses me out (see what I did there?).
Blogging • Why I am not allowed to supervise children • (5) Comments • Permalink
Next entry: There is something romantic about being a slut
Previous entry: Laughter and ejaculate
The way I see it, you’ll always be talking about the “gay issue” or abortion whenever a president’s popularity is tanking. These are wedge issues designed to take people’s attention away from governmental blunders and unpopular policy - it mobilizes the hardcore supporters.
Over here John Howard has just introduced new industrial relations reforms that will allow employers to reduce the minimum wage, however he’s not talked about that very much; instead he’s introduced a - wait for it! - amendment banning civil unions for gay people. And, of course, in all the fighting people have missed the true impact of the industrial relations laws.
It is a tactic that was developed by Machiavelli, refined by Karl Rove, and is employed with delight by John Howard.
How can employers reduce a minimum wage? I mean if employers can just reduce it, then the minimum wage is no longer, well, minimum.
“How can employers reduce a minimum wage? I mean if employers can just reduce it, then the minimum wage is no longer, well, minimum.
It is called - and this is John Howard’s hideous sense of irony - “work choices.” The new industrial relations laws allow an employer to sack his workers (all of our unfair dismissal laws have been abolished; I don’t think you had them there in the US in the first place) and then offer those same employees their jobs back but with a contract that sacrifices their benefits - say, holiday pay, sick leave, annual leave - for, say, $0.02 an hour. So, one ends up trading $150.00 worth of entitlements a week for about $10.00 - a loss of $140.00. Under the new laws unions are banned from negotiating on behalf of employees, and two employees, say for example cash register clerks, could be on vastly different pay rates, subject to the caprice of the employer.
In short, every employee must negotiate their own individual contract with their employer; their is no set minimum wage, and we know that most people aren’t equipped to make that kind of negotiation.
The theory is that if you allow your employees to be subjected to a Dickensian style working environment you’ll be able to compete with countries such as India and China which are willing to pay their workers slave wages. But back to the initial point - John Howard has mentioned three things since he brought in this legislation: gay marriage, the deleterious effect of a post-modernist English language education, and his desire to begin uranium mining in central Australia. I believe that he doesn’t give a shit about at least two of those issues, however, they’re good debate material; they’re polarizing discussions which focus the public’s attention away from the central narrative.
Okay okay okay…
Um, well I guess that we can start every conversation with the assumption that the opposition is unable to maintain their side, which is essentially the same type of statement as saying that we know that people aren’t equipped to make that kind of negotiation.
I suspect that what is missing from your argument are some qualifiers as to whom exactly is the targeted group (foreign born illegal aliens who are unable to speak the language…mentally retarded adults who participate in a work program…disaffected youths who are trying to make money for school). I think I know where you are going, but my dear friend, beware the blanket statement that becomes chum in the water for those more maniacal than I.
Additionally, be gentle with statements such as: “all of our unfair dismissal laws have been abolished; I don’t think you had them there in the US in the first place…”
The US has fairly well developed unfair dismissal laws and the like that began in the 1940s, to the point that we now have laws that protect Whistle-blowers from unfair discrimination in their current jobs. In most states it is illegal to fire people or not hire people based on factors such as: gender, creed, sexual orientation, sexual proclivities, race, ethnicity, marital status, and religion to list a few. There are national minimum standards (including minimum wages) that the states must meet and many states have created laws that go further.
In terms of unions, if you belong to a Union there is a process before an employee is terminated. Out side the unions, people can be fired at will from private sector employers with little or no notice. The public sector is vastly different and I often lament how difficult it is to fire someone from certain organizations. The fear of a lawsuit has created an well organized system of checks and balances that include: verbal counseling, verbal warning, written warning, second written warning, third written warning, final written warning and final termination.
Trust me, if you get to the point of a final written warning, you deserved to be fired, but more often than not, the employee straightens out for a long enough period that when they screw up again, the process has to begin over from the verbal counseling.
There are certain offenses that are deemed bad enough to deserve immediate termination and those all seem to include some sort of fraud or embezzlement. In all my time in the job force, about 9 years, all of which has been public sector, I’ve never seen a case of undeserved termination.
The private sector is entirely different, so someone will really have to speak to that, but I know that in this day and age, American companies are weary of lawsuits brought against them for unlawful termination/discrimination.
Here is a link that has more information.
“I suspect that what is missing from your argument are some qualifiers as to whom exactly is the targeted group (foreign born illegal aliens who are unable to speak the language…mentally retarded adults who participate in a work program…disaffected youths who are trying to make money for school). I think I know where you are going, but my dear friend, beware the blanket statement that becomes chum in the water for those more maniacal than I.”
Whoa! No argument is being made - the workplace changes run across the board; they aren’t targeted at anyone in particular, they simply represent a change to the way that all employment in Australia is handled. It is blanket legislation.
But I’m not even talking about the workplace changes so much as I’m talking about the way that the “gay issue” is used to deflect attention away from a clearly unpopular raft of legislation. I’m sure the same tactics are employed in the political discourse over there.