Are you fucking kidding me? SMH, #PsychologyToday. It's not your data, actually, it's how you presented it.

Share on Twitter: Tweet

Christ almighty... When you can get an atheist to say that, you know you've fucked up.

So... The Psychology Today article everyone's been ranting about. Thought you might like to hear from someone who has also done that same exact experiment. And did it RIGHT. (Yes, I am fucking proud of myself for what I did in college. Because I was good at it back then.)


After rereading this "article," several times, I've come to the conclusion that I can't even attempt to argue this seriously. This is also a prime example of why most real psychologists hold Psychology Today in such low regard...

I did my Junior Thesis on an extremely similar subject as the Psychology Today article that's been going around. Attractiveness as a function of ethnicity. My actual project was a little more complicated than that, since we actually were looking to compare people across ethnic groups (a lot of people are pretty racist..), but that was the basis of it. (And my Senior Thesis advisor has done a great deal of research on ethnicity. And I minored in sociology and focused a lot of my research on ethnicity and racism. Long story short, I'm pretty damn familiar with the subject, ok?) In fact, I still have a copy of everything around here somewhere... So before anyone starts attacking the study itself, can I just say that the actual procedure (and MOST people's results) aren't as blatantly sickening as this author's horrible attempts to justify participant data based on their own misguided beliefs on either how to present empirical data or what constitutes actual attractiveness. Because that's not how this study works, or how psychological research works. This garbage is not even submissible for publication in a real journal... If you want, if I ever find where the hell I hid my own research, I can show you what this is SUPPOSED to look like. Again, technically I'm not supposed to publish the actual results or anything, but I can at least share my intro and conclusion, which has a bunch of real research articles with legitimate data and results... Names off the top of my head-  Langlois & Stephan... I remember because Stephan's first name is Cookie and her study was done with little children in the 70s. But anyway, it actually measures implicit racism to an extent. It's not supposed to promote it...

So...the article and it's many means of FAIL. Are you kidding me... This is Psych 101! I honestly don't even know where to begin with this... I wanted to give a level headed, objective analysis, but the more I read this, the more annoyed I get. Because everything is just... so wrong. Their data may actually be "correct." In fact, in some ways it is very much similar to the results of other studies. But the way that it's been presented has destroyed any credibility.

I can't even... I seriously can't even... I can't take this seriously one bit. I can hear my professors screaming in my ears about this... They would have failed.

So warning: this may be ranty.

Maybe I should just start with what they got right and where they went wrong. I can't even take any of what they actually said seriously because whoever wrote this clearly does not even understand the most basic of research writing concepts...

Actual procedure? Right.
Actual data? Hard to fuck that up.
Everything else? WRONG.

The fact that they're presenting participant data as actual 100% indisputible OBJECTIVE evidence of physical attractiveness of ethnic groups over others = SO MUCH FUCKING FAIL. The fact that they're using ANY of this data as "this group is more attractive than this one" = SO MUCH FUCKING FAIL. How do I put this... In this kind of research, you're trying to measure something that is subjective and qualitative. So to do that, you have to create some sort of quantitative way to measure it - hence the scale. So yes, for you the data becomes somewhat objective so that you can properly analyze it and run it through SPSS (statistical software). But when you're talking about it in in the results, when you're talking about it generally and trying to draw conclusions about what the numbers imply, you have to remember that this is still SUBJECTIVE data you're talking about. You talk specifically about your own participants and/or you generalize about how others might perceive things based on your results. But you never, ever prove anything. With research, you can prove something false, but you can never prove it to be true. And this is even more so when you're dealing with subjective, qualitative assessment.

So for you, dear author, to try to present any of this as legitimate fact is wrong. I honestly believe that this entire situation is most likely due to your ignorance about the scientific research, and evolution, than it is to rampant racism. I don't believe that you intended to come off as racist. But the fact remains that you did.



A) This is PERCEIVED attractiveness. This is not factual, objective data. It is 100% subjective. And not based on your own opinions, but on how participants view, process, and verbally interpret their own perceptions of the research materials.

"... black women are significantly less phyiscally attractive than women of other races." No. "Black women were rated to be less physically attractive than women of other races." See the difference? See how much of a difference that makes?

AND FOR GODSSAKE WHERE ARE YOUR P VALUES?!?!

"Black women are objectively less physically attractive..." NO. You are supposed to talk about the rating scale. That is the only "objective" data you have, not their attractiveness itself. No one is objectively more or less attractive. Attractiveness is PERCEIVED. How many times do I have to say that???

Ok. Ok. I'm going to breathe now, think about what I remember, and then I'm going to tackle their "conclusion"...  My class also discussed weight and attractiveness. Yes, people within a certain weight bracket are often deemed more attractive. Ethnicity and attractiveness - in general, most studies do in fact find a bias towards Caucasians and against African Americans. Gender and attractiveness - yes, most studies do tend to find that participants believe that women are more attractive. And yes, many MANY studies so believe that attractiveness is based on several evolutionary factors that are said to measure a person's genetic advantages and disadvantages. Think Darwin and desirable traits that one would want to pass on to offspring to ensure that they survive and reproduce. Ok, all of that being said...

Biological and genetic differences between the races - FALSE. Because A) RACE DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST. It is a man-made sociological concept that assumes genetic differences based on geographic history and genealogy. Real scientists do not use "race" as a factor of anything, because it's just a "theory" or set of theories used to justify the subordination of different peoples. That's as much as I'm going to say, because I could rant about this forever. And the only reason ethnicity is real is because of the fact that we have diverse regions of the globe and shared genealogies, cultural traits, and shared group history, etc. Any physical differences are due to evolution and geography, not because we are different "breeds" of human. Skin color is so often used to delineate race or ethnicity, when it's completely irrelevant to both. I don't have the time, nor the patience to explain this, but find me tomorrow if you need to know and I'll tell you what I know. Or google it. Anyway, this is all about the traits that have helped them survive in their regional climate. The fact that I would have to explain this to a "professional" in the field of evolutionary psychology is just astounding... YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE EXPERT HERE. And I'm sorry, but if LSE stands for the London School of Economics, I fail to see how and why I'm supposed to consider you to be a credible source for this. Call me an elitist. I don't give a fuck.

AND DO NOT EVEN FUCKING GET ME STARTED ON "RACIAL DIFFERENCES OF INTELLIGENCE". OH MY FUCKING GOD DO NOT EVEN GO THERE. I think I might need to write an entirely new post on this line alone...

Everything in this final paragraph is complete and utter bullshit, just an author trying to justify an already unsalvagable argument. No sources either... Attractiveness is NOT a measure of health. Technically you'd be more correct if you said it's a measure of PERCEIVED genetic health. No, black women are not less physically attractive. What you mean to say is that participants rated them to be less physically attractive. And I'm not even going to touch this "existed longer in evolutionary history... mutations decrease physical attractiveness" bit you have going on... I don't know where you pulled that from, because your "logic" isn't just flawed, it simply isn't there. You're trying to tell me that descendents of African women are less physically attractive (to whom, might I ask) because you seem to believe that their DNA has mutated far more than other ethnic groups, which you also seem to believe is directly related to genetic health in that it has reduced genetic health. If any of that is true, then you're wrong anyway. Because the entire point of genetic mutation is to INCREASE genetic health, not decrease it, and surely a "race" with a longer existence in "human evolutionary history" would have excellent genetic health to have survived so long, yes? And then, by this "logic," those increased genetic mutations equal increased genetic health equals increased physical attractiveness-- which is inconsistent with your data. Hmm... Oops. Better luck next time.

 "The only thing I can think of..." See, that's your problem right there. That tells me that a) you didn't do any actual research before starting this; b) you're trying to force a conclusion that probably really doesn't fit, especially within the context of your data; c) you're going to say something stupid. Do you know what you should have done/said? Now would be a great time to suggest further research. Or maybe you could've talked about how

In all the _____  words on this page [the article] (I've decided not to waste my time counting them), you have told me absolutely nothing of value.
And again, you cannot present someone's subjective opinion as indisputable fact. This is a MASSIVE error that you have carried throughout your entire "argument." Again, better luck next time. Trying to pass this off as legitimate? Are you kidding me? [sigh]


I seriously wish I could find my intro... It's around here somewhere, I just need to remember which hard drive it's on... Not bad for an undergrad.

Philosophy of Politics & Law - Attempt #1

I seem to have lost my voice again-- both literally and figuratively. So I ask you to please forgive me as I try to find it.

My mind has been spinning from all of the information being thrown at me. Introvert + ADD + Sensory overload= ... I wonder if it really was that easy in school to have a single train of thought at a time simply because the syllabi organized everything so neatly... I think perhaps it's time for me to go about this in another manner. While my mind is always so unusually disorganized and "jumpy," I'm going to try to keep this simple and follow a single directive-- like a thesis.

I've noticed in recent weeks that there have been several new attempts to redefine what it means to be "liberal" or "progressive" in modern times, especially considering the rise of New Left and neo-conservative movements. I thought it would be interesting to trace the roots of modern thought to define how and why we as liberals/progressives came to believe what we do, and why they are closely related but are not the same thing. So over the next few weeks, I want to examine not only current events but the philosophy behind them—why is it such a controversy; what are the arguments and the reasoning behind them; how do we go about solving these problems, and why do we choose what we do? Things in life are never as simple as we try to make them.

(Again, here is where one of those mandatory classes I never thought would be useful actually has a purpose...) Someone once claimed to me that law has nothing to do with philosophy, that enforcing laws and borders “isn't all that philosophical." Such a claim to me shows great naïveté about not only law but also philosophy as a whole-- though then again, I spent a great deal of time studying philosophy during my life, so perhaps I am just overly sensitive to these things. Politics, law, and social thought are all derived from philosophy, the study of existence, knowledge, values, etc. How we define the world and other beings determines what we perceive to be right and wrong, which is translated into politics (the process by which we make collective decisions), which is then translated into laws (collective decisions that are then formally enforced as rules). Changes in the political structure reflect changes in social thought, which are motivated by philosophy -- after all, political ideology is a set of ideas and expectations based on common sense and philosophical thought. For example, the need for economic recovery in terms of employment is based on several core principles: 1) humans need food, shelter, etc. in order to survive; 2) In order to fairly obtain our basic needs, we use a system of bartering in which we trade something (to which we have ascribed a value) for what we need; 3) In order to fairly obtain that "something of value," we have created an exchange system in which we provide a service or "goods." This seems basic and common sense so far, right? Now, take note of all of the philosophy behind it-- ethics, in terms the notion of fairness and justice derived from "natural law"; ethics, in terms of hunger and homelessness; sense of purpose and community, in terms of providing what others need; sense of self, being, and empathy, in terms of recognizing ourselves in others. As a result of this philosophy and common threads, we as a society have created rules to govern our Employment and the economic system are first and foremost not about "every man for himself" but how we all help each other to provide for our basic needs. It is a system, a set of interdependent bodies amalgamated to create a whole. And that is precisely what a society is.

I will leave you with this, for tonight… I have a lot to think about over the next few days… What does a society mean to you? What is the purpose of that society, and how has it affected who you are and what you believe? What would you think about the world if you were born into a different culture?

Mini Review/Analysis of "Get a Brain, Morons: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative"

Article: Get a Brain, Morons: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative | Belief | AlterNet

I'm not going to come right out and say one is better than the other - I know what I believe, and I can't say that my beliefs are better or more important than someone else's. I don't think that's right or fair. However, that being said, the author does bring up some valid points about why liberals and conservatives disagree on many things - ethics. (Haven't I talked about this before? Several times...) So if you want, you can ignore the whole liberal vs. conservative views on issues whatever like I did (^^" I'm tired, and I don't care) & just focus on the stuff about debating the differences in our core values. We can argue til we're dead about the issues, but getting to the root of the matter is more interesting and more effective. Even just take it down a notch, away from the issue & down to the logic behind why it matters. For example, part of the Republican dogma is about being self-reliant -- you take care of yourself. Liberals generally believe that, while being self-reliant is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged, not everyone has the ability or opportunity to do so and therefore part of being a good citizen is helping those who cannot help themselves. (As this is a Christian value, it's weird that a lot of the religious right disagrees with this idea on a larger scale... They say individuals can do charitable things if they want to, but I don't think it can ever really be enough... Plus we need to orchestrate job training, create more jobs instead of automating everything, start creating new things instead of "improving" on the old. HD may be nice, but is it really that spectacular? No. How about let's spend more time on curing cancer, eh?) Liberals believe in maximizing human and civil rights, fairness, and individual liberties- thus the name Liberal (from liberty? Hi? Yea.) which, generally, we believe are often infringed upon by corporate interests, as well as government -- whereas Republicans and a lot of other conservatives are more likely to emphasize morality/purity and authority. Many may prefer to let corporations do what they want in the name of capitalism and the free market, because that's part of how they define liberty. Many liberals would likely agree that it's more important that we all have the right to clean, non-polluted air, whereas some conservatives might think that it's more important that we all have the right to pollute if we so choose to... (Think non-smokers vs. smokers, in public places... Sorry, but your rights end when they infringe on mine! I choose not to pollute my body with crap like that, therefore keep your chemicals and tar to yourself, thanks.) So at the end of the day, we're both trying to increase individual freedoms (um, with the notable exceptions of those who advocate for keeping DADT, banning abortion & gay marriage... No one is infringing on your "right" not to see guys making out with each other. Mostly because that's not a "right." Nor is it any of your business... [unless of course you make it your business by joining Aarin and checking out all of the g-pg-13 yaoi you want... as the hardcore or uncensored stuff is a little more than I'm interested in, unless there's a really really good storyline or it's just plain hilarious. Then we just fast forward during... Right, ok, I'll shut up now ^^"])... We just tend to "bump heads" a little often trying to do it. We disagree because we simply value different things. Like when I was arguing with someone about the Patriot Act. I am against it, as I find it to be intrusive and unnecessary, whereas the other person thought it was a good idea because they felt it increased their safety.

This is where you see my "left libertarian" side come out - if you feel the need to go through excessive "security" measures and have your every move tracked in the name of "fighting terrorism" to feel safe, then go right ahead. That's your business.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

I can't say that I'm comfortable with losing civil rights and privacy in favor of allowing the government to see what I'm reading today, or watch my IMs or phone calls because I've had a copy of a shorter version of the Anarchist Cookbook "hidden" on one of my laptops (sheer curiosity about a "banned" book... It's not illegal to own in the US, and you can buy it on Amazon new, but it's often frowned upon, as more than half the things in it are felonies if acted out-- aside from the fact that most of the "recipes" are wrong and will get you killed before you can be arrested. It's a very interesting read nonetheless... I just honestly hope no one's stupid enough to take it seriously...) even if I have no plans whatsoever to ever try anything in it (except picking an old Masterlock, because I totally forgot the combo ^^") and I've said that many times now. (In fact, friends and I used to purposely start throwing in trigger words and make up the most random conversations just to mess with anyone who could be reading our messages. It's even more amusing on the phone, because of random wiretapping... You never know. Yay for instilling paranoia in the people!!!) And some new security rules are just...???. Like having to take off flip-flops at the airport. It's all out there in the open, what the hell else is there to see? A microchip implanted in the bottom of someone's foot??? Trust me, if someone were trying to sneak a bomb onto a plane in their flip-flops, 1. they're about as bright as a burnt out light-bulb, and 2. you'd probably notice, unless you were too. A knife, maybe, but there's really only so much you can do with a knife that small... I wouldn't really consider them to be a threat. Don't get me wrong here, safety is absolutely a priority, right down there at the base of Maslow's hierarchy, between sleep and friendship... It's just that sometimes you really have to wonder how effective these things are, and just how far we have to go to stop feeling so scared about everything. What will it take for us to feel secure as a people? An authoritarian nanny-state (which is NOT true socialism, no matter how much the ignoramuses think it is [rolls eyes] sorry, in a combative mood after dealing with Murphy's Law for an entire day.) where we're told how to feel in the morning? I don't think so. I have a big problem with laws that are meant to target criminal behavior but affect more innocent people than "guilty." I've been searching high and low for evidence that the Patriot Act has actually been effective. I haven't found any, friends haven't found any, because there apparently really isn't any... Why our government officials felt a need to renew this bullshit, well who really knows. Other countries have passed laws to intentionally block the Act from affecting their own citizens' civil rights and privacy - that's how broad this is. There are necessary safety rules, and then there are paranoid delusions-- and sometimes I really wonder if we too often cross that line...

And again I've forgotten why I'm here :-D. Oh well. Anyway, I'm exhausted & I have a long, painful week ahead of me again-- staying overnight at work for inventory... should be fun, I guess. We're all coming in wearing pajamas, and I'm going to bake brownies & muffins & stuff... If I'm not too exhausted from the long day before...
'night.

Life... Past Meets Present (and bursts out laughing...)

Alright, enough of the half-assed posts. I know I'm getting stupid-- I can feel my brain cells dying every time I go to work, or watch TV instead of reading, even if it's C-Span and the "news" or some sort of learning show (which is basically what I watch. Comedy Central, Food Network, C-Span, MSNBC if it's interesting-- I've noticed it has a more aesthetically pleasing layout than other channels, but other than Maddow & occasionally Olbermann, it's seriously annoying/boring-- CNN, ABC, BBC... Since Discovery refuses to back down on Palin's nature show -_-"...) I can't remember the last book I read cover to cover [that wasn't a graphic novel... I read tons of those. Fast. I don't have time to read anything else :-( ... ] though I'm going back to the library more often now, and buying more books (mostly used, of course, as usual. Conserving trees!). My spelling and vocabulary are going downhill, and I swear I'm picking up the lamentable grammar of my co-workers... Trying to brush up on history, including all the things we never learned in school... & learning what really happened as opposed to what text books have to tell you (a lot of things really were wrong... apparently the Tea Act was an anti-smuggling tax cut supported by Ben Franklin... It didn't raise the tax on tea at all!!! It has very little to do with actual taxes! Hell, it was a discount program for tea to help a dying company stay afloat - no pun intended, if you get what I'm talking about... It just was supposed to extend Britain's monopoly on tea so the company could sell its way out of bankruptcy... Like "buy American!" and Cash for Clunkers, lol... Mind-boggling. Thank you, capitalism-- oh, how I loathe thee...) I picked up an algebra book the other day, so I can refresh my memory... You would think that after AP calculus, and all of those stats classes and research projects I would remember a thing or two about logarithms and multiplying equations. I'm a future psychologist... I'll use stats, if anything, for research papers, but that's about as much as I need to know... But I'm determined to take the GREs this year, and find a grad school I can afford (even if it's not Columbia...) and an apartment, with or without a roommate. I can't say that I'm thrilled to be out of school and working - ok, so it TOTALLY sucks. Probably because I have no life and the job i have is not in psych. Plus most of the people I work with are rude, self-centered assholes, and as much as I like helping people, customer service is... not my mug of soy mocha latte.

So I've been feeling pretty down lately... various reasons, but I think I just need to go back to school... (Though at the moment, I'd be extremely satisfied with just quitting my job... Again, it's not that what I do is so bad, it just that it's everything I've been trying to avoid - my life is my job -_-") My life currently consists of work, driving my family around, talking to the 1 or 2 friends who aren't too busy with work/school to chat, and attempting to catch up to the rest of the world... in more ways than one.

So, what else is going on in the world? Graduations? Here's a post for you. Good luck with that. President of the US talking about gulf shrimp being ok to eat? Here's a [facepalm] for you... (I get that it's important that family businesses can make it through this, & that many scientists have determined that the areas where the oil hasn't hit yet are relatively safe enough, but I don't care if he's trying to be optimistic, that seems just plain irresponsible... I'd rather people be safe and not eat potentially dangerous things than have to deal with mass food poisoning not only from the oil but from the dispersants and such... All those chemicals are not good for people, not to even mention the mercury...) Need a good psych-related laugh (at the expense of a Republican friend) to brighten your night before you head to bed and ultimately work? Here's a link for you too... Oh! I just remembered something... I met a sane tea party member today. That brings my count up to 3 and half. And guess what??? We AGREED on something!!! See, the sane ones aren't so bad. It's just the crazy, hypocritical ones who are annoying and embarrassing and hilarious... (Like this Rand Paul business... or that Barber guy, the latest youtube sensation... The South is so very funny... well, the parts not smothered in greasy, deadly goo.)

History lesson of the day! -- Rachel is currently working on an interactive map of all of the oil spills in the US in the last decade... Louisiana is a greasy black blob. Also, as I am attempting to read a book this week, I will update this later with some other sort of interesting fact. I think every post will end with something interesting... Why not. Let's all learn something new!

So, goodnight, whoever you are. This half-bottle of Pinot Noir & I have a lot of catching up to do... (And I have a 3am alarm... Damn, I hate this job sometimes... lol)

Just Thinking...

I'm reading through my blog right now, just thinking about things. Other than a few obvious grammar errors I somehow missed, I kind of like rereading what I wrote. It's like seeing yourself in another light, if only for a moment (though I do have to say, that's one of my few real skills. I can look at things objectively, including my own thoughts and actions... ^^" See, I was made to be a psychologist...) Though I guess it's quite obvious that I've gotten lazy lately. Work really is exhausting, but some miraculous accident, I don't have a schedule for this week (I'll call about it if nothing changes by tomorrow... I deserve today off for the last few days though!) so I get to play catch-up with life. Things have been quiet on the healthcare front, as well as that stupid FB group advocating the death of Obama... even Arizona talk has died down (though I have something new to add to that later, maybe tomorrow...)

A co-worker yesterday said something rather surprising. Now first, let me say that the place I work for has a longstanding reputation as a "family company," plays country music almost nonstop, and is covered in "American" things & memorabilia. Most of the employees I work with are avid NASCAR fans (I kid you not...) with many grand-kids, terrible grammar, and no college diplomas. (Talk about stereotypes... -_-" This place is pretty bad about that too. They not only stick to them, but promote them. Very sexist, often racist... Sad. I'm looking to move soon...) Anyway, my co-workers and I have very, very little in common, including age and politics. I also recently began working with another group (of mostly immigrants) within the company. When I met them, apparently it was assumed that I was a Spanish-speaking Dominican woman. (How they reached that conclusion, I don't have a clue. I'm not Dominican, or Hispanic, & I don't speak a word of Spanish either... People are actually closer when they assume I'm African-American than Hispanic.) Clearly, there is some sort of hierarchy and serious racial tension here (despite the fact that the highest-ranking manager is Hispanic, and there really is a lot of diversity overall. It just seems like sometimes certain departments are grouped by ethnicity...). Anyway, back to the co-worker from Group A (the NASCAR-loving grannies, and also from group Smug). While working, we run into Group B (Spanish-speaking cleaning people... Again, way to be stereotypical, Unnamed Company.). Co-Worker sees Group B workers, hears them speaking Spanish with each other as they begin to walk away, and says "We're in America, we speak English. They should go back to their own country..." in a nasty tone. Clearly she must have seen the expression on my face, because she suddenly stopped mid sneer, covered her mouth and went back to work.

What is it with the anti-immigrant sentiment in this country? Like somehow those who move here are lesser people, or less-than American, because we were born here (and speak a language that isn't even native, but we pretend it's better that every other language). Isn't that what America truly means? A nation of immigrants, working hard for a happy, fruitful life of peace and prosperity.

And on another note - we finally have an official nomination for the Supreme Court... Congratulations to the nominee, Elena Kagan... She has a decent chance of making it past the GOP without a filibuster (because she appears to be fairly conservative enough, which I'm thinking in this case will be a really bad thing...), and she's certainly well educated and acquainted with law. Personally, I think there was a much better option for a myriad of reasons, instead of the safe, moderate (and quite inexperienced) choice, especially to replace Justice Stevens; but nonetheless, congratulations Ms. Kagan.

(It would seem that Bold Progressive is now "following" me on Twitter. Normally, I wouldn't care, but somehow they found me, so... This either means I'm seen as a Progressive, or I sent a "tweet"  about one of their petitions & totally forgot about it... Though considering my own list includes TrueMajority, Maddow, Olbermann, Greenpeace, Change.org & Bill Maher... ^^" Not a hard conclusion to come to I suppose.)

How to Be Civil When You Really Just Want to Say... "Go F*ck Yourself."

Let's get away from messy politics for a while, shall we? Things are starting to look up... I hope. (Funny how the idea of hope scares some people... so sad.) This next part will be difficult, but I am removing all things "fake" or "annoying" from my life, including some people... Everyone has a "mean girl" side. Time for mine to come out to play... [would consider adding a wink here, but thanks to Sarah Palin... ugh. It's come to the point where just seeing or hearing her fake folksy screeching makes me physically sick. Will someone please explain to me why a person who advocates drilling in a protected nature reserve, and killing as many wolves as possible and offering a reward for each severed limb you bring in, gets a nature show on the most popular educational science channel on American TV? Why does money rule the world here? We are well aware that she has no interest whatsoever in protecting nature and wildlife. She thinks animals were created to go with mashed potatoes. She has said this herself. We also know that she will be paid handsomely for each of the 8 expected episodes, not to mention the publicity from the air time... We get why she's interested in the show, but why are they interested in her? The group that previewed the pilot thought it was hilariously pathetic, and thousands have been boycotting not only the network but all of their sponsors... Few people have said they would even bother to watch the show, or that they're looking forward to it. So very strange, this world...]

Most of my closest friends know how hard it is for me to say the things I really want to say, especially when it's something... not so nice. As you can probably tell if you read the rest of this blog, I tend to be very passive aggressive. I do it sometimes, but I really don't like to say things in anger, or hurt anyone's feelings. It's easier for me to write things from a distance than to see someone's face when I have to deliver bad news... I absolutely hate it... Part of the problem, as I've learned, is that I just feel too much empathy. (Seriously... I want an off switch. I actually miss apathy. If I see anyone hurt or crying, it's all over. I'll be there bawling for hours, even if they just skinned a knee... True story-- I was fighting back tears after finishing Jak 3... Such a sweet, sad ending!!! [hold on, I need a tissue... not kidding] Also, I went to my first wake 2 weeks ago. Regardless of how creepy it was to be in a tiny room with the dead body of a family friend, it was kind of nice... No one was crying, thank FSM, but my mother packed tons of tissues just in case... I don't think it would've been enough though...)


"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -- Abraham Lincoln. It's a nice way of saying "if you have no idea what you're talking about, shut the fuck up before we really think you're stupid." Unfortunately, many people don't consider this when they speak. (Lucky for me, I have pre-publish feedback!) Now, most of us don't go around telling our "friends" and family members how stupid we think they are sometimes, but I wonder if maybe sometimes we should, instead of the obligatory awkward chuckle and eye roll. Maybe that would finally get the message through ... But instead, just chuckle and smile. They'll think you're laughing with them, although you're really laughing at them inside. Everyone's happy.

This sounds quite a bit harsher than intended. The truth of the matter is, it's exhausting to be nice and civil when you don't want to be, especially when it's just not working. Trying to be civil to someone who thinks it's constructive to call someone names instead of trying to explain logically why they support or oppose something is just... It gets tiring. (Name-calling only gets you so far. Eventually, you have to come up with some sort of fact...) And no matter how much you support non-violence, eventually you feel like you want to just shake them (or worse). I've dealt with people ranting about death panels and evil terror plots to steal our underwear and take away our babies (don't ask, I'd swear in court that person was suffering from some sort of psychosis...), and how the world is going to end at the hands of this horrible socialist, anti-patriot, tax-loving Muslim jihadist regime. [insert eye roll, chuckle]. Chill. Take a deep breath, and explain, for the love of Pete, where you came up with such a nonsensical idea. Because really, the rest of us would like to know whose name to write on the bottle of schizophrenia pills.

See? The trick is to say it calmly, like you're serious. Though in all honesty, you probably are. And in all honesty, I think it's quite likely that wherever talk like that came from, the original owner probably doesn't even believe it unless they really are suffering from a psychotic break down (possibly due to drugs, whether recreational or prescription...). Take a certain radio talk show host for example. He's in it for the money - he makes MILLIONS off of stuff like that, marketing fear and panic to the gullible and naive. We've seen the silly things he tries to sell as an affiliate - things like portable Freedom Gardens (so you can have food after the apocalypse, when our President bans fishing and locks the country's rods in his closet...), and all sorts of weaponry. Really? C'mon, you can't seriously believe he's serious about any of it. Cashing in on chaos...


Fox News is pure evil, what many of us "lovingly" refer to as "a channel of somewhat psychotic, lying, fear-mongering, sniveling, money-grubbing imbeciles who peddle violent, racist opinions and call it news, for naive, gullible people who clearly can't or don't want to think for themselves..." How's that for hate. But I wouldn't say that to a Fox watcher... Well, I've never said it to anyone. Why bother? Those of us who believe that Fox isn't exactly truthful know that those who think it is will likely never believe it isn't, even though we tell them and provide evidence. And surely there is some good in Fox News. Somewhere. Maybe a teeny tiny bit of something somewhere, shoved aside in the darkest corner of their basement. But it's probably there. There's always some good in everything. Even when it seems impossible, you have to try to find the good. Those "friends" I mentioned - I don't think they're all necessarily bad people. Even one who... well, who he is isn't important, but he said something really hurtful to me and so on. I'm still annoyed. But that doesn't mean he's a bad person. He has a lot of good qualities. We can be civil and end things on a good note. I tried to do the same with another, was working on trying to come up with a nice response to an annoying message; however said person assumed an away message of mine (lyrics to Crossfade's "Already Gone") was intended for her (when it was certainly not), and so on, and sent me a message about it. And yea, that annoyed me (the assumption more so than the message), but I decided to just let it all go and move on. We have quite a lot of history, so I know she's not a bad person overall, and it's not worth fighting over. We've grown apart, it happens, it shows, whatever. No need to make it a big deal. Deep breath, let it out, anger gone. Isn't it nice? If you have nothing nice to say, (or I suppose if you have something really mean... because you can say something nice but still say something mean), just don't say anything. Something we learn in preschool, yet doesn't seem to stick past 3rd grade. Not that you should ever internalize your emotions... Take it from me, it's just as bad as if you started screaming at the person. Never lose control. In a shouting match with Glenn Beck, do you think you'd win? He'd think it would be the one who screams the loudest. He will yell whatever he can at you, to trip you up and agitate you and get you upset. His target is emotion, not logic or intellect. He, and his audience, would no doubt declare him the winner. At the end of the day, will he have won? No. What has he learned? Nothing. What has he accomplished? Nothing but tiring himself out. The winner would be the calm, quiet one who actually makes sense, knows what he or she is talking about, and never loses focus. So never lose control.