self-portrait for this week…

yeah, posts have been short—because first i had this really big project i was working on at work which, as any good blogger knows, is the best blogging time, then there was also the matter of a midterm project due for the class im taking, followed by a midterm exam which was last night.

but those are all gone now, and i have a good 2 weeks before my next school project.

so….you should see a longer post soon. ive been working on ::gasp:: some fiction. i know i know, fiction has never been my thing. and in fact, i kinda sucked at it in school. but i thought i would give it a go again. and, since i already have very low expectations, i figure it cant do any harm to my fragile ego…

im hoping to get that out by weekend (in pieces mind you, i never write a whole story all at once—that would make far too much sense). in the meantime though, heres a new word of the day for you:

wegotist: a person who refers to himself with the nominative plural “we”

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560

i came across this article from the economist. its kinda long, but a good read. essentially its an article about how the rich just keep getting richer and poor poorer; how america seems to be heading toward a class-based society where those with money control everything, including the politics, and those without are subject to harsher rules, regulations and taxes.

um….seems?

isnt that why we left england in the first place and came over here and stole founded this country?

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560

i came across this article from the economist. its kinda long, but a good read. essentially its an article about how the rich just keep getting richer and poor poorer; how america seems to be heading toward a class-based society where those with money control everything, including the politics, and those without are subject to harsher rules, regulations and taxes.

um….seems?

isnt that why we left england in the first place and came over here and stole founded this country?

two words for today…

logophile(n): a word lover.

If you actually enjoy these posts, you might be a logophile.

latrinalia (n): graffiti on a bathroom wall

If you turn these posts into latrinalia, you might be a logophile and really fucked up.

so has anyone seen the HBO show “Big Love”? i havent seen it yet as i am cheap and do not get HBO, but i think im going to have to sucker some non-cheap friend who does get HBO into letting me come over to watch their TV some sunday night, if only because the show is causing such a big stir among the right wing conservatives—and i love anything that gets the conservative right all in a tizzy.

but, of course, this is all somehow tied in with the fight to legalize gay marriage. obviously. because if we legalize gay marriage, then group marriage is next!! dont you see the connection people?!

hmmm…

i personally am not a proponet of polygamy. i dont see anything wrong with non-conventional relationship agreements, in fact, i fully encourage them, but the thing about polygamy is that there is a certain element of unfairness to it. and i do not advocate any relationship which gives one person more rights and freedom than another. how fair is it that one man should get to take multiple wives, but those wives in turn cannot have other husbands? there must be an allowance for equality in order for a relationship to survive in todays modern society. whatever the rules are, they have to apply to both partners equally. and with gay marriage, the rules are the same as straight marriage, they apply to both partners, yet, according to the conservative right, if you allow gays to marry, it will open the door for polygamy, because theyre essentially just the same thing right?

whatever.

the reason why the legalization of gay marriage would never directly lead to the legalization of polygamy is very simple—a marriage between two people is essentially the same, no matter what gender, orientation, race or color of either of those people. the committment is the same—to each other. thats why we have marriage. that and the tax breaks. but people in it for the tax breaks are not the “marriage” people we are talking about here—thats a whole other story. (remind me to tell you sometime my plan to marry my friend paul so that we can stick it to the government). when you start getting into polygamy though, the rules change. and the committment changes. and while polygamy and all other sorts of group marriages im sure could work, the point is that they are not the same thing as gay marriage, and to equate the two is insane.

this article is a good one about the differences between gay marriage and polygamy and i think it makes a very excellent point:

I’m sure polyamorists are right that lots of people “find joy in having close relationships … with multiple partners.” The average guy would love to bang his neighbor’s wife. He just doesn’t want his wife banging his neighbor. Fidelity isn’t natural, but jealousy is. Hence the one-spouse rule. One isn’t the number of people you want to sleep with. It’s the number of people you want your spouse to sleep with.

its all about being willing to extend the same liberties to your partner that you wish to be taking. do unto others as you would have done unto you. ya know, that sorta thing.

also….gay marriage will not lead to people marrying their pets. or dolphins. thats just weird.

word of the day:

mendaciloquent: able to tell artful lies

AND….for all my fellow conspiracy theorists out there:

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html

“According to Tarpley, this, roughly, is how it went down on September 11: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Pet Goat–engrossed president played their assigned roles enabling the strange events of the day, including the wholesale “stand-down” of the multi-trillion-dollar American air-defense system. Cued by fellow mole Richard Clarke, the main players made sure the CIA-owned-and-operated Osama and his alleged 72-virgin-craving crew got the blame, the towers collapsing not from fire, as reported by the brainwashed mainstream media, but thanks to a well-planned “controlled demolition.”

new word for the day:

deasil: to move in a clockwise direction

Somehow, “you deasil me right round, like a record baby, right round…” just doesn’t sound as good.

so one thing you must understand about me is that i went to a catholic college. and the thing about catholic colleges is that you end up with a whole bunch of irish catholic students there. and st. patricks day—BIG DEAL. (read: another excuse to drink). since i am not irish though (or even catholic for that matter), i never really felt the need to celebrate st. pattys day in college.

but since it fell on a friday, and since ive been feeling rather quarter-life-crisis-like recently, i thought this year i would celebrate. i will not go into the details of my night, but i will tell you that there was lots of beer, green hats, car bombs, mardi gras beads and a little evil drink called the naked leprechaun all involved.

and saturday? man….that was rough.

the moral of the story?

never trust a naked leprechaun, no matter how small and fruity he may look.

two new words for today:

vituperative: berating; speaking abusively to or about.

It is better to speak vituperatively to someone than to break off one of their fingers every time they interrupt you to ask you a stupid question.

vernorexia: a romantic or sexually aroused mood inspired by the coming of spring (“spring fever”).
There are so many incredibly innappropriate sentences I could form using the word vernorexia, some of which involve white, fluffy bunnies. Dude, is it spring already?