Monday, December 31, 2012
Sooo, I've been remiss again with December's postings. But not for long.
I read on Yahoo news that some young asshats decided to name their new baby girl, Hashtag. Seriously?? Hello? Cheech and Chong called. They want their bong back. Someone commented that baby Hashtag's parents mother's name is probably "OMG" and the father's must be "LOL." New levels of idiocy, folks!
Speaking of idiocy. Cactus Man attempted contact via text last week. Since Cactus is an idiot, I figured he was too stupid to realize that a Verizon "block" only lasts 90 days and not try to contact me ever again, so I never re-blocked him after about the 3rd time. However, Christmas day, I woke up to the sound of my phone beeping a text at 5:00 a.m. with an 813 area code.
Obviously, it was Cactus' number, and he wrote, "I wonder if I am still blocked. Merry Christmas."
Seriously? As if, Cactus. As if I want triple therapy all over again, as if I want toxic in my life again. Really? So I laid in bed, wondering what to text back. Something snipish? Something to chew his ass out? Ignore it? Re-block? I fell back asleep, and when I woke up, I knew.
I went over to my netbook and brought up my Verizon account and entered his number to re-block him, but before I hit "OK," I sent him this hysterical reply:
"Merry Christmas to you, too. Though I think you have the wrong number. This is Morris Bad Wound, Hermosa, South Dakota. Take care." Then I hit send, then I hit "OK" to block any immediate replies from him.
Then I fell over on the couch laughing. "Morris"? And "Bad Wound"? He'll either think, "Oh, she changed her number." OR, he'll figure out, once he tried to reply to "Morris" and got a blocked response, that I tricked him and will be furious. Either way, it's hysterical. What a great "last word."
Gotta love it. What a douchebag.
Happy New Year's!
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Anyway, I'm hungry, at work, and ready to go to the gym here in a minute, but I read something today that was rather shocking and fits in to my last two posts.
Know what that is? If you're an American, ironically, you do not. It's the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Every industrialized nation in the world, EXCEPT AMERICA, has signed on.
Then I heard Michigan just became a "Right to Work" state, which I call, a "Right to Live in Poverty" state.
Furthermore, what GIVES with employees who do NOT belong to a union the right to think that they can have the same benefits and pay as the guy right next to him, who works at the SAME place and BELONGS to the union and pays his/her dues? Hello?
On NPR, I heard people who are for this are for it because they think it brings more good paying companies/jobs to a state when they adopt this ruling.
South Dakota is a wonderful example of a state that is a "right to work," but one of the lowest paying states in the United States compared to all the other states. Thanks, South Dakota! Thanks, to our wonderfully, "always thinking of the little guy" far-right conservative, good-ol'-boy back slapping backwards asshats.
Especially west river. There are hardly ANY good paying jobs in western South Dakota. The few ones you see are usually government jobs.
People are idiots.
Have a good day.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
I heard on NPR last week something that correlates to my last post, a fact about women that's rather unsettling. What is it? Here goes.
Guess which career field most American women fall in?
You're probably thinking, hmmm. Nurses? Nope. Teachers? Nope.
I gasped when I heard this statistic. 1943 called. They want their Bake-a-Light phone back.
How can this be? Sociologically, how is this possible when we've had the right to vote for almost 9 decades?
Those who don't find this shocking, ask yourself this, if the leading one career field for African American males in 2012 was still sharecropping, you'd be mortified.
So why are most women still secretaries or glorified secretaries (aka, "administrative assistants:)?
I blame it all on the last post. This strangely co-dependant need to be the "other half" of a man, to be swept up in a sea of newborns. Women obsess about being with a man, being his "better half," swept up with this, desperate to have this. Men do NOT obsess about women. Men do NOT obsess about being one's "other half." They obsess about sex, themselves and their career, but NOT about women. What gives?
I used to think it was just women's need for security. We all want security. We all want to be loved. We all want and need a permanent roof over our heads, some security, etc.
So if you CAN be a woman and have security without losing yourself into a man, how come I see so few examples of this?
So what is it? Why are most women either in denial or stuck in this sociological rut?
And secondly, when will this ever begin to change?