While We Are On The Subject Of Money

But we weren't on the subject of money.  Well, now that we are...  (Hehe, that's paraphrased from "Arthur the Aardvark," the kids' TV show.)

What is this weird permeating notion that money will not bring a person happiness?

I am not talking about hoarding millions.  I am not talking about fatcat embezzling CEOs.  Hiding petty cash that is whisked away to a Swiss bank account.

I am talking about having enough funds to cover the basic expenses of living.  There is a nonplussing fervent notion, spewing forth from all the magazine editorials, from all the newspaper editorials, from all the political talking heads and news sound bites, that money will not bring anyone happiness.  This opinion is utter hogwash.  Money most certainly can bring one happiness.

Perhaps not happiness specifically, as in joy__
But most certainly, it will bring peace of mind.
__a little bit of respite from the worry, dread [[[____]]]] in the back of one’s mind,
__the gnawing anxiety, “oh lord, the kids are outgrowing their clothes and they really need new ones.”  And that is just as important.

Mgt Fall 2000-- Follo hot on heels of other one or tw ess.  (Because I made claim that in order to retain and keep qualified good talent, you will have to pay them fairly, compensate them justly.))
Why is seeking money such an eeeevilll goal??
The sociopolitical talking bites adamantly try to beat it into the public’s collective skull that financial solvency is somehow a bad thing.

I get bored with the word “soul” because the only times I see that word being used, the instances cannot really be taken seriously.  Hippies use the word “soul” when they complain that a person that wants financial peace of mind does not have one.  Or high school kids are dating and they start talking about “soul-mates.”

 ((Or that money won't bring you happiness.  This is patently false claim.
__a person wishes to attain financial peace of mind._
Ok, so a money amount beyond a certain threshold will not bring happiness.  But before this specific line of demarcation is reached, money most certainly will bring happiness.
You hear all the time about how big businesses want to make money and this categorizes them as evil vicious selfish////etc.  Uh okk, look, it is a business.  The purpose of a business existing is precisely so that it can make money.

Perhaps the people saying all this have never been poor.  They have never had to experience the indignity of having to choose between eating dinner that day -and- stockpiling the money (stashing )) so that you can afford your rent the next month.

((mention charity donated funds always, always, needed, esp. since I just wrote article about spiritual stuff)))

As I type this, the Christmas holiday shopping rush is in full gale all around me.
Many people have to choose between getting new toys for their kids –and-- buying groceries for the month.

Congealed Thoughts On Abortion

00the abortion pill has now been invented, and this is a good thing.  This is why the abortion pill is a good thing.  This way, if someone feels the need to get an abortion, they can terminate the pregnancy when it is basically nothing more than a zygote, a blastula.  At this stage in its biological development, it is not a human being yet.

There was a married couple featured in the article, who decided to abort the second pregnancy.  They looked at what they are capable of handling, __ and they weighted the situation, the pros and cons, and they arrived at a logical reasonable conclusion based on the facts.  This is a good thing that they did this.

I have said if before, and I will say it again.  Reproductive capability alone does not determine evolution.  They used logic and reasoning, and they thought ahead and followed the potential situation to its logical conclusions.  Using deductive reasoning, they determined what the likely possible outcome would be in the future.

In this case, this is not much more morally reprehensible than taking a very strong antibiotic medicine.  There are medicines to get rid of parasites such as ringworm.  The abortion pill delivers a similar [[[purpose,__ swift blow._ efficient purpose.]]]

Because yeah, if someone gets an abortion __ and the pregnancy is pretty far along, I will admit that gives me the heebie jeebies.  If the fetus already starts to resemble an actual live baby, that is quite creepy to get an abortion at that stage.  If the woman is lazy enough to let it fester to the point in time at which she starts to show the live viable pregnancy, that is pretty disgusting.  At that point it is too far along to casually pretend they're not screwed.  But if they can nip it in the bud, they should take advantage of the resources.

Also, we must address the sickening, uncomfortable topic of when abortion is unfortunately a necessity.  Like it or not, real horrors do exist and do take place every single day.  r--d, child molestation.  Yes, I am aware that those are very similar crimes, almost essentially the same thing.  But child abuse is such a sick nasty vile crime that it warrants classification as a separate crime.  Law enforcement agrees with me.

But I have to admit, some of the protests in favor of abortion are comical, ludicrous.  Such as how many pro-choice advocates say, "abortion should be legal but it should not be used as a form of birth control."  Err, huh?  That is kind of exactly what abortion is used for-- as a form of birth control.  That is the point and purpose of the whole thing.  Look, pro-abortion advocates, don't sit there and say you are pro-abortion but then object to some of them reasons that people get abortions.  Either be pro-abortion all the way like you say you are, or admit that you have moral qualms to it.

Or when self-described liberals claim they are pro-choice but they also say it is their lifelong dream to reduce the number of abortions.  Like in national statistics, they dream that one day the people will have fewer abortions.  Well, if abortions are so damn great and liberating and empowering and they are "my right as a woman," then why is it ever a bad thing?  If abortions are supported by "strong women," then why would you ever want to decrease the numbers?

I will admit that I lose respect for someone if I find out they had an abortion voluntarily and it was not because they were rdd.  Cher had a couple three of abortions, I think.  Nasty.  Gloria Steinen, who is arguably one of the world's most famous feminists, is the one that I happen to like the least.  She had an abortion.  She is quoted as having said, "I could either give birth to someone else, or I could give birth to myself."  And then she was spurred on her quest to become a feminist.  Now, I take issue with her statement.  She thinks her child that she is carrying is "someone else?"  So she regards her potential kid as a complete stranger, a weird creature entity that has nothing to do with herself.

This is pretty creepy.  But she probably did the right thing getting an abortion.  She has pretty much admitted that she did not want to have a kid.  Carrying the fetus to term would not be beneficial for anyone.  Not for G. Steinem, who doesn't want it.  Certainly not for the kid.  The kid would likely just be dropped off at a foster home only to be doomed to a life of bleakness and depression and poverty.  Better to just nip it in the bud when it is not a human yet.

Re: Spirituality And Faith

Why do I continue to read the damn thing if all it's doing is depressing me about the sad state of affairs in today’s modern world?  I guess it is like the proverbial train wreck.  It is horrifying and nausea-inducing, but you just can't look away.  It’s the sheer absurdity and awful sensationalistic aspect.

The tone of this individual’s comment seemed really angry.  And that jackass jesse ventura, spewing crap about that organized religion is for cowards.  Christ.

Ahm, this was taking vitriol against religion to a far greater extent than what I intended.  Sigh.  This is not what I expected. This is not what I signed up for when I decided to extricate myself from organized religion.
***
Also, it felt as though something were missing from my life.  I must have spirituality in my life.  This is important to me.  If not any one specific organized religion, then I do still need meditation.
I like pondering the big questions, I like thinking about philosophy...  Like what the person Buddha did in his own life, hehe.

From an anthropological perspective-- religion is very important to human beings as part of their psyche, as part of the human experience.  And if someone, atheist or not, refuses to understand that, then frankly that is an unrealistic, non-understanding ahole.  So yes, I can most certainly study this as an anthropologist -- study religion as a human being.

Back in high school, I began studying the evolution of religions for fun in my spare time.  (Not as a class; there was no religion class offered at my high school.)  It was fascinating, so interesting and intriguing to me.  I was not doing this to expose the hypocrisy of religiosity or some crap.  I was studying this because I was fascinated by anthropology and psychology.  Still am.

I was fascinated by biology, by biochemistry.  I had found a textbook of psychology which I consumed.  Anthropology, environmental science, archaeology.  I studied the formation and progression of languages as they started out in the fertile crescent, beginning with Aramaic, the Phoenicians, and then Latin, with Hebrew and Arabic, then later Spanish and Italian.  I am an all-around intellectually curious person.  Why shouldn't I also study religion?  Anything less would be intellectually a hypocrite.

Guiding Light Cartoons

Continuation of my childhood in the 1980s.  Apparently there was a huge marked difference between an elementary-school child's experience of the '80s, and experiences from what one would designate "young people."

This includes pop culture terminology, idioms, and phrases.  What the hell is a "yuppie?"  As near as I can figure, a "yuppie" is the following.  Baby Boomers were born in the mid-to-late 1940s to the very late 1950s, and they had to be young at some point, correct?  The term "yuppies" refers to young Baby Boomers that existed in the 1980s who were in their late twenties to very early thirties; you know, people who are movin' on up and getting their footing in their careers.  Yeah, I know the math doesn't quite add up, but whatever.  These "young people" apparently forged a shallow, empty non-culture type of life that had no meaning.  Teenagers perpetuated this with their mall things.  Meh, go figure.


I am also surprised to learn that apparently people back in the 1980s were all shallow, superficial selfish aholes.  Again, this was not my perception of the 1980s.

We had Saturday morning cartoons.  Do these even exist anymore?  The kids today are so deprived of guidance and morals and wonderful routines that establish a safe and trusting environment.

Winnie the Pooh!  Rainbow Brite, Punky Brewster, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  I was Jem for Halloween way back in third grade as an eight-year-old.  I was a huge fan of Jem and the Misfits.  Jem was way more fun and interesting than Barbie.  We also had She-Ra and the Guardians of Greyskull, and She-Ra's cousin He-Man.

What do kids, especially girls, have nowadays?  Britney Spears and "grl fon wild" to emulate?  The poor dears.

There existed a wealth of good music from The '80s.  I am surprised to learn recently that the '80s had a lot of crappy music such as david lee roth, whitesnake, prince, centerfold angel, billy idol.  I cannot tolerate that big-hair metal little-talent bands nonsense.

This is because my parents only listened to the good stuff.  Crowded House, Tears For Fears, Simple Minds, Foreigner, just to name a few.  Man, Tears For Fears is still it.  I don't care how many Natalie Merchants or (I hate to admit it) Sarah McLachlans you give me, Tears For Fears still rules.

Kool And The Gang.  My absolute favorite song by them is "Cherish The Love."  I especially cherish the intro to that song, with the seagulls trilling in the distance.  I will forever associate this song with my childhood because of those beloved seagull chirps.  It weaves together the New England, the beaches, and the positive aspects of the 1980s.  (Hehe.)

I am also surprised to learn that some individuals associate Madonna with the 1980s.  Urm, nope.  Madonna is a washed-up lost old hag.  The '80s belonged to Cyndi Lauper and Pat Benatar.  I was the hugest Pat Benatar fan in elementary school.  Yes, I listened to Pat Benatar in elementary school.  My parents had some of her albums.  I did not put much stock into the actual lyrics if they were offensive or whatever.  I just liked how her music sounded.

Although I suppose it is good that nowadays there is actual pop culture music kids can listen to.  All that britney spears, backstreet boys, chrwsi aguilera , nsync stuff...  You have to admit, the music itself does seem remarkably kid-friendly.  Back in my day, there really wasn't' any pop-culturally [[[[radio hits,, stuff that was actually played on the radio meaning adults also listedne to it..]]]  That's why I had to listen to Pat Benatar and Cyndi Lauper.  Great music, sure, but not really geared towards little kids.

Shout-Out To Nurses

*** possible incl the thing about my discovery about nurses??  and tr level of education nnn training they really need????  not surre....

Yeah, they don't screw around with the nursing program.  None of that college algebra crap.  They have to have actual math.  And none of that intro pre-chemistry crap.  They have to have organic chemistry.
-- They have to have more pharmacology than I realized.  They have to take anatomy and physiology.

This was possibly the slap in the face I needed to show me that I was wrong about nurses.  They are not just silly simpering little female "assistants" to the male doctors.  They actually have to know some stuff.

I apologize for not taking nurses seriously enough.  I apologize for underestimating you.

About "Partners" and "Single Mothers"

I am noticing a weird little trend in usage of vocabulary.

I notice that the vast majority of relationship advice articles and stuff say the word "partner" rather than actually defining the relationship.  This is the prevalent trend in women's mags, teenage girls' mags, celebrity mags, other crap.  They kind of mumble this "partner" nonsense because they "do not want to put a label on the relationship."

What the fruck?  Are you kidding me?  What the hell does the term "partner" even mean?  I remember being back in kindergarten and the teacher would tell us, "Find a partner to go out on the playground with you."

It is a term that a little kid uses to mean some light and fluffy playing partner.  It is nottt a term that a grown adult woman or man needs to use to indicate someone they are having sesss with.  There are already words that exist to denote a grown adult having sex with another grown adult.  Husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend.  A person you had sex with is not a "partner."  It's just some random person you had sex with.

Don't attach some useless misleading pseudo-label to it.  Just be honest about the nature of the non-existent relationship.  There is no relationship between the two people.  They are simply perfect strangers that happened to meet in a club bathroom and let their lack of inhibitions rule their behavior.  (No relation to that really fun TV show from the 1980s titled "Perfect Strangers" featuring one Bronson Pinchot.)

At least with complete sluts, they are being honest.  They know there is no relationship between the two sepp-people whatsoever to speak of.  They know that there is no relationship, no commitment, no meaning at all in their chance meeting.  What the hell are they?  Friends?  Business associates?  Family members?  Rolling stone fan club members in arms?  Nope.  There is no substance or quality to their physical intimacy.  They did not bother creating an emotional bond upon which to

In my opinion, if they are going to do that, they should just do it once with any given person and then move on.  Rather than keeping this person off as emergency "partner" contact and rather than pretending there is any semblance of a relationship.  That would stave off the embarrassment, awkwardness, and humiliation that accompany such interactions.  All of this has been documented in those very reliable sources of this type of information, namely women's mags.

At least sluts admit that with one-night stands, club happenchances, and the ilk, the two participants will exchange body fluids and then will be on their merry ways.  They are not pretending the two people are "partners."  They can then go about their business and forget that they ever met each other.

This is chronicling the gradual erosion of any hint of a genuine relationship.

I realize now that they are quietly switching to this catch-all term "partner" so that hyper-sensitive <<liberals>> are not forced to face facts of their own self-destructive tendencies.
So they do not have to confront the fact that they have no stability, no security in their emotional relationships.

I guess liberals screech and scream if anyone dares makes a mention of the fact that a sexual relationship is usually supposed to have some modicum of commitment and emotional bond.

======
There is a similar sorry trend following on the coattails of the aforementioned.  I notice a weird little thing lately in all news reports about the economy and demographics.  And also in women's mag articles.

They lump all mothers who are ->currently the sole provider or "legal guardian" of their respective family into one big huge lump sum.  They use this general bank term to collectively address alllll mothers that are not currently in a state of active marriage right this second.  As if they are all exactly the same.

This is even though simple facts dictate that the phrase "single mother" does not describe all these groups accurately.  "Single mother" does nottt apply equally nor does it define___
When I hear the phrase "single mother," I think of a crackwhore baby-daddy situation, wherein both the female parent as well as the male parent are stupid, irresponsible crackwhores.

"Don't you dare call attention to the fact that they royally screwed up their lives.  And also started off their kid on the fast track to disappointment and failure.  Don't you dare call them 'unwed mothers.'"

"Don't you dare make a distinction between widows, divorced women, and promiscuous idiots that got pregnant because they couldn't keep it in their pants."

They are subconsciously trying to convince people that all these wildly divergent categories are part and parcel of the exact same thing.  By using this same general phrase repeatedly, the media are trying to hypnotize people into thinking there is no difference between these vastly___

I think they are hoping people will forget that each of these demographic categories have very little in common.  There is a canyon of difference between the future foresight, life planning, and decision-making processes of each of these

It all comes down to the fact that they are trying to make single unwed mothers, i.e., dumbazzes, more acceptable in mainstream culture and society.  Just like how in recent years, this new-school pseudo-feminism has been trying to force people into accepting sluttery as normal behavior.  I suppose this follows hot on the heels of that one.  Since they strained constipatedly trying to make that one acceptable and welcome in polite society, this is the next step.  It is the consequence of sluttery.  Or more accurately, it is the next gradual move down the downward spiral.

On The Subject Of Race Stereotypes

All stereotypes exist for a reason.

All humor is based in truth.  Stereotypes are a type of humor; they work to diffuse aggravation and tension.
(((Very soon after this was when I realized that) all stereotypes are based on observable facts.  This is very depressing to arrive at this realization.

Unfortunately, all stereotypes are rooted in truth.  Similar to how all humor is rooted in truth, you know?  Stereotypes were probably drafted as a way to [[overcome, release]]]] aggravation.

Good lord, this was a devastating discovery to make.  That all stereotypes have had their foundations implanted within truth.  There are some pretty dark, sinister stereotypes, which I am sure most people know what I am talking about.  Such as those that state that black people have higher crime rates, are more violent, are more promiscuous, have more out-of-wedlock births, et cetera.

I can understand why so many people reject the accuracy of stereotypes.  Instinctively they are so very negative that they could not possibly be true.  However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel.  Looking into this subject a little more deeply, it turns out that not all stereotypes are "negative."

So many people want to call for the abolishment of ALLL stereotypes.  All across the board, no matter which stereotypes are in question.  But perhaps this is not necessary.

I have decided not to waste energy getting frustrated with stereotypes.  Look, stereotypes will always exist.  People will think whatever they want to think.  There is no point beating your sanity into the ground over other people’s perceptions.  At least I got one of the good ones!  There is the well-known stereotype that Asians are good at math.  Asians are excellent students, they strive for straight A’s, they strive for high SAT scores, they always study mathematics and science.

Asians are stereotypically more studious, more cerebral, more intelligent than the other racial categories.  Why on earth would I have a problem with the stereotype of the nerdy Asian who excels at math?  This is an excellent stereotype to be stuck with.  If there are going to be stereotypes, then this is one that I am glad to have ownership of.
They place education in very high regard on the scale of human priorities in life.
Hold [[[_notions, ideals of intellectual accomplishment, extracurricular activities___]]]] in high esteem...

We Asians like activities that broaden the horizons, that enrich one’s mind.  As well as enrich one’s worldview; that is, educational and cultural development.
People tend to look at me and automatically assume that I am intelligent.  I like that.  It saves me time.

Not So Much In Real Life

Er, actually, now that I think about it, I am really not seeing that much of this in real life.  Regarding the women I know in real life, I am not seeing the same self-destructive patterns.  Remember I attend a vocational technical college rather than a typical party school.  That means these people are serious about their futures, including the women.  Like myself, they are mostly in their early twenties.

Unlike the dumbazzs I keep reading about in the glossy magazines, the majority of them are married.  Married or engaged, mostly married.

I greatly admire and respect them for doing this.  This means they made the emotional commitment, they made the [[[emott]]] investment, and they took the plunge.  They found someone they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, they found love, and they went ahead and took care of that momentous step.  Now they just have to make sure the marriage works.  (It probably will.  Some of the older ladies in those same classes have been married for twenty years and stuff.)  I say that's good.  Why wait?

No more hemming and hawing, none of that mess about wringing their hands in agony.  Or dissecting every single syllable of conversation they just had on a date, or (roll eyes) wondering if the guy they had a one-night stand with will call.  (Heh, the weird stuff you find out from these magss.)

A legitimate question might be, “well, if’en you are not seeing this in your own real life, encounter it with real genuine tangible people, then why worry?”

The answer is, I can't just be cozy in my little cocoon of an enclave here.  I have to be aware of what’s going on in the world.  There is no reason for not being aware of it.  I can’t just bury my head in the sand like an ostrich, and pretend all that nefarious mess is not happening.

Naked Crazy People

There are those that say that being naked in public is a good thing, frees your inhibitions, lets you express yourself, is perfectly healthy, perfectly natural.

No, all that’s going on is that you're a freaking <exhibitionist!>

Stop acting as if your own perversions and personality disorders are somehow the pinnacle of human existence.  This is not "freedom."  You are simply a pervert who gets your jollies off of showing your private parts to complete strangers.  You are nothing more than the modern incarnation of the old movie hackney of a dirty old cump who wears a trench coat and walks down the street + flashes people.

Marilyn manson had a little girlfriend with whom, just a few short years ago, he attended some music awards show.  His girlfriend specimen was wearing something that, well, I do not think it can legally be called "clothing." This object consisted of a few strings strung like party banners from curtain sconces, on the front and back. This whatever-the-hell-it-was covered less than most shower caps. A long time ago, I saw a comedy skit on TV where some guy is getting out of a shower, and a woman hands him a little face washcloth as a joke. That washcloth offered more modesty than Marylin manson's girlfriend.

Courtney Love and her blacked-out-drunk-about-to-be-hospitalized-for-ODing-on-drugs-any-second-now-probably-not-for-the-first-time self shows up in public most of the time looking like she just stumbled out from a stint at rehab gone wrong. You know, whatever might have started out as clothes once in the distant past, but now is the tattered remains of dead dreams.

On The Subject Of Success

What is this whole thing we have in this society that wanting to be a success is somehow automatically evil?

As in, it is somehow evilly conservative and government-corrupt or something, a ridiculous argument like that.  We hear the terms “soapbox,” “morally high ground,” or any of the ridiculous arguments that lazy slacker types use as an excuse for the fact that they simply do not have any goals for themselves.  More importantly, they are unable to reach any goals.

What’s wrong with wanting to be the best in your chosen field?  What's wrong with aiming(shooting) [[[[squaring it in your crosshairs]]]]] to be the best you can be,
What’s wrong with competition, and with competing with others for a reward?  Or more importantly, how about competing for the distinction that you have genuine, honest-to-goodness talent, that you have the most talent in the whole group, and that you are the best?

What’s wrong with showcasing honest, respectable talent that is actually useful to society?  What is wrong with demonstrating that this can be applied towards doing something good for the world, improving the world's condition, acting on a local level and doing good for your community?  And proving that you can diligently work very hard to achieve your goals. ***perhaps use part of my sense of accomplishment, sense of belonging essay. -the good parts.**

What’s wrong with settings goals for yourself?  Yes, big goals, grandiose goals, (high standards), and wanting to be a success.
(include huge 'tirade', well not really tirade, more like inspirational lecture and discussion the way all my essays are.)

(((what is the true definition of success -- explain)))
Same ess as "accomp do not define a person"
Or "success has nothing to do with you as a person""

Uh?, actually it kind of does. // agn it has very little to do with money.  Eg, a very moneyed drug dealer makes more money than a poor drug dealer.  Does that make him more "successful"?  No, he's a goddamn drug dealer.

Let us refer again to the example of teachers.  ___If a teacher gives very clear, well-thought out explanations, provides excellent detailed well-organized notes, and is able to convey complex ideas to her students [[[very well; so that they understand)), then that is a successful professional.

About Praise and Appreciation

Apparently some managers and supervisors feel it is incredibly tiresome having to give employees congratulations for doing a job very well.

What's wrong with giving employees constant praise and positive feedback?
Lavish constant praise and rewards__
-I am an excellent worker.  I am a very fast learner...  I do not need to be const babysat to make sure I stay on task.  I can work with minimal supervision.  (As matter of fact, put resume qualities here)))

The only people that maintain that hard work is its own reward are those that don’t know how to say "Thank you."  Ungrateful a-holes that don’t want to show any gratitude, any appreciation for a job well done.  I fervently believe that if someone does an excellent job and does it consistently for a while, they have earned the right to be praised.  They should be showered with lavish praise and rewards.  Why the hell not?  What is this ludicrous attitude that we should not reward good work that generates good results?  That is crazy.  People should be rewarded for doing a good job.

We have all heard managers complain about employees that need to be constantly praised.  Well, if the employee constantly does good work, then what's the problem?  The employee has earned it.

Now, if there is a lazy employee who sits on its ass, and expects lavish praise the one time in a blue moon that they get off their ass and do work -- that is a different story.  I can understand simply firing that person and replacing it with someone who actually delivers results.

But I do good work and I expect to get recognized for it.

Management 101 Course

I was sitting in Management 101 class, and this dawned on me.

"Rewarding hard work with more work."  Hunh, interesting, I never thought about it that way.

But wait, hang on a second.  That makes sense to be a management style and philosophy.  It simply makes sense to reward hard work with more work.  If someone is the best at the job, it stands to reason that they would take on more and more responsibility for that particular task.

Of course, this means the company has to pay them more.  The company must compensate them justly for doing all that work -- give that particular employee a well-deserved raise.

"Everyone deserves a fair chance"?  I don’t think so.  If a person has demonstrated that they are the best for doing a particular assignment, then that is the best person for the job.  If another wants a crack at it, they first have to prove that they would do an excellent job.

Why is the whole entire media and social influence saying that people should be praised for effort only instead of actual results?  This includes general news of public schools -- students’ performance as well as teachers’ performance.

(This is when the first thoughts of efficiency occurred to me; that of, why reward someone for expending *more* resources, and *more* energy to get at the *same* results...  Just because they worked harder and used more effort, doesn’t mean anything if they arrived at the exact same _solution_

Hard work is good and all, the straining effort to complete tasks.  But, wouldn’t it be better option to be genuinely good at your job?  It would be most logical and reasonable to have some innate talent (affinity) for it in the first place.
and then hone it, refine it.  Bring that skill into laser-focus.

-let's say for example that there is someone exceptionally intelligent. And they solve a problem using straightforward logic, applying all necessary knowledge which they do possess, towards achieving a solution.
-Come on.  We are all scientists.  We understand efficiency.  We appreciate logic and reason.
There is so much irritating, blathering natter.
*Like in workforce e.g. -- Let us suppose that an employee of a business is a lot smarter, and they arrive at a feasible solution much faster, much sooner than some other employee.  Why do they receive less credit and less recognition than an employee that needs a lot more effort??

For goodness sake, my own town's public school district is distributing this little flyer/pamphlet thing out to kids' families, that orders parents, "do not just praise results, praise efforts."

On The Subject Of Atheists And Hell

I do not quite understand why atheists are so offended when religious types start doing the fortune teller number.  They say atheists are going to hell.

…But atheists believe that neither heaven nor hell exist.  They do not believe in God, correct?  As a matter of fact, they do not believe in any deity, whether culled from paganism, monotheism, ancestorism.  By the transitive property, a belief in deity necessitates belief in afterlife of some sort, for the immortal soul to reside.  By extension of this is an existence in either heaven or hell.  Souls are sorted into either eternal paradise or eternal damnation.

-But again, atheists do not believe in a deity, and it logically follows that they do not believe in divine judgment.  So by the process of elimination, atheists do not believe in heaven or hell, either.
-So these are essentially empty threats.  Therefore there is nothing to worry about.  So there is no need for atheists to feel so offended by this.

In Defense of Rednecks

Or mebbe make this one into the one in whixh I laud nn praise the fact that rednecks are becoming more socially acceptable. 
----
We are hammered on the head by the media constantly drilling this idea into our heads.  Middle-class whites are sooooo much more open-minded and educated than so-called lower-class whites.  Middle-class whites are sooo much more aware of the world.  They have far more appreciation for multiculturalism and diversity, et cetera, et cetera.

The media keeps trying to ingratiate into our cerebral meninges that lower-class whites are racist backwards mountain hicks, trailer trash.....

But let me heartily reassure you that this is completely untrue.

You know how there is a lot of racial tension and discord and all that crap?  Well, there is one place where whites and blacks come together in harmony.  The poorer economic classes.

I work at walgreens, and I see that rednecks are more friendly towards black people than middle-class white people are towards black people.  I see a lot of people in the media complaining about rednecks displaying insignia that bears the confederate flag, and these media sound bites then screech and scream that this is racist.  Uh, no it's not. 

I realize now that it is important to be more open-minded and rational when approaching this cultural trend.  As many southerners will tell you, the confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, hatred of non-whites, etc.  It is simply about southern heritage.  I see out in the parking lot at work, a redneck guy will___

I have noticed that rednecks are more accepting of interracial relationships than so-called "educated" middle-class white people are.

Rednecks and blacks have a lot more in common.__ with each other than do middle-class whites with average blacks.

the little kids here were a lot nicer.  Most of them were more friendldy ___]]]. My family used to live in a dinky aptt complex, but niw we live in a very nice midlw class neighborhood comprised of standard two-story houses aith garages and manicured lawns.
Hown, a lot of the kids here think teselves too good to play with my little siblings.

- I feel that oerhps in the poor neihrborhood, we got along better because we were all in the same boat.  We were all poor together, we had a similar dissatisfaction with life.

Whereas here in the nice standard middle-class neighborhood..... Here is the weird thing regarding attitudes of middle-class whites.  Even though here is no rational reason for them to feel bitter or resentful towards successful minorities, that is how they feel.  They are thinking, "how dare these foreigners come into this country and be educated and successful and affluent."  This is all even though these middle-class whites also have professional jobs as indicated by the fact that they can afford to live in this neighborhood, and their kids are enrolled in the same excellent school district.  Inexplicably, they are jealous and constipated at seeing educated, professionally-employed, successful non-white foreigners.

I see all around me that for the first time I have witnessed, white people and black people are buying clothes off the same racks.  Same clothing boutiques,, there is not so much discord and separation;; there is more harmony.  Their styles of dress are becoming very similar.  Flared-leg jeans with heels, brightly-colored shirts, big jewelry.  I think that's really cool.

Quite a few southern down-home country type people listen to traditionally African-American genres of music, a lot more than you realize. 

Also, it seems that rednecks are a bit mor acceptable in general popular cutlture  Justim timberlake proudly declares his southern rootss..

-------
Speaking Of Rednecks And Interesting People...
--in all the traditional four-year coolege campusis that i'VE been on whjere I have attendec ollege, the kids are boringf as hell.  this is regarding the regular colleges, not the technical college.

wher the heck aqre the weird drawn out college kids that have nose rings and listen to tribal music?  ((use excerpts from financial? essay in clemson abt sylvia plath, noserigns??.))
where the the gothy and punky and hippie kids?

if I can't have the wonderful. cozy, comfortably engulfing happy experience which I remeber from myt childhood speny amonthg the internqnational foreign graduate students who were my parents' peers, then at least let the [[collegte atmospher]]] impprt kids that are interestig.

where the hell is the multiculturalism?

I consider country rednecks to be very quite fascinating people, no sracarm meamt in the least.  they are married very yougn, they have useful career paths.  not a whiny phisliogpshy major in the lot.

Men Virgins vs. Men Sluts

Well, it is about time we start considering these classifications as applicable to men as well.  These labels can very well be applied to men's behavior as well.  I do not understand why people are apparently so loathe doing this.  I do not understand why people think that a male that is promiscuous, spreads diseases, causes unwanted pregnancies is somehow a "stud," "big man on campus," or whatever.

I can imagine that there is a grown-up responsible professional woman who is very dignified and respectable.  She is possibly in her early thirties.  She has enough respect t for herself to be fully-clothed at all times out in public.

Perhaps she does view men as being either virtuous and pristine and respectable, or as whores.  Either-or, just like how public society views women.

She is condescending towards men that do this because she knows that men have developed emotions that make them weak and vulnerable.  She considers men that do this to be broken and psychologically damaged.  Sorry, but men simply cannot divide sex from emotional contact without some loss and damage to psychological, emotional health.

Some males may brag that they can.  But she fails to see how this, ah, characteristic is anything worth bragging about.  They distance themselves from their own emotions, thinking that they are helping themselves, but they are not.  They put a concrete dividing barrier between their sex and their emotions.  How is this psychologically and emotionally healthy?

If a woman does it, it is not the same for the following reason.  They can get pregnant, which is sort of a price to pay, or a "punishment," if you will, for having had illicit sex.  This woman must pay a far higher price with her life than a man in a similar situation.  The male donor might just skip town, or he might choose to stay.  However the two of them decide to work things out in this situation.  At any rate, he would not have to go through the emotional and physical ordeal of pregnancy.  And he possibly might not even be in the picture by the time the kid is born and has to be raised as a child.

It's simply that males do not possess delicate endothelial membranes, nor delicate sensitive mucous membranes.  So it does not manifest physically.  They do not get inflammation of the ovaries or the uterine lining.  They do not contract as severe a case of human papilloma virus as females do.  But make no mistake, they are whores that have sold their soul to the culture of loose, commitment-free s-x.

So in this way, a woman can redeem herself for having been possibly promiscuous.  She wouldn't even necessarily have to model her life after the textbook definition of "promiscuous."  She might have just had unprotected sex once, and this one act of pleasure brought about a giant burden of sorts that forces her to have to become more strong and powerful.  For herself and for her offspring.

Some Art Gibberish: When Art Isn't Art

My tirade against that so-called 'artist' that too many people were trying too hard to search desperately in vain for some intelligible explanation, for some form of logic and reasoning.

Editorial writers are trying in vain to excuse away this guy's outward public expression of racism.  This all is what is known as over-analysis.

Maybe, just perhaps, this guy is not secretly being sarcastic by holding society's flaws and foibles up on exhibit to force society to face its limitations, thereby leaving society no choice but to improve.  Maybe, just maybe, the guy is just a racist piece of trash.

Dispelling Evolution Myths Prevailent In The Media

juxtapose btw two differnt --bridge-- essay topics:  1) mcw, 2) dispelling evolution myth of males being good at math and science.))))

I’ve been seeing all these assertions, ((declarations]] that males are really good at mathematics and science -and- that women suck at it.

But I have a hard time believing this is true.
*I have attended two liberal arts colleges.
*I know middle class white kids.
*I attended high school with a lot of them.

Here’s the thing.  None of the boys displayed particular affinities for mathematics and science courses any more so than girls did.

[[gGirls were serious about their grades.
true, nNot all of the girls were serious about math and science courses.

When I took the introductory Chemistry course in high school, I was the only tenth grader in that class.  The rest of the class was evenly divided into boys and girls -- all in eleventh grade.  Most kids waited until eleventh grade to take that Chemistry class.  The introductory Biology course was required for all tenth-graders.  Of course I took this course also.   Apparently the other kids thought the routine Biology course was enough science for them.  They evidently needed a break, so they waited until eleventh grade to take Chemistry.  I am not sure what else they took to fill up those spots (made empty by their putting off Chemistry) in their course schedules.  The vast, vast majority of kids at my high school did this.

**MEntion also Hon Physics courses.  I did very well throughout the majority of the semester, and earned an A for the course.  At one point in the beginning of the semester, the teacher made an announcement to the class in general:  "Please understand that if you are doing well in this class, you are in the vast, vast minority.
**Most of the kids in the school did not take AP biology or AP chemistry

Now that I am in college, I've completed the standard two-semester sequence of introductory Calculus-based Physics.  I earned an A for each course.  I will admit there were a lot more men enrolled in both courses than there were women.  But I did see most of their test grades and lab report grades -- Cs and Ds.
---
Has noone read the news lately?

American high school kids absolutely loathe, and I mean they positively hate-- studying the mathematics and sciences.  This goes for boyssss as well as girls.  They think it is incredibly nerdy.  They think it is hopelessly dorky.  They are more worried about getting drunk and smoking that crack (hehe) than they are about studying for difficult courses.  Anytime they are confronted with mathematics, they complain that "they will never need this math stuff in real life."

They are more worried about their current social lives, who is sleeping with whom, who is dating whom, whose house the party this weekend is taking place at, who is assigned in the suck-and-blow-line, etc.  They would rather play violent, sick, nauseating video games and go binge drinking.  Well, sigh.  It's not even "social lives" as in, people they are genuinely friends with and have an emotional connection with and honestly care about.  It's just drunken parties and crap.

So don't give me any crap about how boys are better at math and science than girls are.  The truth is they all stink.

Public Schools And Resources

I am reading several articles recently that reported outrage in unfair distribution of resources.  About how the obscure modern musicians keep saying, ""the schools do not have enough money; there are not enough resources,"" etc.

But wait a minute.  We did not have tons and tons of fancy "resources" back when I was in school.  The most state-of-the-art technology we had in grade schools while growing up was... overhead projectors.

We did not have fancy laser disc players, temperature-barometer scales with glass beads, or any of those other little fancy expensive glamour-curiosities you see on the mail-order shopping catalogues on airplane flights.  You know what I'm talking about, those privileged luxury items like mechanized electronic bird feeders or something.

Other than the overhead projectors, we had chalkboards.  In some classrooms, there were dry-erase boards that used markers to write with in place of chalk.  These showed up as an upgrade in fifth grade.  That was the extent of the technological marvel that teachers had at their disposal, and to which us kids were exposed.  And if I recall correctly the overhead projectors only appeared in high school.  They did not exist in elementary and middle schools.

Hmm...  Wait, maybe the commentators are on to something.  Now that I recall, we did have computers in grade school starting from way back in first or second grade.  We had the little Apple II computers with the green screen!  They were awesome.  We wrote and bound and print little books on them.  I remember now.  They usually displayed a very dark green screen with a neon green text in line-item format.  Once in a while we could go to a different mode/setting and obtain little pictures.  These were on a much lighter shade of green.

It had a separate disk drive thing, now I remember.  It was basically a word processor with a screen.  I don't remember if it had a mouse or not.  We had a unit of Creative Writing in which each student had to write and "publish" a full-length book.  We had to plan pages, illustrate the cover, and illustrate the story.  The stories were then bound and printed like actual books.

In almost every single elementary school I attended, this was the case regarding the computers.  There might not always have been a computer right in the same home classroom, but they were there on campus, perhaps in a computer lab.  (I recall middle and high schools.)

----
Some people are complaining that some school districts receive more money than other school districts, and that this is somehow unfair.  Some school districts are able to spend tons of money on new lockers, freshly painted hallways, new desks, new textbooks.  Whereas other school districts do not have enough computers in the schools or something.

But a small, obscure, hidden-away rare article told the whole story.

This article told of high school football players' parents who were actively involved in their kids' education, in one school district.  So it was a community-wide effort, not just solely the responsibility of the teachers.

Parents of those kids did tons of work to help the teachers and the greater district.  They did not just content themselves with letting the teachers do all the work.  They did volunteer work for whatever the schools needed.  Pitched in with their own efforts if ever the schools fell short.  They spearheaded fundraising efforts.  And if there were still requirements that needed to be met, the parents donated their own hard-earned money towards the schools' needs.  School supplies, classroom supplies, athletic supplies

This was a tucked-away unearthly gem revealed the whole story.  I am guessing the other districts that cried "nofair!" probably did not have nearly as much involvement or contribution from the parents and families.  So, no.  It is *not* "unfair" that that particular school district got more money than other surrounding districts.  Said district did not "get" more money.  They *earned* the money themselves through hard work and determination.

I recall that my own high school district offered AP exams for free.  That meant my district was very well-funded.  Well, who funded it, the fairy godmother?  No, the surrounding communities and neighborhoods which the school district served-- they were the ones that funded and supported the schools.

How to Value Creativity

Wait, what makes you think I don't place great worth in art, music, creativity?  (Because you don't encourg people to study in college.)  Uuh, ok, this is art, music, etc. we are talking about, correct?
The point that we are not [[[corroborating, seeing/meeting eye to eye__]]]] is this.  Sigh.  It is art, music, creativity.  What exactly is there to study?  You like art?  Go do art, then.  You just draw and paint, that's it.  You want to sculpt?  Go sculpt.

Some people might pipe up with the point that there is “technique” to learn.  Ehh...

In terms of covering basics like color blending, shadow, proportions, line weight, these "techniques" are not complicated.  I was blending crayons and colored pencils in pre-K.  I've blended paints.  No one had to teach me to do that.  I simply observed that the palette did not have a color I wanted; therefore I was going to have to make my own.  That's common sense.  I first sculpted pottery using clay in seventh grade.  It was a lot of fun.

Shading, texture, using different surfaces to produce whatever effect you want; a smooth, rough, or burlap feel.  There are methods to add sparkly, brittle-gritty surface to a sculpture.  Yeah, I learned that in elementary school.  It was a lot of fun.  I figured out a lot of other stuff on my own.

This is not particularly difficult to learn.  Even so-called “advanced” techniques are not difficult to master.  There exist art supply stores.  The materials have use-and-care instructions on them.  Modeling clay, too, can be found in art supply stores.  So can pottery wheels.  You just shape it into the shapes you want.  For the pottery wheel, make sure the clay is pliable and wet and squishy enough.  That’s it.

There is an introductory course in studio art, which probably mirrors the Advanced Placement- Studio Art course offered in high school.  They learn pottery-making, sculpture, something like that.  Again, not complicated.  Hmmm... I suppose art students have access to certain equipment that is not available outside of designated art class, like... a kiln.  That’s about it.

You want to write something?  Just write; that's it.  I learned how to be a writer from reading.  All the important aspects of learning how to write were already [[taught, trained instilled in me back in grade school -- elementary, middle, and high school.  In all honesty, college hasn't really taught me anything about writing that I did not already know.  In even more honesty, only about half the [[[stuff, pphhhtt use a fancyr wd, use $1 wrd]]] I learned about writing while growing up was gleaned inside the classroom.  I imbibed the other half of how to be a good writer by being a good reader.  I devoured, consumed books.

It is a creative outlet.  It supposed to be a time to relax, to let out your frustrations with the world.  Let off some steam, express yourself, all that good stuff.  A way to relax___
I think this is my main [[disconnect no concern no___]]]].  As strange as this might sound coming from me, I do not place great importance on "learning" art or music in a rigid and structured setting such as school.  You’re harshing my game, yo; you’re cramping my style, cuz.

It is pure self-expression.  The purpose is to dance and daydream and imagine and be silly.  There is no need to place ((impose) arbitrary rules on a [[purpose?? function no establisent no]]] that is not meant for [[[[rules]]].

Recent Grad Complaints

In the media, recent college graduates are complaining that they cannot get jobs.  The kids say, "there is nothing worse than applying for a job you don't want."

Uh, I personally do not exactly have a lot of sympathy for these recent college graduates.

But let us look into this a little more thoroughly.  I remember even back in high school, the battle cry was, "everyone should go to college!!!"  Even back then I figured out that this doesn't quite make sense.  All college degrees are not created equal.

Back in high school the obscure modern musicians were pushing allllll students to go to college no matter what.  There were these musical-comedy type inspirational videos we had to watch, that promoted the merits of college versus not going to college.  They listed average annual salaries for typical jobs requiring college degrees, versus salaries for typical jobs not requiring college degrees.  Tthe college jobs included accountant
--aerobics instructors.

It was admittedly good (((information, compelling__ evidence, statistics))  But they did not tell the whole truth.  At the conclusion of the videos, they did not state, “Pursue a degree in accounting or other math and science.”  Nope, they just said, “Go to college.”

I was reading some news-ish magazine article that was endorsing college for all high school kids.  And I remember thinking, “wait a minute, why are they promoting]]] ALLL kids to pursue 4-year degrees?  But they most definitely are NOTT specifying exactly which college degrees to aim for?”

All college degrees are not created equal.  What's the point of doing all that work in a college degree if it's all for naught?  You can't major in Philosophy and then expect to get a job in "philosophy" after graduating.

Now I find it even more absurd.

Well, too bad.  It's your own damn fault for not picking a substantial, marketable major.  It's your own damn fault for not looking at the job market, and not accordingly choosing a major that is genuinely employable.  You should have studied the job market carefully, followed trends in the news about which fields have the fastest growth sectors.  You could at least take a gander at news reports that go into minute, infinite detail on which college majors translate best into job security.  Oh dearie me, what am I saying?  If you were any good at studying, you would have chosen a useful major in the first place.

It's your own damn fault for being unrealistic and picking a useless <talkie> major like Philosophy of Art History.  Liberal arts degrees are a dime a dozen.  I have no sympathy for you.  Didn't you ever stop to think that if you have to devote four years of your life, and twenty thousand dollars of your parents' money -- that you should have done something worthwhile with your time?  Yes, it is your parents' money.  They had to co-sign on your student loans.  If you will not be able to pay those student loans back, which you probably won't, then your parents will be stranded picking up your slack.

It never occurred to you that you should have chosen an area of study that actually has a career path?

What, did you think that after getting a college degree, <any> given college degree, that [companies institutions]]] would just magically gift you with a job?  You thought they would be so [[phenomenally]] enamored with your royal presence that they would present you with a supervisory job title with a flourish?  These lib arts kids think they are gracing places of employment with their presence.  Bestowing businesses with their existence.

Science vs. Art, or On the Subject of Passion vs. Science

(A librarian told me she thought that scientists only use the left side of brain and that is why they are not good at art and creative stuff.  I have met quite a few people that are under this impression.
---
They keep saying, "choose something you are passionate about,' 'make sure it's something you really, really want, follow your dreams, show them how much you WANT it,' 'if you follow your dreams, anything is possible.'

There was even specific advice dispensed in a few different places.  "Don't feel obligated to study something just because it will earn money.  Don’t feel like you have to study something just because it is a job you have already heard of. _____
Choose something you are <passionate> about, like art or music or writing.  Or maybe you are passionate about people.  If you are enthusiastic enough, try hard enough, anything can happen, if you let it, you can make it happen.'
(Mentl also art and music programs bei cut from public schools due to funding.  Yet public schools claim they are trying to shore up the science and math curricula because the Russians went to the moon first or something.  It's like a double whammy of bad news that is eating these "passionate" people's shorts.
""Science stifles individuality""

"Strong Woman?" Ehh... Not Quite

Anyone else getting irritated beyond redemption by the media's constant, incessant use of the phrase "strong independent woman in charge of her own life?"

I hear that phrase so often now that I receive it with a mere yawn and an eyeroll.  And then I flip to the next page out of boredom.

Look, magg writers and editors.  You need to understand something about your chosen profession.  It appears you need a crash course on good writing.  You need to stop repeating the same exact phrase inj all of your articles, your answers to letters to the editor, your feature snippets on celebrities or whatever.  This trite, insipid phrase is being over-used as a solution for every possible hypothetical situation.
You're just giving your readers some cliched, rehashed, warmed-over banality, like day-old barbecue sauce that's been sitting out in the sun for the last eighteen hours.  It is usually either this or some very closely-related synonymous permutation thereof.

When that is your answer to everything, to absolutely EVERYTHING, to every possible dilemma and conflict that could confront any reader or any woman, it loses all meaning.  It is the same answer they use for trivial, inane crap, like one time a____  Same with that annoying cesspool of a TV show "seuu and the city."  They also hack this phrase to death, or some variation.

It just trivializes the phrase so that it no longer holds any worth.  It's like, okay, well, they use this phrase so much repeatedly for wildly divergent situations.  Therefore it could not possibly have any actual substance to it.  If a phrase is used over and over again, no matter what the actual subject matter of the article, then said phrase is worn out so much that it has lost any impact whatsoever.

That indicates that it is empty and fake, and it is simply presented for show only.  This is not quality writing.  People are just going to read it and think, oh good grief, that phrase again.

It's not just the phrase, I might add.  It is also the tone -- the harsh, lecturing, infuriatedness (I need a word stronger than “fury”) that conveys a weird emotion from the article writers.  It’s as if you are preemptively accusing anyone that does not agree with you, of being closed-minded and sexist and hating women.  I don't mind lectures in the general sense, but not from someone with an observed mental capacity lower than mine.

They like gardening?  They are a strong liberated woman.  They like masturbating?  They are "".  They moved to a different city recently?  They """".  They bought a lampshade recently?  They are """.  They had a one-night stand at a club with some random stranger dude?  They are """.

I keep seeing that same old, same old, and I roll my eyes in exasperation and boredom.  And I think to myself, oh for goodness' sake.  They're still using that tired, dead old schtick?  Those magazine people seriously need to find a fresh, new, original approach to their business.  This is bad journalism.

Not only that, but I find it incredibly *patronizing.*  It is as if they assume that their readers, or that the average woman, is too stupid to decide for herself whether or not some activity is truly empowering.  Thanks, but I don't need a goddamn glossy fashion mag to make me liberated, empowered, etc.

That is the other tone of the crappy writing that I could not quite place before.  So this is what is meant when an individual or a concept or opinion is patronizing.  Hunh.  It is the laughably condescending attitude that all these women's mags have.  They are furious because they are subliminally saying, "we are telling you what makes you a strong woman or not.  We are telling you what you should and should not be proud of.  And if you don't agree with this, then you are stupid and bad and conservative."  They think they are patting the general readership on the head.  They believe they have to do the thinking because readers do not have the cognitive capacity.

I say "laughably" because I don't buy it for a second.  I already know what is and isn't empowering.  I know from true feminism.  I know from my strong cultural heritage.  I know what makes me happy.  I know from my family and roots.  I already have an identity.  I don't need your pseudo, makeshift, pitiable, sorry excuse for an identity.

And I find it quite pathetic that these silly women's mags have taken it upon themselves to try to tell me what I should and should not have as my sociopolitical opinions.

Free Speech- Put Your Bravery Where Your Mouth Is

I've found that when people glorify the mob and mafia like they did with the "Sopranos" TV show and other violent forms of entertainment, they try to hide behind the so-called "free speech" defense.  I find that this is a constant, recurring glitch of nearly all movies and TV shows that center around violent crime.  However, it is usually a cover-up for the fact that they do not *truly* have freedom of speech.

You producers, creators, actors, etc. are so damn fascinated with the mob.  You say that it is a social problem that no one addresses.  You constantly defend your morbid obsession with mafia and crime.  You hail yourselves as some sort of social trailblazer, renegade,

But if you truly thought the mafia is a huge social problem that needs to have the spotlight put on it, then why don't you do a news report on the real mafia?  Go undercover, delve into the world that consumes your curiosity and fascination.  Go straight to the source and get your information raw and fresh.  Go do some digging and collecting and gather a great scoop.

Instead of addressing a real social phenomenon, you are merely glorifying it by presenting it as glamorous, sexy, desirable, and worthy of attainment.

This is not journalism.  This is BS.  This is what is creating social problems.  This is not bringing social problems to light, trying to raise awareness, or working on creating a solution.  This is not freedom of information.  You ARE the incidents that true journalism would be making people aware of as news pieces.  You are no better than the prostitution, drugs, or gang violence that we see on the six o'clock news.

If you are so damn occupied and worried about the mafia, if you think it is such a pressing social concern, then why don't you report on the *real* mafia?  Instead of glorifying it and in essence lying to the viewing public, why do you not do some investigative journalism and uncover the facts about the real mafia?  What's stopping you?

Ohhh -- it is because the mafia will not let you.  It is because the mafia will not allow you to do the news report.  It is because the mafia will murder you for exercising the constitutional right to having unbridled access to information.  In other words, you do not have true freedom of speech.
//After all, what good is free speech, if no one will hear you?

oliver stone's violence-obsessed movies.

then why the hell don't you report on that?  if youre so damn worried ab womn fgett rs , then why the hell don't you do an investigative journalism report on that?  yoiu know, like the news and increase awareness?

(For: why not do a journalistic pc on the real mafia?
They say___

Like Veronica Guerin.  Have you ever heard of her?  This woman had balls of iron (ferrous)))).  She had bigger cojones than the combined external genitalia of all you fake poser hollywd blockbuster wannabes combined.

Notice I said she "had."

So you *admit** that you do not have true access to information.  You do not have ___
____Upon threat of death, dismemberment, disembowelment__
You do not have access to information.
That is the case *despite* the fact that this is something that the general public definitely have a right to know about.   They drf hv a rtd to be fully infr on this thing that___
I read the news mags.  Thes people are vile flith.
They have an annihilating effect on society.  They are responsible for prrdn, prsti, dangerous stret drugs.
___they perpetuate...

A 'nooo want to show how truly violi the mob/maddffia is.'
Q Well then why not showcase it in all its mundaneness?
A 'well thnn. People really wdl not watch it; it has to be exciting.''

Ahh so in other words you fully admit that you would not have true freedom of speech if you really told the full unfiltered truth.  Noone would pay attnention; no one is going to care;; no one is going to [[__]]].  After all what good is free speech, if noone will hear you????

this is not journalism.  this is bs.  this is creating social problems.  this is not bringing social problems to light, trying to raise awareness, or working on (creating) a solution.  this is not freedom of information.  you ARE the incidents that journalism would be making people aware of as news pieces.  you are no better than the pr, drugs, gang violence.

American Psycho And The 1980s

The 1980s didn't have a soul?  Aggghh!  I was crushed!  The 1980s was all about heart and soul for me.

**(October)) fall is my absolute favorite season.
Perhaps this is because I grew up in New England, and fall there, or “autumn” as the kids call it, are positively gorgeous.  breathtaking scenery.  I reveled in jumping into piles and piles of leaves.  Golden colors, reddish-orange with a hint of brown, burnt sienna.
-- going trick or treating...

My parents traveled all the time.  Despite our meager [[modest]] resources, they made this a very big priority.  We could not afford airplane tickets.  So we drove everywhere.  (My parents did all the driving; I did not participate in that aspect of our travels.)

We went to see the Museum of Natural History very often.  I have an aunt and uncle and cousins who live in Maryland, and we would visit them quite often, a few times a year.  So we were basically a hop, skip, and a jump away from Washington, D.C. and all the tourist attractions it held.  I absolutely loved the Museum of Natural History.  It was so fascinating seeing all the huge skeletons from long-extinct animals hailing from time immemorial, suspended impossibly from the ceilings overhead.

The dinosaur bones!  If nothing else, you should visit the Museum of Natural History to see the dinosaur skeletons.  They are reconstructed and assembled, but I can imagine how fierce those dinosaurs were back in the day.

And yes, the rocks.  Ahh, all the natural formations, mineral deposits, and gemstones.  The Hope Blue Diamond has some sort of significance in history.  The rocks were very pretty.  Rather, they *are* very pretty.  It has been a few years since I’ve paid my respects, but I am sure they are still there.
-- the Smithsonian.
-- the Liberty Bell.,,, Philadelphiaa.
-- the Lincoln Memorial.
*** idea:  use/integrate my list of fun things to do, to travel and see historical sites and monuments.
_-Niagara Falls.  -traveling to Washington, D.C. and seeing all the sites and historical monuments,, _.  Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Boston.  We ruled Boston.

I learned a love of poring through maps and atlases and looking at globes.  My Mom had taught me the alphabet using a map as a springboard when I was one year old.

This fostered my love of geography, road travel, and highway engineering, hehe.  But seriously, I really do-- I like learning how bridges and highways are constructed.  Once in a while I enjoy studying this in terms of the pylons or concrete foundations.

Mostly I like looking at aerial photographs of bridges and highways.  My sense of road directions and understanding navigation are excellent.  I have a thorough grasp of how highways and infrastructure are planned, in terms of travel patterns and the designs of exit and entrance ramps.  Some of them are more straightforward, wherein they resemble a kneecap joint, but some are prettier.  It is fascinating looking at cloverleaf patterns of highway exits and highway acceleration ramps, the whole 270-degree turnaround.  Interesting, how the theory of "three rights make a left" is reflected in the turnaround loop to and from a highway.  Reminds me of rosette patterns of sin, cos, and tan that we learned way back in Algebra.  It is a nice hobby.

We were heavily involved in the local Bangladeshi community.  It was a wonderful environment being surrounded within this community.  [[perh hold off on the going into great deatil on the coll uni like oxford until the 'educational importance''' essays.]]]  These experiences fostered and engulfed a strong sense of identity within my family.  It instilled appreciation for my culture.

Warmly ensconced me in___  very welcoming, warm positive introduction into the world of academia.  oh wait, different essay.

The State Of Public Education In This Country

More and more information is being revealed on a regular basis regarding the title subject.
I was listening to NPR recently.  There was a discussion panel on why schools are terrible and why kids are dumber now than they used to be in prior years.

Apparently people are mad because teachers are not doing a good job disciplining kids in public schools.  Teachers are apparently not able to make the kids sit still and pay attention to the lesson.  People are mad because teachers are not actively holding the kids' interest in the subject matter.  Teachers are not engaging students.  Teachers are not teaching the subjects in a way that holds kids' attention.  Teachers are not making the kids want to learn.

But wait a minute.  Why is all of that the teacher's job??

I am not comprehending why the <schools> are bearing the brunt of all this blame.  This is about the following issues:
-Instilling a sense of discipline;
-fostering a desire to learn;
-paying attention to the teacher during the lesson, and not falling asleep in class.

This is about students having a good attitude and not being rude or disrespectful to the teacher.  This is about producing well-behaved, polite children who have manners.  Who treat the teachers with respect.  Who treat their peers, i.e., fellow students, with respect.  Conduct themselves with decorum.

These are all behavior and conduct issues.  This is NOTTTT the schools' job or teachers' job.
That is all the parents' job.  (And it is also the kid's own responsibility, I dare say.)

School-- reading, writing 'rithmetic. That's it.  That is all that the school is responsible for.

We are talking about the state of public education in America -- and what the REAL problem is.  Why is that the school's job???  Can someone answer me this?  Where are the parents?

Why is it the schools' job to establish a sense of discipline in the students and to compel them to behave themselves?  To show respect towards, and pay attention to, the teacher?   To display reverence for the learning process?  Why is it the school's job to grow, nourish, and nurture a thirst for knowledge?

The job of discipline, and fostering a civilized, functioning personality that can make positive contributions in civilized society.  These are not academic subjects.  These are personality traits.  That is NOT the job of the teacher to cultivate.  Those are things that PARENTS need to instill in their children.

Again, repeat after me.  Being a good person is something the parents need to teach, not something that teachers have to teach.

Parents must foster good study habits and good skills of concentration in their kid.  Parents must enforce the concept of paying attention in class and actually showing some respect to the teacher when the teacher is trying to bestow some education on them.  What about instilling a sense of respect for other human beings?  That is a character trait, not an academic subject.  Therefore that is something that the parent should be teaching to the child.  It is not incumbent on any teacher to cultivate a good respectful personality.  That is the parents' job.

We're not talking about just reading, writing, & 'rithmetic here.  We are talking about personality traits.  Kids should already come from a mindset that encourages a desire to study and value education.  Do well in school.  Parents must create a home environment that is conducive to learning.

I remember seeing a poster once that had the title, "Everything I ever needed to know, I learned back in kindergarten."  I noticed that the poster featured behavior and discipline, which are things that the Parents are responsible for, not the school.  These are things for which the parents bear responsibility, not the schools.

None of that is the school's job.  That is the parents' job.  Why are the parents shirking their responsibility?  Parents are dumping all the responsibility that should have been their own, out onto the public education system.  Raising socially conscious, personally aware and disciplined kids -- that is not the pub education system's job.  Reading, writing, and 'rithmetic are the school's only job (also, science).  The job of imparting values to the kids, as in actual values such as morals and self-reliance, is the job of the child's parents.

Extremist Conservatives Are A Contradiction In Logic

Conservatives are a contradiction in logic.  They say they are pro-life -- but they do not want to take care of that life once it is born.

I am probably the rarest of combinations.  I am socially rather conservative, but fiscally somewhat liberal.

Social conservative, fiscal liberal, educational liberal.
I don't believe STDs, teen pregnancies, or even unmarried pregnancies should happen.  I don't believe drug-dealing should happen.  I think education beginning at the kindergarten level needs to be a top priority for this country.  I don't just mean education as in the basics of reading, writing, 'rithmetic.  I also mean exposure to different thought systems, to critical thinking, to opportunities for discussion.

I don't see how anyone can realistically expect to be a social conservative if they are not also willing to spend the money it takes to keep society clean and structured.  Education costs money.  Public schools around the country need to be well-funded so that they can hire good teachers.

Sex education costs money.  People need to be told early and often all the information that exists out there for sex education.  These programs include tons of information on birth control options, all the different types, and where people can buy the items.  Most importantly, these programs inform students of all the documented statistics of success rates for each individual form of birth control.  If you have ever seen one of these lists, you will note that no form of birth control is 100% effective.  People need to be told this so that they can decide whether it is a good idea to have sex or not.  The instructor/teacher who teaches the students about all this needs to be well-trained, well-informed, and needs to be up-to-date on all current forms of birth control in drug stores.  The instructor needs to know what they are talking about.  Money is needed to pay a good teacher of sex education.  If the sex ed teacher is one of the regular teachers, which it usually is, okay then, fine.  Pay that teacher.

A police force to contain and prevent crime costs money.  Living wages cost money.  But to actively avoid investing in these things costs society a hell of a lot more.

This is why I do not mind paying taxes toward public schools.  This is why I do not mind -----paying **some** money towards welfare.  But only some.

Raising an educated, peaceful, enlightened, mentally stable population costs money.

-Education-- public schools.
--food basic nutrition, milk, cereal, eggs, beans, peanut butter,
There is a social program called Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC for short.
People need a little bit of help once in a while.
--and also, sigh.  People are human beings.  They might make mistakes.  We need a social safety net to absorb any missteps that people make.
Truncate them before they perpetuate any ricochet effects onto the rest of society.

I like investing in people.
--
The reason I am happy to do this is that I do not want to live in a society that eventually degenerates into a bunch of illiterate savages.

==
social conservative---

Remember how I said that people need a little bit of help once in a while?  I want to emphasize the phrase **Once In A While.**
---I am willing to help you, but you need to stop screwing yourself into a hole first.

Republicans And Pro-Life Discussions

I am noticing something strange.  It is a weird compartmentalization of two seemingly related topics that surround the pro-life versus pro-abortion cage matches.  I say "compartmentalization" because it seems that they are willfully refusing to reconcile two halves of the same coin.

These same right-to-lifers are the selfsame people who do NOT want to provide medical care and welfare for the children that they are so adamant should exist in the first place.

Are they willing to cover the medical care and health insurance expenses that these children need to be able to live healthily, and to be alive at all?  It is highly unlikely that the right-to-lifers support the concept of universal national health care.  What about the food that the child needs to eat?  What about the school supplies that the child needs?  What about the clothes and shoes that a growing child needs, and will need again when they outgrow the ones just recently bought for them?

It seems they vehemently insist on not seeing the disconnect that should link the two concepts.  They are purposely keeping the two floating ideas trapped away from each other like fireflies stuck inside two separate glass jars.

I find it interesting in a very bad way that the people who are the most vehement, austere, adamant about being pro-life -- are the same people that do not give a fat rat's ass about that life once it is out of the uterus.  This is what they call themselves -- pro-life.  But where the hell is the concern for that life once it has become an actual individual life outside of the womb, living and breathing in this universe?

*They want to cut funding to public education.

*They want to cut funding to sex education programs in public schools.  Some of them want to eliminate sex education from schools altogether.

*They cut finding to social welfare and money programs for poor black mothers.

*They want to cut funding and support to foster programs.

*They cut funding to public health programs.  They wish to cut funding to public resources for doctor office check-ups, medical care, medical insurance.  County, State, and city health departments.

What is the deal with this self-contradicting phenomenon?

It is ludicrous bs that conservatives screech, "it is precious life! It's babies! We're pro-life!"  But then those same conservatives don't give a s--- about what happens to that same fetus _once it is born_.  They don't care about it having enough food to eat, they don't care about it receiving medical care, they don't care about it receiving quality education.  It is laughable that they say they are pro-life -- but then they don't give a crap about what happens to that life once it is born.

You say it is an innocent baby?  Well, guess what -- when it is born, it is an equally innocent child.  Why the hell don't you want to support it then?

"Oh but abortion is not taking care of your responsibility..."  This is one of the weirdest and least logical arguments against abortion that I have ever heard.  How the hell is having an abortion not taking care of one's responsibility?  If the woman has weighted the pros and cons and has decided that the best choice of action is to get an abortion, if she has realized that she could not raise the fetus once it grows up, if she has realized that it would benefit herself and it would benefit all of greater society if she gets an abortion, then she is taking care of her responsibility.

"Interfering" and "getting involved" with the care of these patients. 

Yeah, well what about heart disease, kidney failure, high sodium, high-fat diets?  All of these things are also ultimately the patient's fault.  Yet I am predicting that you don't have a problem with trained licensed medical professionals helping these patients with whatever ails them.  The patients need the expertise and skill of the doctors then same as with abortion.

Okay, sigh.  I have been trying to be diplomatic and trying to avoid the elephant in the room for the entirety of this essay.  But that has gone on long enough.  All this talk about abortion, responsibility, etc. is supercilious, extraneous, unnecessary, and irrelevant to anyone other than the person that is pregnant.

The only topic that anyone else needs to know is that it is her body, her choice.  The number one concern is all that everyone else needs to worry about.

It is notttt a human being at that point, not by a long shot.  For goodness sake, when the woman is first pregnant, she often doesn't even know she is pregnant.  Don't pregnant women only realize they are pregnant when they are late on their period or they miss a period?  Don't they only get clued in that they should take a pregnancy test after that other major sign appears that disrupts their normal everyday lives?  She has no idea that a fetus even exists before she sees these signs.

At that point it is simply a zygote, and then slightly later a blastula.  A fetus at that term of development does not possess any of the vital signs of life that a normal human person has, up to and including actual babies.  If it is very early in the pregnancy, as in right after conception up to the first few weeks.  It is not even really a fetus yet; it is barely an embryo.  It is just a microscopic cluster of cells and little else.  You lose more body cells sloughing off dead skin with an exfoliating loofah.

Repubs want to slash social welfare and education plans out of the budget.

How come the same people that say they don't want to murder or hurt an innocent, sweet, helpless, little fetus -- are the exact same people that will eagerly let the innocent, sweet, helpless, little child starve once it is out of the womb?

Affirmative Action- Post Analysis

But this verdict seems so final and leaden and dead, like it is putting a concrete slab on top of a coffin buries in the ground.  It seems like lead deadening any and all hope for the future for black people.

This cannot be all there is to the emergency social [[[_concern, dilemma but more huge- crisis_]] that is the topic of black people's academic careers.

There has to be a more optimistic solution than this.  There has got to be a [[___policy, solution__ plan of ction]] that works.  There must be a realistic solution that addresses black students in high school____

I don’t think it is fair that so many people should suffer from poverty just to make the world more interesting.  I agree to the point that people, no matter who they are, should not look for free handouts.  Not the rich, who should work as hard as everyone else does rather than just coast through life.  Neither the poor, who should realize that they should work and be smart to the best of their ability, even if this helps them to just barely survive.

However, one must realize that the resources that are there to help people simply cannot reach everyone.  Some people just fall through the cracks -- people who need financial aid for education or putting their kids in a qualified, safe care center.  You cannot simply dismiss these people as lazy, dumb, whatever.

It may or may not be true that inequality breeds advancement, but whom does the advancement truly help?  Does it actually help the people who are poverty-stricken, or does it just continue to benefit the super-rich?  The world is not just there for us to just sit and accept the way it is. If we have the power to change the cruel and unjust, then we should.  I might sound like a lecturing parent, but I say that we have a responsibility to not just let the world go round.

Affirmative Non-Action- English 102

This is a follow-up to that term paper essay for my English 102 course.  That assignment was supposed to be the culmination of a semester of work.  It began with tons of pre-planning research, gathering articles as works cited before we even began writing the actual essay.

In hindsight, I now realize I was going up against Goliath in an impossible challenge.  Sigh.  For the duration of the assignment, I could not think of a single *logical* argument as to why affirmative action should continue to be a defining policy in college admissions.  Or for personnel policies at companies, or anywhere else for that matter.  All I knew was that I <wanted> it really badly.  I had a very strong *emotional* reaction to the outrageous posit that affirmative action should ever be eliminated.

But not a very coherent *logical* one.  Ohmigosh, I struggled to compose that essay.  I could not think of a single logic-based argument as to why a kid from a poverty-class background in a bad school district should be ushered in to standard college courses ahead of a more wealthy white kid.

The very first things I considered were the many objections to eliminating affirmative action.  Such as slavery.  Such as the Civil Rights struggle, Jim Crow laws, racism, separate water fountains and lunch counters.  Yes, I know all that.  Sigh.  I am well-informed on all those gruesome historical facts.

Unfortunately, I arrived at the unpleasant truth.  What does any of that have to do with modern-day prospective college students?  Taking all that into account is not going to magically make this kid a good college student.  Again, that is all an *emotional* reaction to this gigantic conundrum, not a logical one.

Let us suppose there is an African-American kid from a not-very-privileged background.  He did not have the benefit of attending a school district with good standards of education.  His literacy and mathematics skills are not great, and when he graduated he was performing academically far below national standards expected for an average high school graduate.

Perhaps his high school did not offer college-preparatory courses.  Or perhaps his school did offer them and he did enroll in them, but the teaching and notes in those classes were woefully below national standards.  Possibly the teachers did not have the training necessary to teach the courses in their entirety.  Or, the below-average comprehension of the collective group of students prevented the teacher from moving at a swift pace.  Remember that a teacher has to make sure the majority of students master a concept before she can move on to the next concept.  *These are all documented reasons that the news bites give us for why inner-city kids did not have good education.

We are told that supposedly admission to a good college is his one shining golden hope for a better future.
-But let us consider all the facts.  This kid did not attend a high school that offered standard classes that are considered prerequisites for college.  The public grade school district, for whatever reason, hindered this student's progress.  His high school truly did not prepare him for the demands of a college-level curriculum.

If this is truly the case, then wouldn't a remedial course of study be a far better solution?  That would be a far more realistic avenue for a kid from that kind of background to pursue, at least for the time being.  That is the plan of treatment that would serve this kid the best.

Allowing this kid into standard introductory freshman-level college courses is, plainly put, setting him up for failure.  So this is what the phrase "setting oneself up for failure" means.  To me this has always sounded like just another one of those abstract, elusive, equivocal, short, clever-sounding fluffy expressions people say that ultimately mean nothing.  But here we finally have an example to illustrate this.

He simply is not going to be able to handle the rigors of calculus or even College Algebra.  He will not be able to handle standard college English 101, argumentative writing, etc.  Ushering this kid into routine freshman-level courses is, to put it bluntly, cruel.  Doing that would be completely ignoring the condition of his educational foundation.

Remedial treatment would be the best plan for the kid’s own sake.  He still needs the foundational groundwork.  He needs to learn the basics.  Because of his situation, what he needs most is to [[[writi intensive, shore] up, beef up___]]] his [[[academic capability]]]] *before* being released out into the wild of regulation-grade college responsibility.

In addition, we need to address the topic of white kids that have grown up in poverty.  Poor white children do grow up in trailer parks, and other dangerous poverty-stricken neighborhoods.  They have been every bit as disadvantaged in their course of education as poor black kids.

They are not any more privileged than poor black kids.  Many of them also do not come from stable, loving homes that encouraged academic success.  They probably attended grade school in districts that performed woefully below national standards. 

Is it justified that under current “affirmative action” policies, these kids are denied a fair chance at a decent education -- just because they are white?

If any sort of “boosting-up help” is available to kids, these policies cannot and should not be race-based.  This is cruel and unrealistic.  Now, in full confession, what I stated earlier also stands, regarding poor white children.  Affirmative action is a bad idea because it is setting them up for failure.  For whatever reason, poor white kids did not have access to college-preparatory education.  Therefore, like poor black children, they will not be able to handle standard college courses.

About Abortion And Responsibility

*** I do not understand how republicans think that someone getting an abortion is nottt taking responsibility.
**  teen pregnancies were at an all-time high back in 1994.  I seriously doubt the rates have decreased drastically since then.  My question is, who in the world is possibly helped by forcing all those idiots to carry those pregnancies to term?  ((This is not a sexist-against-girls thing.  The idiot teenage boy is pregnant aslos.)))))()()
-- the fetus sure as hell is not helped.  [[[[ smtt like, they are idiots that hd sxx and got pregnant as teenagers.  It's not liek they will turn into wonderful great parents._]]]]
***  teenage pregnancy is a horrible idea.  You know how one of the hip new buzzwords nowadays is ""controversial?""  Everyone and the kitchen sink loves talking about how they love controversial stuff.  Well, teen pregnancies are not controversial.  Nobody likes it.
-- illegitimate out of wedlock pregnancies.
***  sigh.  Look.  They have not shown any responsibility up to this point.  They were stupid enough to have sxx, they were stupid enough to get pregnant.  And now, what?  You republicans think they will magically somehow morph into responsible mature citizens by having a small offspring flung at them?
** let us look at his another way.  They were stipd engh...
But now for the first time, they can exercise some responsibility.  They can do something mature and responsible for once.  They can nip it in the bud.  At this point it is not a human life yet.  It is a zygote or a blastula. They can get rid of it now before it reaches the biological maturation stage at which it is definitively a human life.

Here is an analogy that is weird but works.  It’s like when parents decide to teach their kid responsibility... by getting them a pet.  Uhh, so you are saying your kid is irresponsible...  So why in the world are you throwing a poor living thing in front of your irresponsible kid?  You are hoping then to remedy this problem that way?  That is a horrible idea.
___
I have been studying this weird phenomenon of abortions and who is getting them as an aspect of human psychology and behavior.
--- It seems that all the reasons they would be horrible parents-- are the selfsame exact reasons they should just get an abortion in the first place.

They succumbed to lust, infatuation, their primitive urges.  They are incredibly poor planners, they are irresponsible.  They did not think ahead to the consequences of casual sex; they did not think about the risk of becoming pregnant; they did not think of the huge responsibilities and enormous task and burden of raising a child.
--- They are immature and stupid-- which is why they were dumb enough to have sex without thinking about the consequences of having that sex.  This lackadaisical attitude unfortunately would probably carry over into their approach to raising a kid.  They would make stupid decisions as parents....  They would be careless, neglectful, miserable.  I.E., they would not be "raising" their kid at all.  They would not have any semblance to being truly dedicated, loving, caring parents.  All the reasons that they had a baby out of wedlock and were stupid and irresponsible -- are all the exact same reasons that they would be terrible parents.

None of this occurred to them at the point in time at which they decided to initiate the acts that create a fetus.  So now, as a last minute effort to execute some semblance of responsibility, they should get an abortion.

-- Also I notice that a very common reason cited for these people to have an abortion is that they are in dire financial [[[_situatin__]]].  This means they cannot support a child, cannot provide for a child, cannot provide for all the necessary commodities required to raise a healthy child in this world.  A child needs healthy food, access to adequate healthcare, buying school supplies for their kid.  They cannot handle it.  If that is in fact the case, then they should just do themselves a favor and get rid of it.  Nip it in the bud.

Since we are talking about abortion, we have to cover the following also.  I know this is disgusting.  I know this is nauseating a topic to bring up.  But we are talking about abortion here, so this subcategory is going to have to be addressed.  If is a matter of rape/abuse, or to save the life of the mother, or is it conclusively determined that there is a severe congenital defect in the fetus, then the pregnant woman has full scope of right to terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses.

Listen, repubs, you cannot bury your heads in the sand and pretend that these crimes did not happen.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out this obvious fact.  None of us human beings get to just hide and pretend these crimes against humanity do not take place.  The fact of the matter is that all these horrifying sick crimes exist.

I don't think there are too many cases of a pregnancy resulting from rape wherein the woman would want to keep the fetus.  As it is the results of a gruesome vile crime, she has every right to make that choice.

Let's get something straight.  If it might not have been the specific act of violating a human being during the act of, she still might have been forced to become pregnant in gruesome circumstances.  It might be an abusive violent relationship or marriage, and this is where the fetus was conceived.  The woman would be well within her rights to terminate the pregnancy.  Nobody on the planet has a right to tell her that this is somehow "not taking care of your responsibility."  You republicans sure as hell don't get to tell her that she has to keep the product of a crime alive and growing within her body, just to prove some bs notion about fake responsibility.