On the Subject of Passion for Science

Students should major in something more practical that will actually get them a job when they graduate.  Students should not really major in liberals arts- is not worth the time nor money spent in acquiring it.

A lot of unrealistic head-in-the-clouds types hurl crazy accusations at the people proposing this (solution.)  One of the craziest, most baseless is that people who advise “math and science” do not appreciate the liberal arts.  That the useful-majors-promoters do not value the creative process.

But what they are REALLY saying is that scientists do not have passion for their work.  Now, I realize that statement appears to have come out of jagged left field.  It is as if I simply truncated the conversation, jumped up in the middle of it, and leapt to a completely different branch on a completely different tree.  But just hear me out.

They say science is too structured, too strict.  They say that because science and math only has right or wrong answers, therefore it does not allow for the full range of someone’s creative mountaintop of potential to flourish.  Everything is either/or; there is no room for discussion or opinion.  They accuse science of being too strict, too austere, too restrictive.  They say that studying science somehow does not allow people to reach their free spirits.  They claim that science classes do not engage students or encourage them to want to explore their wonderful unique selves.

They claim that on the other hand, apparently liberal arts courses do a great job allowing full class participation.  (((sci does not))) fully engage students.  ((sci does not))) welcome them in to [[[actively participate in the discussion.]]]]  (((does not))) allow students to express themselves.  or to fully allow their artistic expression.

Are.  You.  Freaking.  Kidding.  Me.  This is patently, positively, false.

{scii} courses do a great job encouraging___  and the students have a wonderful exchange of information, exchange of ideas,___
{liberal arts} students actively contribute to each other’s learning and thinking processes.  Studying science fosters an environment of lively, warm, welcoming everyone in.

Whereas, lib-arts people are under the impression that science does none of these things.

Scientists have every bit as much dedication for their work as any editorial writer.        passion.v.v.
They heartily approach their work with the same amount of enthusiasm.  They pour fully as much heart and soul into their work with as much zest as any art gallery painter or as any symphony composer.

I went into science precisely <>because<> I am fascinated by molecular processes of life.  I relish unlocking the mysteries of the universe.  Reveal to me your secrets.  I want to discover anything and everything.

they value ___.  they approach it with gusto.  [[they throw themselves into the work]]]]

Sure, there might be brief moments of tedium.  After assembling an electrophoresis apparatus and arranging it to GO, there is not much to do over the next forty-five minutes.  Or setting up a PCR machine to cycle for 64 rounds.  This can consume quite a bit of time.  Better find something fun to occupy you during that waiting period.  Unless you decide to study during that time.  Or maybe go ahead and get started on your lab report.

Evolution Not By A "Just And Loving God"

This is some weirdness that has always -- no, *never* sat very well with me.  (Hehe, that's from "Monsters, Inc.")

As far as the claims that evolution would not possibly be enacted by a just and loving god.  You know, because evolution is cruel and ruthless and pitiless, and supposedly a doctrine such as this could not possibly have been thunk up by a loving, benevolent, magnanimous God.

Erm, don't fundamentalist religious types always say that we should fear the wrath of god?  Both fundamentalist zealot Christians and fundamentalist zealot Muslims make this claim incessantly.  They are constantly saying that people are all sinners and we need to cast the devil out of us.  We should all burn in hell for the sinners that we are.

That doesn't sound like a just and loving god to me.  Does no one else remember the stories of Moses?  Recall the adventures of Jonah who was swallowed by a whale?  How about the story of Abraham who was ordered to sacrifice his own son?  That god was pretty wrathful and vengeful.  The Bible especially The Old Testament, as well as the Quran, are chock-full of stories where people dared defy the will of God, and were met with their swift demise.  You can't just start mentioning Jesus being a peaceful person and pretend this negates the whole entire of the rest of the Bible.

If one happens to genuflect to this faith, then one has to consciously acknowledge what is actually written there.  The God of the Bible and Quran (same God) is a jealous, wrathful, vengeful God.  This is a rare instance in which science and religion actually agree with each other.

So if you really do believe everything about god that was written in the Bible or the Torah or the Quran, then the strategy of evolution actually does fit in perfectly with that God.  Strange occurrence, but we are witness to the fact that it has happened.

Grow Up For Real

Re:  the waking up in a stranger's dorm room not knowing what happened the night before or with whom, the failed breathalyzer tests, the screwing around that is rampant and epidemic.  And these gullible, astonishingly stoopid young females are claiming that this is how they are trying to find their identity and this is them trying to grow up.  And they accuse anyone who has a problem with this morass of "not wanting them to grow up."

Oh, for Christ's sake.  Don't give me that crap.  Don't insult my intelligence with that crap.

Wrong.  I DO want you to grow up.  I want you to learn responsibility for your life.  Learn how to manage checking and savings accounts.  Get a college education, get a job.  Realize that you will have a future life beyond the here and now, and you need to prepare for it.  Learn to respect yourself.

I was in the college library and I was staring at the cover of "Ms." magazine.  Well, half that and half staring off into space.  And in a hale and blaze, I realized why all these silly little females were engaging in all that self-destructive behavior.  The binge drinking, drunkenness, the drug abuse, the tattoos, the piercings in very delicate sensitive personal private places.

As long as we're on the subject of tattoos.  What is up with all these "butt tattoos," which is what I have monikered them, popping up on young females that evidently want to draw the whole entire world's attention to the top of their butt cracks?  Do they think they are challenging society's pre-conceived notions of women... by getting tattoos in personal private places?

Because I'm seeing these popping up all over the place nowadays.  Not that I am actively looking for them; I will be just innocuously minding my own business perhaps browsing through a sale rack at a clothing boutique, and I will happen to glance to the right -- and there will inevitably be but a "butt tattoo" staring me in the face.  They are kind of hard not to notice -- the females call attention to these tattoos by wearing reeeeeeaaaaly low "show-your-butt" jeans in tandem with reeeeeaaally high short too-small shirts.  I have managed to keep my shocked shrieking to a minimal decibel level.

In one of my classes, this one girl who is not particularly svelte happened to sit in front of me a couple times.  And every time I looked up from my notebook to look at the Prof and the chalkboard at the front of the room, that damn thing will ambush my line of vision.  Good god, man, it's like getting lemon juice squirted in the eye every time I look up from my books.  I try to keep the outward expression of cringing down to a minimum.

Mercifully the weather is getting a little colder and I make an effort not to sit behind her, so I do not see it as often now.  But I feel sorry for her future classmates in the spring semester.  Actually to be honest, her male classmates probably enjoy it.  And let's be even more honest -- that was probably her aspiration -- to please males and gain their approval by sexually objectify herself.  Let me be brutally honest yet again -- I am surprised she's even in this class.

Back to seriousness.  So this is what you think construes grown-up behavior?  They are under the impression that this is how grown-ups behave.

They don't much care that their rebellion, as it were, is dangerous and possibly deadly.  Blood alcohol poisoning, fatal car crash, the risk of drunken rape.  Stranger than that is, they don't even realize that this is not grown-up behavior in the first place.  They think that this delinquent mess is the entirety of being grown-up.

An average human lifetime follows thusly:

Childhood -- Rebellious adolescence -- Boring responsible adult phase
                                      ^
Wild teenager types do not realize that a stage of psychosocial development exists beyond this point, which is their current stage.  They truly seem to be locked in a worldview that only two stages of life exist-- childhood and rebellion.  They have reached the later one, rebellion, so they think they have achieved adulthood.

This is all because they are not *truly* grown-up.  I have finally figured out why teenagers think that drinking, drugs, promiscuity, general stupid irresponsible rebellion that only harms them and has no other outcome.  (I remember seeing that stoopid ms magazine cover and suddenly sprung from this theory.)  They think that this constitutes adult behavior.  Teenagers rebel against their parents and challenge their parents' authority, rules, anc control over the teenagers' lives.  Whatever parents tell teenagers not to do, like sneaking out late at night, going to drunken parties, getting drunk,

They think that simply by dint of questioning some authority figure in their lives, this automatically makes them grown-up and mature.  They think that breaking the rules,

Never mind the fact that the rules exist for good reason.  Parents don’t set rules for their children just to ruin the kids' lives and prevent them from having any fun.  Parents set rules because they would like to avoid having to encounter their child bearing a toe tag and having to identify the body at the scene of a drunken car crash or at the morgue.

Never mind the fact that this behavior is self-destructive, dangerous, etc.  The teenagers are questioning authority, and they think that is all that is required for the honor of being considered grown-up and responsible.  They think this is the extent of expectations that constitutes being a grown-up.

And just totally cast out of your mind the fact that teenagers are not grown-up in the least.  They do not take care of their own finances or bills, they do not manage their own money, they do not cook their own food, they do not run their own households.  They would have no idea what to do if their parents ever agreed with the teenagers and truly let the teenagers "run their own lives," as is the usual insufferable request from said adolescents.

I finally figured out that this is the sort of thing that un-grown up teenagers think is mature and adult.  <They> think that it is grown up behavior.

They don't know that there is a world beyond their immediate gratification -- because they are too shortsighted to see this.  They do not seem to realize that binge drinking and letting complete strangers with electric needles near private anatomy parts -- are not skills that will serve them well in the future.  They are so shallow in their vision that they don't realize that frat hos chanting "chug-chug-chug" at a job interview probably won't get them that job.  I don't imagine there are a lot of banks that view shooting heroin as a good reference on a mortgage application.  The fact that they do not realize any of this -- proves that they are not grown-up.

They think that screwing around and destroying one's medical health are emblems of growing up.  They seem defiantly obtuse to the fact that this incredibly narrow worldview is in fact point-blank-evidence that they are not grown-up.

They think all this -- precisely because they are NOT grownup.  They are not truly intelligent, reasonable, or responsible.  They are not truly rational or logical.  This is the sort of behavior that non-grownups, adolescents, think is mature grown-up behavior.  Real adults know that in truth it is destructive, damaging, and irresponsible.

Real adults know that in truth it is destructive, damaging, and irresponsible.

The Pervasive Epidemic Of Liberal Misogynists

I realize now that liberals are not any smarter___  This is especially regarding extremist liberals.

they are not any better at [[[somegn along the lines of, they are not any better at weighing the pros and cons of decisions to make.  not any better at analyzing___]]] [[[or not any better at analytical thinking___]]]]]  [[[not any better at critiquing]]]

It’s just one extreme -- traveled to the other extreme.  They simply went to the opposite end of the spectrum.  This is a particularly devastating realization that extreme libbs are every bit as misogynistic as extreme religious conservatives.

I was watching that ahole billmaher and I realized something, about him and all the other so-called self-proclaimed "liberals" he invites onto his show.  They do not give a flying rat's ass about women's rights.  They are simply promoting [[loose morals]]] women___  Same with that irritating "rolling stone" magazine.  "Rolling stone" is definitely considered liberal.  But they adamantly, vehemently promote loose morals, "free love," sex, drugs, and some rocknroll.  None of which is particularly beneficial to women.  Look at the sort of trash they feature in their magazine.  So-called spring breakers with its alcohol-fueled r--pes.  The interviews with er, musicians (paperwork terms only) with their commentary on how they view women and sex.

It is ludicrous that liberals [[call attention;; criticize religious fundamentalists for having outdated views about women.  They say that zealot fundamentalist religious types are backwards and oppressed in women's roles in society and women's place.

They say that zealots do not regard women as whole, healthy human beings.  They say that religious extremists do not see women as being equal to men.  Okay, fair enough.  But in the same breath, these same liberals say with a straight face that prrnn and prostit are okay.  They are not doing a great job hanging on to their credibility when they turn around and say strippers are somehow okay because of "free speech."

Are you kidding me??

Spouting empty platitudes-- about how the religious types are oppressing women.  You have to really dig deep to get at these liberals' underlying intentions.  Really get in there and inquire, dig and delve.  Get at the raw gummy squishy pink innards of their minds.  It is much like an archaeological digging expedition.  You have to shove aside a lot of sand and dirt, meaningless fluff to reveal the true motives.

Where exactly does this selfless, magnanimous generosity on the part of the liberals, originate?  This takes a lot of prodding and goading to get these so-called liberals to be honest.  Do not be content with their rote answers of, "oh relig types oppress women from being liberal."  That is obscure, [[[bland]]]], and basically meaningless.

Ask for specific answers.  You should be asking for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Here is another very important distinction.  Insist that they provide concrete examples of what exactly they are "liberating" women towards.

This all is a two-part question -- this topic of how exactly they claim to be helping women.  Not only should you investigate what they claim to rescue women from.  But also investigate, what exactly are they liberating women for so that women can go ahead and do???

They are simply treating women as sxxx objects.  Nothing else.  It is not any more profound than that.  They are reducing women to less than the sum of their parts.  Or rather, less than the separate assemblage of each of their parts.  They have made it quite clear that they could not care less about career or educational advancements for women.  They see women as just sex objects and nothing else.  They laugh about r--pes at concerts; they laugh about those aforementioned pseudo-musicians hanging out at prno houses or whatever the hell those are called.  It is plainly evident that they do not see women as having any purpose other than serving as pleasure toys for males.

They don't seem to show a whole lot of gusto in support of *actual* women's rights.  I am talking about things like education, career opportunities, women entering the fields of science and medicine.  I am talking about women being elected to seats in city council.

I detected a pervasive throwaway tone in which they discuss all the other important issues that women face in the world of today.  They should be talking about voting, they should be talking about breast cancer research.  They should be talking about stricter laws against domestic violence and r--, as well as stricter enforcement of said laws.

But any time an important topic such as those is mentioned, the commenters casually say, "yeah, yeah, great.  Now let's get back to seccal liberation."  They keep talking about sddd liberation.  That seems to be their main focus.  For some reason, they always steer the conversation back to promiscuity and promiscuity alone.  Even more sinister, they keep endorsing activities that traditionally have always been seen as degrading, demeaning to women.  This has become more and more apparent as billmahar's show has aged.

Yeah, right.  Prostitn??  Prrnrn?  This is somehow supposed to be a good thing?  What about risk of STDs?  What about risk of unwanted pregnancies?  What about just having high standards and morals for oneself?

What it truly is, is treating women like pieces of meat.  It is objectifying women.  It turns out that these "liberals" are exceedingly misogynistic.  These "liberals" are shockingly anti-feminist.

I also realized that the only reason “liberals” put up a pretense of being in favor of educating women is that they think this is the "price" they have to pay for having access to loose, commitment-free, strings-free sxxx.  This is the only reason they believe for truly uplifting women **at all.*  They are simply "putting up" with women being independent and intelligent and self-sufficient.  They are merely tolerating women being actually financially independent and women being [[[__able to take care of herself.__]]]

It is obvious that to them, the idea of women being ___ is so unpalatable, so (undesirable), that they expect to be able to____
They automatically assume that this should happen.  They think that this is somehow an equal exchange in the space-time continuum of the universe.

The skeleton is out of the bag.  They have betrayed their loyal, dedicated followers.  These "liberals" have profoundly disappointed people that thought that they were on the same side as they.  These liberals have violated trust, and instead left only shock and fury.  To put it bluntly, they have been lying all this time.  Deceptively, sneakily leading the public to believe that they were for the women's fight.

Remember that one part in “The Lion King” near the very end where Scar suddenly turns on the hyenas?  When it came right down to life or death, Scar suddenly screams that the hyenas were the true enemies and he was just an innocent little pawn.  But before this, the hyenas had been his loyal, dutiful, devoted subjects, hanging on his every word, eagerly collaborating with him in the belief that they were allies.  Now with this disclosure of his true priorities, the hyenas bare their shiny, gleaming teeth in disillusionment.  And then they murder him. (In case it’s too obtuse, I am one of the hyenas in this analogy, and the liberals are Scar.)

I thought we were comrades in this sociopolitical fight against injustice.  Liberals were supposed to be the good ones.  Isn’t that what they have been preaching all this time?  They were the ones that hailed positive social change.  They were the ones that enacted revolution of feminism and civil rights.  They were supposedly the ones that rallied against women being treated like seerrr objects.  I thought they were walking with us, hand in hand, in unity fighting together for a common good cause.  But then it turns out, no.  It is now obvious they having been stringing us minorities and women along in pretense of teamwork and camaraderie.  All this time, they were just putting up a façade.  And now their true nature is revealed.

These so-called "liberals" are the true hypocrites.

Why I Am No Longer An Environmentalist, Next Part

I already know that a human being always takes precedence over an animal.  I am more than OK with animal testing for medical purposes.  I am NOT OK with testing makeups cosmetics on animals.

Recently, I have come upon some very compelling and very relevant information.  Environmentalism is actually rather racist, when you really look and analyze all the facts.

Upon first glance this might sound like a crazy assertion to make, but that is only because it is a [[trumped-up]] sound bite.  Study this in more depth and you will see what this means.
I am aware that that sounds like some weird-ass twisting of political correctness with poli inc ____ into something ____

- worrying bt rain forest deforestation in tropical countries.
-- let us [[[ observe, ponder__]] at thsi phenomenon a bit more closely. ____ tropical countries with lush vegetation ____ many of them are third world countries.
Erm but what about the people in Costa Rica? Do they not have a right tk earn a living? [[[[ elaborate on this ___]]]]

-- it turns out that many indigenous cultures hunt as a source of food.

-- guess what. Those people [[[ who ate natives to the region __]] have a god-given right to earn their livelihoods however the hell they want.
- they ar under no obligation to ask permission from whites
seek approval from [[[cushy,, comfortable, wanting for nothjng ,,,, pp who grew up in peacetime and economic prosperity

-- env is simply a [[[random___]]] choice that they have the luxury of entertaining. __[[[ languid, flippant ___]]]
- n. They have no earthly right tk foist their choice of what to prioritize and fret over -- upon_____ starving
All huma beings have only a finite amt of time on this earth.
they are more than firmly and solidly within all of their rights as huma neings to prioritize human rights over animal or tree rights.
[[[ allocate___nono their precious resources and human energ, humN capital
They would much rather devote the fiber of their beings towards feeding theor fsmilies. Puttig a roof over their fsmilies' heads.

I remember back when I was in high school readin some little opinion lines from kids in high school.  the topic was about going to a high schol reunion, I think.  one girl said that she probably won't be going to her hoghsc hool reunion, and she hoped the reason would be that she was saving rain forests in costa rica.  being a teenager at the time, this soundd awesome to me. ___

but, hang on a minute.  the people who are [[enacting, participating__]] the deforestation-- those are poor costa rican people.

-- whites in western first workd society have no goddmn right to force poverty-stricken pp to waste precious enery towards something as frivolous n trivial n laughable as this.

--- eskimos in subzero temperatures that must be measured on the kelvin scale. They wewr fur. You know why?  Because Aqua scutum does not exist

Look if anybody loves nature, it's me.
the three manor aspects of nature-- nurturin/healing, beautiful majestic- warerfalls, rain forest

More "Jerk" Complaints

Ah excuse me, but why would the guy call after a one-night stand?  You two had a one-night stand.  Isn't that what the agreement was in the first place?  Have sxxee once, and then never again encounter each other.  Pretend for the rest of your lives that you never met.  Conduct your lives as if each of you never knew the other existed.

To be completely honest, I feel like perhaps the best course of action in this situation would be to never speak to each other again.  The situation is too messy, it is too aggravating, it is too much of a pain in the ass.  Just cut off this messy irritating thread in your lives.  I do not think there is any realistic hope to resuscitate this dead, flaccid, sagging non-entity.

Start over anew in a healthy romantic relationship with a completely different person.  Begin another chapter in each of your individual lives with someone new.  This relationship started off on a very negative foot from the word "go."  It never had any potential to go anywhere.  You need to start over with an honest sincere approach.

Meeting some random stranger in a bar or club, hook-ups.  If you are going to do that, then fine, whatever.  That's your business.  But be plain and straightforward and realize that that is not a relationship.  That is not going to go anywhere.  Just let it go.

Vegetarians- A First-World Affectation

I have stumbled upon a strange theory.  The peculiarity of refusing to eat meat is a distinctively white upper-middle-class phenomenon.  Declaring oneself a vegetarian is a status symbol.  In the western world, we have so much abundance of food that we have the luxury and privilege to turn down an offer of food.  Unless one is Hindu and must refuse to eat meat upon threat of eternal hellfire, there is no realistic reason to eat only foliage.

This is not when I first realized that vegetarians irritate me.  But it is when I shaped coherent opinions that dug a little deeper than "vegs suck."  This is my first foray into observing their behavior, studying motivations and social cues.

Let me ask you something.  Do you think starving people in third world countries are vegetarians?  If they are, do you honestly think they made the decision consciously on purpose to be vegetarian?  Nope.  They are vegetarian because they cannot afford to buy meat.

Do you think poor Appalachian white families are vegetarians?  Do you think poor lower-class black people living in government subsidized housing projects are vegetarians?  Do you think that anyone born into poverty in this country would ever choose to be vegetarian?

Vegetarianism is a distinctly first-world affectation.

Whether the proponents consciously are aware of this or not, this is a status symbol.  It is a way of signaling to others that, "we are living steeped in luxury and in the ability to be choosy.""  They have the privilege of being picky, finicky eaters.  There is so much food, that they don't have to worry about missing out on vital nutrition or sustenance.

"There is such an abundance and such a variety, that the exact thing I want will be in there somewhere.  I don't have to eat something I am not totally crazy about.  There is bountiful plenty.  So what if there is a bunch of food that might go to waste because people are not eating it?  I have a craving for a particular nibble, and if I act fastidious enough, it is bound to show up."

It is a sign that they are so comfortable and cushy, that they have the realistic option to turn _down_ an offer of food.  You think a brown-skinned anybody living in abject poverty in slums of a third-world country is a vegetarian?  By choice?  You think a poor white person living in a trailer park is a vegetarian?

I realized this because I have been taking Environmental Science this fall semester.  I think that the topic change from environmentalism to this realization about vegetarians should be obvious.  Come on, environment => salads.  The transition is natural and self-evident.

I walked into class the first day of the semester -- and saw that it was populated by all these middle-class white kids.  I could infer that the majority of the kids were there because they thought it would be an easy class.

My first question was, 'Hey, wait a minute, where are all the rednecks?'  My second reaction was, 'Oh good Lord, really?'  When I walked into class that first day, I almost had a stroke trying to keep my eyes from rolling.  It was pretty obvious they were mostly enrolled in this course because they thought it would be an easy A.  Like it would be comprised of a bunch of pot-smoking hippies sitting around wailing “save the rainforest” or something.

The class started with more than thirty kids enrolled.  Now it is past the halfway point of the semester, and almost two-thirds of students have dropped the course.  So as per usual, I was right.

A Job Defines A Person, Part II

What is this fervent notion that people should not be defined by their jobs?  [[Why do people hate being defined by their job?]]

This is such a deviant, outer-fringe missive that I cannot fathom why these people would think such things.  I am unable to think of any positive, optimistic reason that people would so fervently believe this.  Through logic and reason, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that these people must hate their jobs.  I can only surmise that perhaps these people have really shitty jobs.  Cleaning toilets for a living.  Specifically, cleaning other people’s toilets for a living.  Yes, that I can understand, wanting to emotionally distance oneself from those jobs.  Or perhaps they have jobs that are mediocre, if not outright shitty, which they still hate.  Corporate rat race and advertising and what not, trying feverishly to convince the public to buy crap that they do not need.

You must understand, back in high school, I did not understand why so many op-ed writers, in response to some particular claim, would always start wondering about the lifestyle habits, not to mention the sanity, of the person that made said claim... until now.

I was a teenager in the 1990s.  Believe me when I say this, we really truly did not encounter many lunatic extremists of either stripe, whether liberal or conservative.  We truly did not.  There were... maybe one or two, and they were spaced very far apart.  The vast majority of opinions I had read and heard were moderate.

Now I get it.  It is because the particular declaration was so shockingly bizarre, that some sort of bad event must have happened to them in their childhood formative years.  Something traumatic must have transgressed to shape their opinions thusly.  They could not possibly have arrived at this opinion though logic and reasoning.

Back in the 1990s, my coming of age years, I never did understand why some women, upon being fed up with some man's nasty disgusting opinion of how women should act sexually, she would then say something along the lines of, "if that's what you want, go find a prost."  It was meant as a witty retort, meant to diffuse her own frustration.  It was a sarcastic defense mechanism with the intention of recognizing the ludicrous disgustingness (and rightfully so) of the misogynistic opinion.

What about people who truly love their jobs, who chose their professions because these jobs reflected all their values that they want to strengthen in themselves, and on which they possibly wish more people would place emphasis???

Why are some people so hell-bent on making sure people are not defined by their jobs?  I am defined by my job.  I chose to go into science, because I want to find out all about the universe.  I chose to go into medicine because I care about people.  Also I like looking at people's innards.  So yes, I am defined by my job, and I will freely admit it.

Why do they want so badly for people not to be defined by their jobs?  Many people are in fact defined by their jobs and they are probably happy to admit it.  You know why?  Because they had the guts to do something good for themselves and follow their passion and their passion is for something very useful that contributes to society, that makes the world a better place.

A biomedical researcher who has broken some ground on a new cancer treatment.  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

What if someone is a teacher, who inspires students to want to think critically, to examine, to analyze and grow their horizons?  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

The guy who founded Habitat for Humanity.  You expect me to believe he is not defined by his job?

A quantum physics researcher, perhaps someone who works in string theory, who has unlocked some of the secrets of the universe.  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

What about an investigative journalist, and I feel that this should include whistleblowers, .....to ask the tough questions, to demand answers?

A doctor who genuinely cares about their patients, who listens to their patients, whose patients have told them that they are a wonderful doctor that the patients feels they can trust and the patient knows the doctor will listen to them?  You expect me to believe they are not defined by their job?

A member of a symphony orchestra.  One of those Newberry award-winning authors.  A skilled painter or sculptor.  People who create, who give us a reason to live, a reason to appreciate life.

All these people have passion for their work.  They each chose their respective fields because it was a noble calling for them, it spoke to their souls, they are drawn to them.  You damn well better believe they are defined by their jobs, and they are happy to admit it.

A Job Does Define A Person

What is this fervent notion that a job does not define a person?

Psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists always ask this particular request:  "tell me who you are; Define who you are; Describe who you are."  Then the responder says they are a teacher or a doctor, or they start to list their accomplishments, perhaps their band made regional, and they are a band leader.
    Then the psychiatrist abruptly interrupts them and says, ''I am not asking what you do for a living.  I am not asking what your job is.  I am asking whoo youu arrre..."

Contrary to popular opinion, yes you can in fact judge people based on the job they picked.  It is not the only definition, no, but a job offers a good bit of insight into a person's choices and mindset.  The occupation that someone decides to do for a living showcases how they see themselves fitting into the world, how they could contribute to the world, how they perceive themselves.  It shows what they consider a priority in their own lives, and what they see as being important enough that they should dedicate their time and energy and effort into perpetuating into the future.

If someone works on Wall Street, that tells me he is incredibly shallow and only cares about money, is probably a misogynist ahole, thinks he's the 3hi+.  He is one of the "stupid sons of rich men," has a sense of entitlement, expects to have everything handed to him on a silver platter, doesn't expect to have to work hard ever.

On the other hand, if someone is e.g., a teacher, or a SMET person (like me!), or founded an institution like Habitat for Humanity, then that shows that this person cares about people and wants to affect the world in a positive way.  Innovation, helping the world become a better place, improving upon the state of the world and its inhabitants.  Also it shows that he has a passion for a distinct subject, he knows what he wants and he goes for it.  It also shows that this person is practical and realistic.  He chose a field that will actually get him a job and not just one that sounds flowery and abstract (i.e., useless) such as a degree in mass communications or psychology or some 3h +.

But these types insist that defining a person by their job is shallow.

Teachers at public grade school are possibly the most overworked, under-appreciated, *underpaid* occupation.  They are also some of the most selfless, magnanimous, dedicated people in society.  They went into this profession knowing full well that the pay is a trickle in a bucket.  And yet they soldier on anyway, because they know that these kids are counting on them.  They charge on because people are depending on them.

When these ignorant types say that people should not be defined by their jobs, they are revealing their own latent ungratefulness.

They do not have any appreciation for teachers.  They do not have any gratitude, they do not have any regard whatsoever for the magnitude of significance teachers have to society.  They are confessing that they basically take teachers for granted.

I mean, really.  What the hell else are you looking for?  What else do you expect them to do to earn your approval?  What else do teachers have to do to prove to you that that they care greatly about their students?  And that they are making enormous positive contributions to society?
    
Let us take a closer look at the types of jobs that probably originally sparked the battle cries of, "nobody should be defined by their job."

Garbage collector, manual laborer, city sanitation worker.  Do you know what I see when I look at someone in those job positions?  This tells me that the person is in a bind and probably desperately needs the money.  Look, no one would ever pick "trash guy" as their career choice and area of expertise.  Let's be honest here.  No little kid grows up dreaming of being a garbage man.

This is what I mean when I say that a person's choice of job reveals many clues about him or her.  Recall the liberal accusation that it is shallow to derive opinions from a person's occupation.  The above doesn't sound shallow to me.  On the contrary, it is quite profound.
----
Hey, you know what?  I just realized something within the course of typing this.  The people that insist that jobs not define a person -- do in fact harbor these same snooty, stuck-up opinions of manual labor jobs.
Wait a secc...  Does this mean YOU see them as somehow being less worthy of a nod to them as a human being??  You, the open-minded liberal, who always preaches never to judge a book by its cover, and to always always always consider everyone and their dog equal.

They are simply trying to pacify their own guilt at being so snooty.

Look, I might be judgmental, but at least I am honest.  At least I admit it.  I never made the claim that a dog-pooper-scooper-maker is in any way equal to a UN delegate.

Cooking and Meaning

Regarding the meanings or rather, the interpretations of some things are changing.  I like how it is now a lot more acceptable for people to want to cook and not be considered weak, wimpy, or submissive.  For far too long, that has especially been the case when women confess to enjoying the activity of cooking.

I am not understanding why a lot of females say that tasks of cooking and cleaning are demeaning to women.  Too many liberals seem to think the only reasons a woman would need to cook or clean -- is to service a man.  They state that if a woman is single, career-minded and modern and strong, then she does not have to know how to feed herself.  Oh but handing out sesual favors like candy is supposed to be empowering.  What the eff?  Can someone explain this to me?

Ah, excuse me?  Why are you only concerned with what men think?  Who cares how it benefits men?  How about the fact that I am cooking and cleaning for *myself*??  *I* think it is important to maintain.  So, what, you're saying that if a woman does not have a man to cook and clean for, that this somehow means she would not need to take care of *herself.*  So I suppose this means you are perfectly fine with living in filth and sh-t, and eating McDonalds’ every day.

And this somehow makes you empowered?  “I can’t cook or clean or otherwise take care of myself, therefore I’m a feminist!”  I see little write-in, blurbs about like, "woke up hung over and ate potato chips w ketchup for breakfast."  But hey at least she has a job!  That’s great right??  That’s way better than those weak, submissive women that know how to take care of themselves in living their day to day lives, RIGHT????

You are basically saying that until you met a man or started dating or got married, that a woman would be okay with living in filth and shtt, and eating McDonalds every day.

Ohhh boy.  There is just too much of... is this what people mean when they say "emotional baggage?"  There is just way too much slop like that which is fed to pigs in their trough, that people assume is slogged through and piled on top of and burdened with.  [[[lead into from the whole fallacy of females in wmns mags sayi how they are strong inds""" and not weak helpless submissive arm candy; And they are concentrating on their career right now and that is why they do not know how to cook food for themselves.

Hang on; you know how earlier I wrote that I understand not?  That is not quite true, unfortunately.  I do know of the background noise from whence this originates.  Whenever a woman states that she can't cook or she hates to cook.  I can tell you for a fact that they are secretly proud of this sorry fact.  They are secretly cackling in gleeful pride.  If you notice, they always declare this fact very smugly with a proud grin.

Here is the weird, nonsensical reasoning behind this.  Cooking and cleaning has traditionally, all throughout the course of human events, been designated as "women's work."  Their interpretation is that this must mean that cooking is automatically trivial; it must be less important to the survival of the human species.  After all, women have been treated as second-rate citizens all throughout human history.  Men must have taken residence of all the <important> jobs available in society.  Such as plumbing, automotive work, construction work.  Therefore whatever tasks were given to women, by default surely must have been the trivial crap left over.

So with all that ancient history in mind, these so-called strong modern women have decided that they must repel any cooking.  They must act like two like-charges in an atom.  Any time they encounter food that needs to be prepared before it can be consumed, they must repel it and run away, and they must proudly unabashedly declare their woeful lack of skills in feeding themselves.  They declare that this weird factoid automatically means they are magically a strong independent modern woman. 

I myself unfortunately temporarily fell prey to this skewed mentality -- until my Madre set me straight.  I then came to my senses.  I realized, wait a minute.  Why would anyone be proud of not being able to have a very useful vital skill?  If this is what "feminism" and "girl power" means, then maybe we as human beings need to enact a massive overhaul in what those terms mean. 

Look at it this way.  You have to learn a useful professional skill so that you can get a job and support yourself.  You have to learn to manage your finances so that you don’t go broke.  Pay attention to and monitor your medical health.  So too do you have to equivalently be able to take care of yourself.

Cooking and cleaning-- demeaning?  Ohhh so it’s empowering to be able to take care of oneself outside the home.  But it is not empowering to be able to take care of oneself inside the home.  Riiigghht, toohhhtally.

Fine, so she has a job, good.  But there is no discernible reason that she has to neglect everything else.

I have been thinking about this brain-dead, skewed, illogical, and frankly disrespectful approach, regarding towards women’s work.  I realize now that this is astonishingly degrading to women.  This is frankly as bad as demeaning women as sex objects.  I decided to re[[_vampp__]]] my worldview on many things.  The biggest thing I have decided to massively shift my viewpoint of is women's roles in the family and society.  I have decided that instead of continuing to degrade women's contributions, I should instead recognize them for the fact that they are woven into the fabric of society.

Yep, sure enough, men are the ones that decided that because cooking is women's work, this automatically means that it is cutesy superficial fluff.  They decided that simply because it is women’s work, by default this must mean it is unimportant to civilization.  And unfortunately too many women absorbed this narrow-minded, unenlightened way of thinking.  Oh, so cooking is trivial, you ungrateful, unappreciative aholes??  Then good luck eating your raw chicken and munching on your raw wheat and grains with the skins and hulls and corn silk still on.  Go get salmonella and massive amoebic dysentery.  Go have fun chewing and masticating raw tree foliage, and continue to be stuck in your little caveman hole in the rock and continue to think that women's work is unimportant to the good of the community.


A long time ago, I'm talking on the order of third grade.  Around that time the media was spewing its usual babble elegance that cleaning is demeaning to women.

And I realized that, waaait a minute, I *like* being clean.  I like living in cleanliness.  Even at that young age, I had the fortuitousness and strength of mind to dismiss these claims as being fictitious.
I did not know of these forthcoming particular turns of phrase, but I felt that it was cleansing.  Simply put.  Order is restored to the universe, chaos is reduced.

*like martha stewart back in the day, back in high school.

On The Subject Of Women's Work

I like how the meanings of certain things have changed a bit in recent general aura of collective perception.  Actually no, that’s not a good way of expressing it.  What I meant is that I like how interpretations of certain things are better now.  More mature, more comprehensive.

It is the woman, the wife and mother, who is the center and strength of the family.  It is she who holds the family together.  The home is the dominion of the woman.

Being a wife and mother is *not* demeaning, degrading, etc. to women.  It is not a simple, trivial biding-of-time task to be a homemaker, which can be flippantly dismissed with a wave of the hand as "unimportant."

If we are to be open-minded to a woman that gets pregnant and brings forth life into this world, then by necessity we must also be open-minded to a woman who chooses to raise that very child.  we need to be appreciative to a mother who chooses to devote her time, energy, faith, and dedication to this task that is the keystone around which civilization revolves.

This is an enormous undertaking that requires an insane amount of devotion towards this goal.  The woman being wife, mother, and homemaker.

___finally exalted wives and mothers to the respectable status in society that they have truly more than earned.  We have at long last elevated homemakers to the status of any professional out in the paid job force.  Finally society is honoring them with the respect and dignity they have more than earned.  It is infuriating that some people think a wife and mother’s work is somehow less important than a dizzy carnival rider in the corporate rat race.  Daily office meanderings.

Previously he ignorant types have denigrated the woman by calling her a "housewife."  They sniffed with haughty derision disapproval, as if what they were doing was automatically better than her, as if she was beneath them.  As if somehow the work she does is unimportant.  They claimed her contributions to society are trivial.  I am embarrassed to admit that I fell into this claptrap myself before I finally slapped some sense into my head.

Why are her skills that are vital inside the home considered any less important than skills outside the home?

Let us examine the kind of work a wife and mother does. 

It is the homemaker spouse who is the leader of the family, makes the survival day-to-day decisions, and has to keep track of what everyone is doing. Marriage and family is not a business relationship.  The leadership role is not determined by the spouse who makes more money.  It is not about a wife being weak & submissive and walking two steps behind her husband.

Taking care of the family, raising the kids, *bearing* the kids, keeping track of everyone's schedules.  She is the one that keeps the family and homestead intact, together.  She does the cooking and grocery shopping, making sure everyone is well-fed.

What about raising children?
Guiding a person into a good and intelligent human being.  So that they are thoughtful, kind, caring, considerate individuals.  So that they may become productive members of society.  Socializing a child during their formative years.

You know, all the stuff that the media keeps saying the grade schools should be doing?  Nope.  That is not the school's job.  That is the parents' job.

(On an unrelated note, why do a disturbingly high number of western women hate their mothers?  I have noticed this in a large number of editorials and I don't get it.  It does not seem very feminist to hate the woman who gave you life.  But that is a topic for a separate essay.)

Just like you have to learn to take care of your finances, learn how to balance your checkbook, learn a valuable professional skill so that you can get a job when you grow up.  So too do you need to learn to cook food.

-- might sound silly, but harry potter.

I really like the American Girl books series for little kids.  I happen to think they kick ass.  the American girls book series have cookbooks and all sorts of historical facts that offer amazing insight into the lives of pioneer women and girls.  They cookbooks contain a lot of very creative and interesting recipes that are culturally aware.

I recall seeing an issue of a parenting magazine recently that talked about having a cooking theme at a child's birthday party.  I think that's a pretty cool idea.  There were suggestions on what types of food to cook that were small enough so as not to overwhelming to the little kids, but at the same time elaborate enough that they would be engaged and interested.  And it finished off with the idea of including a wooden spoon in the kids' party favors bags.
-- macl in middle

The Femininity-Inferiority-Complex

It has come to my mildly perplexing realization that I do not really understand how a lot of females think.  That is why it has taken me this long to figure out why the hell so many females in the mass media keep wanting to disrobe at all times no matter what the occasion.  I was staring at the cover of a celebrity/Hollywood/etc. magazine featuring the hollywood's darling of a bucknaked kate hudson.  And then I blinked slowly.  And then I suddenly and finally understood why females do this crap.  First of all, they are not using the correct definition of the word "empowering," which I have covered extensively.

You have heard of the stereotypical hyper-masculine exaggerated male that actually secretly has an inferiority complex?

He is secretly ashamed because he thinks he is not masculine enough?  Therefore he overcompensates and tries too hard to focus on outward appearances.  He is insecure in his masculinity, so the only way he knows to remedy this is to prove furiously to everyone *else* that he is unquestionably macho.

He is frantic and worried that someone might stumble upon the truth.  So in an effort to squelch the hesitancy that might crop up in anyone’s mind that he might be less than super-dooper tough,
After all, as long as he can convince everyone else that he is masculine, at least his public image is intact.

All this vehement nakedness in pop culture is basically the female equivalent.

Females are constantly assailed with accusations from the media that they do not have “body confidence.”  They are relentlessly beaten in the head with the idea that they have eating disorders.  ...That they are “ashamed of their bodies” if they are not exhibitionists with all their private parts on full unabashed display at all times.  So in a desperate ploy to prove the media and “society” wrong, they resort to this.

The females are too paranoid that someone might uncover their inner turmoil.  So they overcompensate with this exaggerated display.  This is an effort to quell, nay, crush the uncertainty possibility that they are not fully body-confidenced.  After all, as long as they can convince everyone else they are sexy and comfortable with their sexiness, their outward public impression is intact.

Do not interpret my comprehension of that self-trivializing behavior as if I am okay with it.  Here is an odd analogy, but you know that Sneaker Pimps song, "six underground."  There is a line that is as follows, "Don't think that 'cause I understand I care."

However, this is still quite a pathetic excuse, and I'm not buying it.  I’ve been bombarded by the exact same media messages every day, and I managed not to crumble like a stale cookie.  I stated the fact that it was not true, and I told them to bugger off.  I made my case and stood my ground.

Weird Inconsistency In "Art"

Here is another weird inconsistency regarding art as compared to other categories of entertainment, music, literature, poetry, prose, etc.

There is a weird consensus amongst pop culture that noone is allowed to question what they are told is pimped out at the public as "art."  Ever everever.

We are not allowed to discuss content.  We are not allowed to discuss the obvious, or lack thereof, evidence of genuine discernible *talent.*  "Oh you're so closed-minded, you just don't understand it."

We are not allowed to discuss the personal preferences -- and very legitimate topic -- of taste.  Mention the words ""tasteful" or "palatable," and they scream that you are being judgmental and closed-minded, that taste has absolutely nothing to do with art; who are you to decide what is and isn't appropriate; how dare you try to tell the artist what they can and can't charge the public audience ten bucks on Tuesdays to see, ad nauseum.

Like Thomas Kinkade just a few short years ago.  He has gorgeous paintings of cottages and cabins in the countryside.  They are cute and cozy and comfy and fill you with feelings of warm fuzzballs all inside.  I see one and I crave a cup of hot cocoa.

Then, all these self-proclaimed temperamental artiste types were saying, "he is a sellout, ohhhhh,” caterwauling, “he is so popular with the mainstream so he could not POSSIBLY have any genuine talent.  Plus look how happy peppy perky his art is, hah!  That is not possibly reeaaal art, reaaaall art must portray despair and suffering, it simply mussst portray struggle, it must reach deep into the caverns of the soul and disembowel the viewer!!  No ifs, ands, or buts!!"

I wonder if they were just jealous that Thomas Kinkade did genuinely become successful as an artist.  He managed to appeal to people who like happy, cozy, comfy things, which is obviously a lot of people.

And the guy has actual talent.  That's the part these sniffing haughty "disapproval" types always gloss over.  Have you seen one of his paintings?  They are gorgeous.  Exquisite detailing, it is obvious he labored over it painstakingly.  He managed to make a decent living off this art.  He probably is able to support this family with food and not food stamps; he was probably able to put his kids through college, etc.

I wonder if the rest of the self-proclaimed “realll” artists were just bitter, jealous, and resentful.  A lot of them are like this.  They rail against mainstream movies, they sniff haughty derision at happy hollywood endings.  They think they are automatically "better," i.e. more intellectual, more profound, more informed, if they only like entertainment that is miserable.

They also rail against kindness and sincerity.  They screech and scream, "oh that’s just so fake, oh the mainstream cheerleader and football types are just putting on a facade, oh their public image is so contrived and shallow, whereas I am so very honest and genuine and deep, I don't hide who I am, I don't carefully cultivate a public image at all.""

And then you have the notorious exhibit in NYC to which Rudy Giuliani cut off taxpayer funding.  (Agguhh, gag, I've seen pictures of it, and I flatly refuse to acknowledge it as art.  That's because it isn't.)  I am ever grateful to Mayor Giuliani for doing that, even thoo I don't live in NYC.  These people think that because they slapped the label "art" on whatever they vomited out, they can get away with anything?  Frankly, they seem rather mentally ill.

Socioeconomic Classes, Or Is It Social -Or- Economic Classes?

I have to clarify a few things.  When I use the phrases "working class," "middle class," and "upper class," I do not mean what most people mean when they use these phrases.

To me, these distinctions have very little to do with money.  I make these demarcations along the basis of psychology.  There is quite a bit of background information that I am trying to convey when I utilize these descriptives.  A world of pathos and ethos are packed into those little innocuous words.

The social class differences are about behavior.  This is about how one conducts oneself in public, how one regards himself or herself, how one perceives others, how one interacts with others.  it is education and attitude that determine these designations, not money.

Perhaps this is a reflection of how I was raised.  My family instilled certain values and priorities in me.  I believe that education and cultural development, and contributing something useful and positive to the world, are far more important than only worrying about money.

Don't get me wrong.  Money is essential and always will be -- to a certain extent.  People have to be able to afford mortgages and bills.  People also have to be able to support their families.  But beyond the basic necessities, possession of extra money on top of that does not automatically qualify one as being "upper class."

I feel that this distinction should be reserved only for the truly worthy.  I truly feel that if people are to be placed in these categories, it should be in terms of education as well as degree of difficulty of their chosen profession.

Here is an example.  I very much regard teachers as being upper class.  Yes, I know teachers are some of the most overworked, underpaid employees around.  Anyone over age twelve that had ever picked up a newspaper is acutely aware of this distressing fact.

However, they are obviously highly educated.  That is the foremost job requirement!

They have devoted their lives to the quest for knowledge.  They are selflessly, tirelessly guiding and coaching the future generations, OUR future generations.  Teachers impart to their students the abilities of literacy, deductive reasoning,

They are ushering a new generation into adulthood by bestowing qualities of critical thinking and analytical abilities.

So perhaps they are not socio-<economic> class, as in "show me the bucks."  But most certainly in social class.  They are educated, they have morals, they uphold their values.  As opposed to actors and singers and pro athletes -- they all belong to the highest economic class in this country.  But that does that automatically mean they conduct themselves with dignity or self-respect.

One little note:  not all teachers are automatically what I regard as upper-class.  This distinction depends on the ability, skill, talent, and dedication of the teacher.  A crappy teacher that misses more than a month's worth of class days throughout the school year, due to "sick days" or whatever else, is pretty low.  A teacher that just mumbles passages out loud from the textbook, or does not go through step-by-step instructions for math courses, or just sits at the desk and read magazines while telling the kids to read the chapter and figure it out themselves, is pretty low.  But again, this depends on the ability, skill talent of the teacher.

Men Are Not Truly Sexualized

Men are not truly sexualized in this society.  Or in most societies.  Now, I know some dumbass anti-church person is going to start squawking, “that's not true, men's sex is celebrated all the time, men are encouraged to have sex and express sex all the time, and the church thinks women's sexuality is evil and tries to oppress it.”

To which I reply, bullshyte.  For god's sake, that's not the whole story.  Ohmigod, you seriously don't even know.  Women are sexualized to a laughable, ludicrous extent all the freakin time.  This has been practically default all throughout human history.  Think back over everything carefully, comb through your memory and consciousness, this time with a little more of an observant eye and really look at what's there.

Men are not sexualized at all in the general sphere.  Female body parts have been used as commodities to sell everything from beer to computers.  We do not see anything of male sexuality being used as a cheap convenient way to sell random trivial crap.

Philosophy and Psychology As Majors

I know earlier I was saying that Psychology and Philosophy majors___  But let us examine this more closely.  What exactly are they qualified to be psychologists of?

Now, I have taken a Psych class.  I wanted to, and it fulfilled a general education requirement anyway.  But it seems a rather frivolous subject around which to base an entire college major.  I have also taken English, History, and Poli Sci.  They are required as part of gen education because they teach us students to expand our horizons, learn to think in different ways, be exposed to [[[___thnk something___]]]

All well and good.  [[[But hse are basically just 'talking,, nnn discussing'' stuff.  It is probably a lot of the same topics rehashed over and over again.  I do not see how this could realistically expand enough to fill an entire four-year college major with all those 120-credit hour requirements.

Psychology major.  Actually, let me rephrase that.  Okay, so perhaps there is enough material to inspire four academic years' worth of stuff.  However.  I do not see what is so complicated that it absolutely must be taught within the college classroom for four years worth of school.  I will explain.  Back in my senior year of high school when I was visiting colleges, I perused a college bookstore.  I happened upon a textbook of psychology, and I read through almost the whole entire edition, and it was fascinating.  But in all honesty it was not particularly difficult to understand.  I understood the majority of the volume on my own, without ever needing to set foot inside a college classroom.

The reason students go to college is that they can learn fundamentals and details of topics that they would not be able to learn on their own.  That is the whole point of going to college, correct?  The purpose of higher education is to train and prepare young individuals for complex jobs out in the job market.  There are skill sets that would be rather difficult for students to learn on their own.  This is true for most of the mathematics and science subjects.

But I have a hard time believing that a person could not simply learn psychology and philosophy on their own.  One can just read a textbook and acquire a working comprehension of all the material therein.  It is all written in plain language.  There are no mysterious, cryptic symbols or messages with hidden meaning.  There are no mathematical formulas to commit to memory.  There are no complex connections that bridge two distinct topics together or anything like that.

There is no reason that a person would not be able to simply devour a textbook of psychology and engorge, ingest it.  It is fun and interesting and fascinating to have one or two isolated college courses in psychology or history.  But it seems a bit superfluous to have a whole entire college major springboarding from this.

Philosophy major. [[[mebbe puttt my opin on what plhil entails???  Dunno, was too emotinat ar the time...]]]  At some point I was turned off of philosophy class because this one obviously was nothing more than fluff.  "Violence, abuse, murder of any kind are wrong."  There.  That is all the philosophy you need.  [[liken this to the 'distur trrend' essay.]]]  I have come to realized this as over the past few years I have become disillusioned to what really happens in the world.

History major.  This one arguably can be considered one of the very few libarts subjects that deals in actual facts.  This one has enough source material that it can be realistically pulped out enough to fill an entire college major.

Okay, so you learned history.  Then what?  What is one going to do with that Bachelor degree in history?  Do history?  I see in interviews or something that a lot of people say they like learning history because it helps them understand why people act the way they do.

Uh, I take issue with this hypothesis.  People don't always act the way they do because of history.  Sure, personal history greatly affects a person's perceptions and outlook on life, which definitely influences their behavior.  But that doesn't make it into the history books.

Well, at least those majors have some prior repertoire in the intelligentsia.

But then there are a bunch of useless majors that seem designed specifically to get people to work in corporate business nonsense.  Advertising.  Public relations.  What the hell is marketing management?  I've heard that specific major somewhere, I think.  It sounds like a bunch of garbledygook.  I took a Management class once.  The professor was really good because he explained concepts using real-life examples of personnel issues.  But the textbook, the syllabus, and the tests were gibberish fluff.  It was comprised of a whole lot of buzzwords and boardroom meetings jargon.

As we know, higher level courses delve deeper and deeper into the nitty gritty of a subject.  That might be a problem when there is no substance upon which to expound.  To be fair, one or two courses in management might prove useful.  But beyond that is wasting time and money.  From what I gather, a manager is only truly necessary if the employees are incompetent idiots that need to be constantly baby-sat.  A manager might be needed to breathe down employees' necks.  But if the employees are good, they should be able to work under minimal supervision, and minimal management.  Like I said, it is mostly rubbish.

Growing Up In A Household That Values Education, Id est, An Asian Household

Why education has always felt natural to me.  and this,, is another reason that I realize I have been extraordinarily fortunate in my education,,, encouraging education.  my own family,, my own parents of course__.  and also, we have always surrounded ourselves in the community that greatly values education.  Oxford University was mentioned in everyday conversation.
--places great emphasis on education.
My parents instilled in me a wonderful sense of wanting to achieve.

-- the lofty lorry eloquent esay about, fostered a sense of discipline in me, 'instilled' 'fostered' a desire to want to learn___ ..encouraged a sense of___ inquisitive))))))

,,,fostered my education growing up.  -- actively encouraged,,,, and completely supported it.  They were very strict about my school performance.
*** perh anoth ess, elaborate on the fact that I feel most at home in sch surroundings,,,  Mayhaps *this* is where to put that I lurve 1800s decor, old acclaimed 1800s universities, all the old thick books with the incredibly intricate and surprisingly accurate medical diagrams
-- elab on the well-established thriving Bengali comunt in rhode island,, shoott wahyt wht

This is universal everywhere.  Rhode island, massch, north carolina, south caro, missspp, Maryland, Michigan.  Wherever we meet Bangladeshi Asian-origin families, this is a universal uniting theme.  They all expect their kids to excel in school and extracurricular activities.

Even when my family moved here to North Carolina, we were comfortably ensconced in the middle of Piedmont Crescent.  This is the educationally-affluent, flourishing reaseasrch centerss.

***mebbe put wonderful lofty 180s essayhere... ,,rather than spg2001
ever since high schoolk, I 've always loved the 1800s style of decor.
[[[ inlcud excerpts frommy ideal deram house.  eg. the turn of the dcetnry, boston coffe shop-deli.
(( all the little trinkets and curios.))

**perh put htis as tie-in to or lead-in-to why, another reason, why academic excellence has always felt very comfortable tp me?  I have always felt comforatsble.    *for summer 2000?  or no, perhasp ssuumer or fall 2001 !!,,,,... , bc I grew up in New England university town amongths graduate students.  My parents habituated the [[frequented]]]] the social circles of the international married graduate students.
--therefore it is steeped in the olden culture of higher education always.

Orrr mebbe this next parg, put this in "'augg 80-s didn’t have sould?""  KEEPPppp
--dunnoo, perh incl,,, even with our meager resources, my parents always ensured that they value education.  made it a top priority to travel, to be cultured.  for eg.g, campus cultural events along with the Bengali-American comnity.  allso, visited historical sites, boston, philadelphi liberty bell.  The Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. -- Museum of Natural History.  Lincoln Memorial.  Washington monument.  Those historical attractions are all free to visiting tourists.  we made car tripsd bc we could not afford plane tickets everywhere.  The ppoint is, they made it work.  They did not let lack of funding hinder them from providing me with quality upbringing.
[[[[-- cape cod, block island, nantucket.  hmmmm donit know.]]]

** grwoing up in a New England college town.  I think, hmmm, this phrase "college town" has rather negative connotations in pop culture.  They think it is about drinking, partying, frat parties, sprn brk,__ spoiled middle class white kids having their parents pay for everything for them.
-- That might all be true, but it had nothing to do with my childhood.  not even remotely resembling my experiences growing up in a New England college town.  -- grew up amongst the Asian international___

The Bangla/Indian family dynamic is more like the traditional Chinese family relationship.

about the decor??? hmm thinkign thingking...... warm happy memories from my childhood.  bcc yhe decorr reminds me of growing up in Rhode Island., a hop skip and a jump away from Boston [[and cape cod et al.]]]

I still feel that the new year starts in September rather than in January.  I read an editorial article somewhere, and I realized that I agreed wholeheartedly.

This is possibly another reason I find it badly surprising that a lot of girls feel they are discouraged from reading and being good students.  Growing up, ALllll books and school stuff were very encouraging of girls to be good students.  Teachers were all women.  Even our school supplies were all centered around girls.  Lisa Frank brand of notebooks and three-ring binders, which were totally awesome.  Trapper Keepers.  All the main characters in books were all girls.

Speaking of the 1980s.  -more stuff abt how my parents did not sit around and wait for the school to teach me drawing and stuff.
my parents always, always, always supported my artistic expression as well as my [[__written word.]]}
--tie-in to the 80s:  strawberry shortcake and school projects and arts.  The 1980s had the absolute coolest arts and crafts activities for children.

Fashion Is Art

Back in the 1990s when I was a teenager, “fashion” people were routinely chided for being shallow and superficial.  The popular psychology was that fashion, or indeed, that caring about one's appearance at all, was phony, superficial, etc.  "It's what's on the inside that counts."  Nothing on the surface is important.  The reigning genre of dress was either grunge, or long flowing skirts with combat boots.  Yep, I was guilty from time to time.  (At one point they had a punk/skater uniform which was possibly worse.)

Upon closer inspection, I think they might have mixed up their terminology a bit there.  (((Fash mag vv wmn mag)))

Look, I am ever grateful to the 1990s for encouraging all of us to look deep inside ourselves and find the genuine, caring, warm-hearted human being inside.  To reach deep within ourselves, and cultivate the talent and intelligence and other important philosophical directives.  Also to their credit, they did at least tell us never to walk around naked, even as they advocated sloppiness.

Very Disturbing Trend

I have noticed a very disturbing trend in current events and social studies as of late.  You can either be feminist, or you can be multicultural.  But one cannot be both.  It appears that multiculturalism, culture-loving ethos is drastically opposed to feminism.  It must be chosen between one or the other.

In many of the less-developed third world countries--  Ah heck, stop being so equivocal.  I mean one of these in grinding obliterating poverty.

There are sick horrifying vile nauseating transgressions against humanity.  Some so-called "multicultural" practices have emerged that are diametrically opposed to regarding women as whole, complete healthy human beings who have feelings.  Violates their right to a life that is safe, healthy, and whole.  Crimes against human rights-- in those very same "diverse" cultures that we are supposed to look to for wisdom and guidance, and emulate in our quest for actualization or something like that.

Why must this sickening dichotomy even exist?
1)  There is a sick vile practice being carried out in some parts of Africa.  fgm- this is part of another "culture."  the accepted liberal stance in the general public is the following:  we must be open-minded, we must be accepting and understanding of other cultures.  But I don't think liberals ever foresaw having to be open-minded to anything like this.
2)  Child brides.  *forced marriage of young girls -- children who are not even yet technically teenagers, off to grown middle-aged men.  disgustign sick perverts.  for example, in the remote villages of rural afghanistan.
3)  children being impregnated and then being forced to carry the fetus to term.
4)  Murdering baby girls in India.  I knew already that they value boys way more than they do girls.  But I did not envision that it would ever permeate to this sick, criminal extent.

This is beyond devastating.  I thought that the extent of those countries' problems is that they were poor and that's all.  I never imagined that their problems plunged waaaayyyyyy beyond that, into the fabric of their very existence.  Thanks a lot, internet, for bringing us more shipwrecks.

Child brides,
---- Stop calling them brides.  They are not “brides.”  This is a systematic disease of forcing little girls into abuse, violence, nnn rppp.  Keep in mind that these are small **children.**  Nearly half of them are between the ages of nine and twelve.  These are children being forced into this.  Rather than using this equivocating vague blather, we need to call it what it is:  r-- of a child.  It is vile, sickening, fgm.

Liberalism says we should all be open-minded, multicultural, open to new and different cultures.  We should welcome diversity in all its various permutations.  Including that of a foreign, strange land.
__but what is the point of being liberal if it only [[[sides with,, defenda,, brings in____]]]]]] the worst extremes of conservatism??
This was severely devastating to uncover.

Back in high school, I was genuinely optimistic for the future.  The world was mine to discover.  I was optimistic for the future because I thought the world genuinely had the potential to flourish and improve.  I thought the world including third-world countries had the full capability to prosper and get better.  I thought it was just untapped, undiscovered potential, like gold reserves or maple syrup.

I thought the worst injustice to befall the world was poverty.  That's it.  My family donated money to charitable causes regularly.  That included myself.  I donated whatever I could from my minimum wage resources working part-time at grocery stores.  We all still do.  Poverty is very bad, but let's be honest.  All it is, is being really, really hungry for a while.  It can be remedied by an influx of food.  Or go gardening or farming or something.

It is not *truly* horrific or sick or vile.  It is not any sort of [[___what I am trying to say is, it is not,,, like,,, where the people are backwards minded,, sick,, primitive,,, abusive,,...  Poverty is bad, but it is not criminal.  Poverty does not necessarily really indicate there is something seriously wrong with the people that inhabit the land.
It is not violent, it is not being an ahole.  It does not indicate criminal tendencies.  Poverty is not really seeing women as less than half the worth of men.  It is not a violation of human rights.

But the sort of sick crimes that occur around the world are aaALLLlll of criminal, abusive, violent nature.

The criminal pseudo-culture is murderous, it is exceedingly misogynistic.  It is the severe kind of antisocial, psychopathic behavior studied in psychology circles-- that they have no human emotion, no ability to respect other human beings.  They do not regard other human beings as actual living breathing homo sapiens.  Instead they evidently think other humans are only inanimate objects that have no consciousness, no sentience, no self-awareness.
There is something seriously wrong with their mindset, with their perception of how to regard women and girls.  They do not see women as equal beings with equal social status to men.  They do not see women as full human beings.
They casually dismiss women as being little more than animals, property.  They think women are just chattel they can toss around, an object no different than a wheel of cheese.  They think a woman is an object or commodity they can just exchange for monetary value like a farm animal or farm equipment.]]]]]

I did not know there were sick horrifying crimes against humanity.  This is not something that can just be remedied by donating food or old clothes.
[[With a dilemma like this, it is far more of an invasive problem.  Like an alien entity that has conquered their brains and consciousness.  It has insinuated itself and sunken its body into the delicate cushioning layers of the people's cerebrospinal organs.  This has been permeated, grafted onto their brains. 

Why has the world deteriorated to this sick, sad state?  Why has it become we must choose either human rights for women and girls -- or multiculturalism?  Why must we choose between one or the other?  This is sickeing and troubling that we cannot have both.

--- nowadays, most of them fall under the guise of "multiculturalism."
--- hnr killing
__but what is the point of being liberal if it only [[[sides with,, defenda,,____]]]]]] the worst extremes of conservatism??

The solution is obvious.  This vile disgusting act must stop being "a part of that culture."  If people commit an act that violates human rights, then they need to cease having it be a part of their culture.

Do not use this [[[[___ii can imagine that the proponents of this sick garbage will try to defend it by calling it """tradition."]]]]]  'Oh, but it's part of the culture,' perpetuators will say.

Rubbish.  ••***Human rights is human rights is human rights.•***••*
-- I do not give a crap what your so-called traditions are.  Your so-called "traditions" do not matter one iota.  These crimes need to stop being traditions immediately.  Do not try to hide behind a false catch-all shield of ""tradition."

Don't try to hide behind the excuse of this being a part of another culture and therefore we should tolerate it.  The school of thought of "tolerance" does not condone this.  "Tolerance" does not mean "tolerate abuse and cruelty." It would cease to be a part of a culture if people stopped doing it.

If an action goes against human rights, then it cannot continue to be allowed under the umbrella defense of multiculturalism.  It is simply but exactly what it is -- a violation of human rights.

By the way, my culture also has many festivities and traditions.  Guess what -- none of them, absolutely none of them, require the execution of violations against basic human rights.

What you speak of is not tradition. It is simply abuse of women and girls.  Nothing else.  They are crimes against humanity.

Odd Pop Psychology on Ambition

Oddly enough, some people try to spin this in a really weird way.  There are pundit pop psychologists, political talking heads, and obscure modern musicians that make this perplexing declaration.

They try to say, "they have forgotten what is really important."  Or, "they have forgotten to value their family."  "And instead they only value achievements."  "Rather than teach people about competition and goals, shouldn't we teach them to be nice?"  "Shouldn’t we teach them to be good people?"

Tons and to-UHNS [to-HONS] of TV shows exist that portray an ambitious person as being self-serving, rotten, not caring about others' feeeeelings.

They try to make it appear that the trait of having goals and ambition is in direct conflict to being a caring, loving, good person.  Most plot arcs on TV depict ambition thusly.  A main character is rushing off to a big company meeting, or to an academic competition of some kind (academic team, science fair project).  And in the process, or in the rush, they somehow neglect their family.  Maybe they show someone having to go to the hospital.  And the evil ambitious person is sssoooooo evil that they would rather prefer to attend the company meeting, than serve/keep vigil at their family's side.

Or someone has a business they are trying to run, or they are a company hiring manager.  This someone usually has a friend that is a complete incompetent slacker, loser, horrible at his job.  Unfortunately, the loser friend barely scraped by-- in the exact same profession as the responsible person.  The responsible person understandably does not want to hire the loser.  But then, the responsible person’s family starts to rail against him/her, wailing chastising him/her, “oh how could you not hire your friend, he is your best friend, he looks up to you, it doesn’t matter that he is terrible at his job, hire him anyway because that’s what friends do for each other.”

To that I say:  yeah, we are good friends.  Which is why I will go bowling with this person, or gather for a nice relaxing picnic in the park.  But I sure as hell am not going to hire this incompetent idiot in a *job.*  Hire this dingbat to serve in a job placement on which my livelihood depends?  My job that I need so that I can afford my rent and groceries and utilities and bills and food?  And you want me to hire this moron so that they can ruin my profession??  Are you nuts?

"They have forgotten that it's what's on the inside that counts."  This last one is the strangest of this strange line of reasoning.

Ah, excuse me?  This DID come from the inside.  My mind, my consciousness, my mode of thinking, my concentration, my studying, my hard work -- THAT is what allowed me to accomplish these things.  Not my shoes or my new sunglasses.  Do you think it was external motivators that drove me to achieve these monumental tasks?  You never considered that *I* set these goals for myself.

Blacks And Education, And More Notes On Affirmative Action And Asians

It is a horrible idea to put lazy black students in the same class as nerds/geeks.  They were bullies.  They were violent.  They were always getting into fights.  Okay, fine, so the violence specifically, was mostly outside the classroom.

But inside the classroom, black kids still did not conduct themselves with much more decorum.  To be sure, fistfights broke out within the classroom only once in a rare while.  But that did not mean they were magical angelic little pristine angels.  They were rude, noisy, disruptive, disrespectful to the teacher.  The teacher had to stop teaching every five minutes to tell them to be quiet.  I know of what I speak.  I went to a middle school that had an incredibly sizable population of very low-class blacks.

Look, if they don't want to learn, then they don't want to learn.  Fine.  Stop wasting everyone's time.  Blacks, just leave the classroom.  Public School administrators, just usher the juvenile delinquent black kids out of the classroom and let the kids who actually do want to learn, to have their peace.

The teachers are absolutely exhausted.  They have to expend all their time and energy just on discipline alone.  This is effectively turning them into mere baby sitters.  They do not have any time left over to actually teach.

[[___ slowly deteriorating quality of public grade schools____]]]]

slowly dwindling [hopes ???] [[[[expectations]]]

Let it be noted that the nasty, apathetic, lazy attitude towards education described above is hardly limited to just black people.  I just read over this and I realize how terribly, horribly, disgustingly racist this sounds.

All throughout elementary school and middle school, there were also plenty of white kids that were bullies and aholes.  They are part and parcel of everything that is wrong with public education.  they teased and harassed the smart kids,
They were bullies that picked on nerds, sometimes physically and violently.

They did not want to be there, and we smart kids did not want them there.  The school and the kids' parents should have just done the logical thing and put those kids out of school.  Let them drop out of school and let them go ahead and start working in crap minimum wage jobs, which is the only thing they will ever be able to handle.  Don't waste the smart kids' or the teachers' valuable time.

Getting back to the subject of black kids in school.  The middle school I attended was about 25% black.  (They were mostly bullies and jerks much like the white kids described above.)  Out of all those black kids, there were maybe two or three who were serious about their education.  They were in advanced math and English classes, and they were enrolled in the AG program.  In high school, there were a few black kids, less than ten of them, who also were good students, were pleasant to be around, and they were serious about their futures.  They were enrolled in the advanced classes, they were in involved in several extracurricular activities.  The elementary schools I attended when my family moved to the South had similar demographics and similar performance from black kids.

This is why I cannot just walk around all happy-go-lucky like, "oh yeah, racism is totally gone and it's a thing of the past, we have achieved total equality now, there is no more racism, college admissions standards are like totally fair and unbiased; get rid of affirmative action and colleges will automatically start evaluating students on merit and skill and ability and potential; they'll magically behave even if we don't tell them to, like magic!!"  It's not that simple.  That's why I cannot just say, "oh suurree get rid of affirmative action because it's just not needed any more."

White people in this country are already born into privilege.  They have connections, they are more able to have ready admission and acceptance into quality colleges and academic programs.  White people already have tons of advantages.

Parents of white kids already went to college in this country.  Whereas my parents attended college in an entirely different country.

Minority students who are kids from immigrant families that came into this country, do not have the same already-familiar background that is comfortably snugly settled into this academic culture.  They have had to work from the ground up.  Their parents came to this country with no roots here.  Yet their kids work so hard to become excellent students and have earned a rightful, lawful spot in top-ranked universities and academic programs.

This is something that must be emphasized. Affirmative action is NOTTt about lowering the requirements for admission.  Colleges should still most certainly maintain their standards.  They should still check students' qualifications to ensure they will be able to keep up with the course work and rigorous demands.

That's why I don't think that if black people have horrible attitudes, they should still be allowed in.  I genuinely do have a good attitude.  I want to learn, I want to obtain an education, I want to prepare myself for the future.

Black people, the ones that do have good attitudes and do prioritize education, should be helped.  They should be supported in their academic and career endeavors.  Colleges and places of employment have this duty incumbent upon them.  Again, it's not about relaxing admission standards.

The few black kids who are good students should be encouraged to do their best.  The rest should not be the public school district's concern.

About Feminism Being At Odds With Virtue, Self-Restraint, Self-Respect

There hovers an asinine, completely unfounded notion that professional success by necessity must be accompanied by whorishness.

The stupid, hysterical media has once again gotten it phenomenally, cosmically wrong.  They say crap like, “women are stronger and being more powerful in the work force.  “They are casting off the shackles of society's rules/stereotypes of being weak in work, therefore they must necessarily cast off society's rules of self-respect, decency, and decorum.  If women are forceful in work then they must be forceful aggressive with shoving their naked bodies into people's faces." sex.

But this makes no sense whatsoever.  I do not understand why people are struggling with this issue so much.  There is no significant reason for this non-conflict to cause so much inner turmoil, within anyone's own mind or anywhere within the ranks of feminism.  This has already been addressed, this has been tackled.  This has been dealt with in a comprehensive solution that neatly addresses all concerns.

But what is the correlation whatsoever?  Where in the world is any possible semblance of inter-relatedness betwixt being career-minded -and- being a slts?

Let me reiterate the Asian talking points once again.

Many, many of the Asian women I knew growing up are intelligent, capable women who have prestigious careers and college degrees.  They are close friends with my parents.  NONE of them, and I do mean NONE, had to be sutss to do it.  Not a single one of them had to put topless pictures of themselves on the internet to become educated women.  They magically somehow managed to be strong capable women in charge of their own life -- markedly *without* needing to resort to sluttery posing for "playboy."  They managed to have Bachelor degrees in their chosen fields, and many of them also managed to have Master degrees.  They managed to have prestigious, respectable careers.  And nowhere in there did they feel the necessity to show people where the sun don't shine.

Not a single, not one solitary movie sex scene among them.  They all magically managed to become successful professional women without allowing details of their personal private lives to leak into the public arena.

The media keeps saying gibberish like, "pp must be alsts in order to be a strong woman in charge of your own life.  Be a slttt because you are a strong career-minded career-driven girl power person.  Be a sltt because this is commendable and desirable and is mandatory on the way to self-expression."  Some rubbish like that.

Remember how I exposed and pointed out the seedy, nasty underbelly of extremist liberal males?  They are notorious perpetrators of this delinquent myth.  Mtv, rolling stone magazine, those girls gone wild trash.

(Ugh, I loathe mentioning them in the same essay as my Asian sisteren and brethren.)

First of all, this makes no sense whatsoever.  See above.  But also-- I am surprised that so many girls nowadays are so scared to plan realistic careers.  They seem totally unaware that it is very possible to be forward-thinking, progressive, and smart about planning for one's future -- without compromising core integrity and self-respect.

And they don't know what they want to plan as their careers.  Apparently they feel that they are being discouraged from studying the sciences.  In this day and age, really?

The reason I always knew I had to be something when I grew up was that, back in the '80s, we all had to plan to be something when we grew up.

I had tons of positive, strong, respectable female role models growing up.  Teachers were all girls.  All main characters in books were girls; many book authors were girls.  Beverly Cleary had all of her classics including Dear Mr. Henshaw.

We had the absolute best school supplies, too-- Trapper Keepers, Lisa Frank.  1980s was very encouraging of girls to have careers.  This was, astonishingly, NOTTtt because they were "feminists in charge of their own life."  Surprisingly, they did not bring up the subject of girl power or feminism at all.  You do not plan a career only because you are a girl who is empowered.

No.  You plan for your future because you are a human being who is of this world.  All people need to plan for their futures in a respectable, enlightened, optimistic manner.  This is what they imparted to all of us, girls and boys.  I feel like perhaps, in many ways, this is more powerful than constantly repeating and reminding everyone about feminism, or rebelling against the establishment, or rebelling against so-called "tradition," etc.  It has more impact, it is more solid a declaration. This directive can be taken more seriously if we impress upon everyone the importance of planning a future career.