Boring, Rehashed, Warmed Over Rummance

Most run-of-the-mill romance love stories are quite predictable.  We are all aware that the endings are predictable, but did you know that the characterizations are predictable as well?  There are a few stock characters that authors fall back on.

Usually the girl is popular, hot, intellectually adequate but not great, no marketable talents or skills, commonplace, possibly blonde, well-accepted in middle-class liberal arts society, drab, bland, boring as hell.

Usually the guy is the opposite-- interesting, fun, assertive, employable, fascinating, had an unusual childhood, might even have gone through some trauma or worse, and has a story to tell.  (Oops, I do that all the time; I'll think of something but I didn't mean for it to rhyme.)

He might be a knave; he might be a pirate; he might be poor and had to do hard work all his life to work his way out of the poorness.  He might be from another culture, while the girl is blonde, generically white with no discernible ethnic identity, or something like that.  He might be a scientist or a dork, while the girl is popular and/or has never heard of science.  He might be an alien.  Something out of the ordinary.  That's why I liked that TV show, “Dharma and Greg.”  It turned these assumptions on their heads.

Ross and Rachel from "Friends," Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet's characters in Titanic, pretty much any movie Gwyneth Paltrow is in, Goodwill Hunting was kind of.  Homer Simpson is fat and all-around repulsive while Marge Simpson is a very kind and reasonably attractive person.  Even "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," as fun a movie as it was, resorted to this same cliche.  The main character was a rich girl spoiled brat that screws some poor, broken, homeless guy who lives in a cave.  Michelle Yeoh's character was awesome, but her soul mate died.  The governess/servant lady was awesome, but she died.  The person that got to live and was never required to be nice to anyone was the spoiled rich brat.

Like in "That Was Then, This Is Now" adolescent book, there was the rich girl who has never faced an obstacle in her life, never had any challenges.  She spewed some philosobabble bullcrap about being afraid of fear or some sh’t.  Or in other examples you have the requisite good-girl-bad-boy hackney that makes me go violent and want to stab something repeatedly.

Cyrano de Bergerac.  Beauty + the Beast.  Give me a damn break.  The pretty girl and the ugly guy.  It is so tiresome.  The girl is popular and mainstream and boring.  But in addition, what this translates into is that she is weak, vulnerable, timid.  You see, the differentness of the guy character gives him strength.  The fact is he can see things from a different vantage point, he has a wise, informed world view.

Usually if the roles are reversed, it is a pathetic second-rate settling-for of the way characterization is in the first situation.  A shadow and an aimless travesty of role reversal.  The girls in these stories almost always have that the only out-of-the-ordinary thing about them is that they are whores.  Slightly unhinged, few-screws-loose nutjobs who can't keep a job or feed herself to save her life.  It’s usually some sort of massive sexual indiscretion or deviance. Bloody broken abused all their lives, weak, no one respects her, but worse than that she does not respect herself.  Other than that disgustingness,  however, there is no quality about her that would actually be characterized as interesting.  She did not major in something fascinating or useful in college, if she even attended college at all.  She is not from a foreign ethnic culture that has close-knit family and traditions.

And the guy is a suit-and-tie-insurance agent.  In other words, the guy might be the boring one here, but he still manages to be the strong one.  The guy is on top of things, in charge of his own life, he manages his finances well, he has very few vices; he is the one who decides what direction his life goes in.

I remember reading a review about some book that someone wrote, where it was the latter sort of sad excuse for a good-guy-bad-girl situation.  The female character was like a crackwhore or something, and she had slept with hundreds of men.  And she was mad that the guy was judging her, she was mad that the guy had issues with the fact that she was a slut.  She called him a hypocrite.  And then she starts accusing him of not liking strong women, or not liking women who are in charge of their own sexuality, some shit like that.

Ah, excuse me?  No, the guy is not a hypocrite.  He has never been a crackwhore.  He didn't go around sleeping with hundreds of people.  At most he has slept with maybe a handful of women, that's it.  And he is very much in charge of his own sexuality.  You know why?  Because he doesn't spread it all over town.

This was not the only book I’ve heard of that was like this.  I don’t even bother reading these books, because I can predict correctly how they will end.  The “judgmental” guy learns to be open-minded and tolerant, and the crackwhore female earns the approval that she desperately wants from the guy.  Even though she claims she is a strong woman in charge of her own life, so why the hell is his opinion so damn important to her?  And they live happily ever after.

More Body Confidence Crap With "Art"

Look, I'm not saying that body confidence is a bad thing.  It is a good thing to be healthy and optimistic about your medical health, and to have a good approach towards nutrition and exercising.

I was around in the 1990s when the whole anorexic-model look unfathomably, perplexingly became popular.  I agree that body confidence is an extremely important topic.

I have also read of the alarming trend that young teenage girls are more and more opting to get plastic surgery.  This is not just a "concerning" social trend. This is horrifying, sickening, disgusting.  So I concur that body confidence is something that the general public needs a healthy dose of, pronto.

Let me preface this by stating for the record that I cannot stand the movie "Titanic"-- not the hype, not the fans, not that gdamn Celine Dion song that is played on at least four diff radio stations six times in one hour.  I have not seen the movie "Titanic" nor do I plan to.  Such romance novel trash.

But I think they did an excellent job in deciding to hire Kate winslet to play the main female character.  Someone who is not a stereotypical tall, rail-thin, frail creature that probably has a severe eating disorder, with inhuman proportions more befitting of a plastic doll imagined by an unimaginative alien race.

They actually took the time to search for an actress who is gorgeous, luscious, and curvy.  Plus I really like the fact that she is a readhead, not a typical blonde hollywood starlet.  I think one of the major reasons for that movie's success is that they did not get some rail-thin, sickly, malnourished "supermodel' chick to play the female lead.

- cover of that mag from v early 1999 I think. It was --is--- a small magazine published for new college stu to help them adjust wi ____ living life away from home for the fisrt time, being [[[ counted on tk act reliably, to take resp for thmselves nn their kwn behavior___]]]]. (( maintainig their own schedules and wakng up on time for classes with out haveing their larents around constantly psuhgin them n reminding them,,,,___
- ii dont under ehy so many pp were offended by the pic.
I thight it was really cool that for knce, an advertisig Comoany decided go ibjectify both a male and a female. Usually we are subjected to disgusting displayes of harsh sexism against wome. The fact that they featured a male and female 'naked' cover models shows a capicty fkr provressive thinking beyond caveman mentality of objectifyfig onky women.
- i also remb being glad that for knce, they have a model who actually has a body ans is not a stick-thin stick figure.

It was not nearly as offesnive, gratuitous, ___ as some of the other stuff thats out there, such as crap that is out there right this very second. I did not
And in all honesty, the tel models were most likly not naked at all. The laptop computers they were carrying offered the same amount of coverage as a one piece bathing suit for the gal and board shorts for the guy.
that is exactly what makes it non-offesn-- the fact that it reveals no more than average beach wear.
Sur eit was risque and it got attn-- which was probl the pt.
--ive said this in the 90s whne genrtal scantily clad pics were not anywhere near as disgusting as what they suddently deterorated to nowadays.
i don't mind the sx as mucb as i mind the sexist.

So what exackt y was the problem with this pic? Was it the factthat they dared to showcase a nearly naked cover boy in addt to a ,,, girl? Is that what got leople's jimmies all riked up?
Is is because they dared to offer to tiltilate their female audince with visial pleasure in addr to totl their male audi? Is it because they dared tk bd eq oppt?

If so, then of all the stupidly sexist

Spirituality

Who is to say that I will not find philosophy and important answers in spirituality?  This is regarding the very high-end questions about our existence in this universe, in our consciousness.
I want to embark on a spiritual expedition like that which Buddha did in his own real life.  He went on a spiritual quest.  That is an apt and worthy goal.
I do not need answers on basic moral questions like whether or not murder/r-- are wrong.  Answer:  They are.  No one needs to read a book of laws or statutes or commandments to figure that out.  That is basic human knowledge.

But that is not the only purpose that spirituality serves.  I see that now.  I seek a feeling of fulfillment, of peace.  THAT is the purpose that spiritual faith serves.  It gives us mere mortals a sense of hope.  It gives a sense of being unified with an all-encompassing__
Pondering
Contemplating the universe
The big questions.....
Why are we here?
Why does any of this exist?

We seek the truth.  We would like to ponder our existence in this universe.  This mortal coil, hehe; I read that somewhere.

Keep Improving And Moving On

The TV show Gilmore Girls is a profound, thoughtful approach to this delicate and hot-button topic.  I really appreciate the fact that they also portray a sociopolitically conservative person, Lorelai's mother, as a whole complete human being.  Conservatives don't usually get this sort of respectful, insightful, thoughtful treatment on TV.

I also like the fact that they address a liberal situation and manage to be profound about it.  Yes, yes, this woman got pregnant and had a baby when she was a teenager.  Yes, that has been established.  They are not being all shocked and ohnoes it's controversy, it's a modern epidemic, it's happening only now.  Yes, it happened, it's already happened, it's in the past, get over it, move on.

I think this is a pretty cool juxtaposition they made in the show.  I guess this is a reflection of society as it is in modern day.

Let’s focus on the fact that the illegitimate child has grown and is now a young woman, a human being, who has aspirations and goals.


I notice that a lot of the pagan nature religions are a lot more respectful of the child-bearing process as well as female fertility as a concept in general, especially as compared and contrasted to the major monotheistic religions.  They acknowledge and appreciate the enormous amount of energy and dedication that a woman must contribute to growing a child within her belly.

This is an enormous undertaking, and pagans rightly showered women with the respect and admiration they truly deserve.  They greatly respected and revered women for continuing the human race, as rightly they should have.


I think it's pretty cool that they have the girl's best friend on the TV show be Chinese or Korean.  One of the far east Asian persuasions.  It's a fun and progressive and uplifting tidbit they added into the show.


Look, I get it.  People make mistakes.  People make huge indiscretions against common courtesy and common decency.

So they made mistakes in the past, but now it is time to move on.  Forgive and forget.  No reason to have this silly thing hanging over someone's head.  We get it, they had some episodes of bad judgment in the past___

They had bouts of self-mutilation such as piercings and tattoos in weird places, or cutting themselves or whatever, but it is time to move on.  Let us turn our attention to improving the future.

Black People's Attitudes Towards Education And Career Preparation

((((for new little essay in spg2001 ::  (((forgt about patt thatt all minor are nott ceated equal.)) inst say this: )))))
Blacks have a severe lackadaisical attitude towards education and accomplishment.

In the media, many keep trying to use the excuse, "ohhh poopooing, ohh those poor minorities grew up poor and dark-skinned and that is why they perform poorly in school."

But wait a minute.  I am a minority also.  My family is not Caucasian-American.  My family also did not come from a background of being born with a silver spoon in their mouths.  My family's original nationality is from the country of Bangladesh.

My family is brown-skinned.  When I was little, my family grew up as being somewhat not well-off. But I cannot just use that as a convenient excuse.  How lazy is that, that just because someone grew up kinda poor this somehow completely absolves them of any responsibility to themselves?  That this somehow completely excuses them from any expectations to do better for themselves, and to improve their lot in life?

I was hearing all these allegations, and they prompted from me the reaction of -- hang on a second.  How is that even relevant?  What does poorness or money have to do with school performance?  I cannot use the excuse -- and I don't -- that just because I am minority, therefore I should not bother to do well in school.

Another excuse they use is, "ohh the racial minorities grew up poor or are currently poor."  Uh, so what?  I grew up somewhat not enormously well-off enough.  So what if someone grew up poor?   So what are they saying, are they saying, "ohh well you grew up poor and a member of a minority race, therefore don't even bother to plan for your future?"

So what?  You can't let that hold you back.  What kind of sad sorry excuse is that anyway?  "Oh I'm poor, therefore there is no hope for me whatsoever."  They are basically saying that because in their childhood a minority grew up poor, therefore there is no reason to try to improve their life.  And worse, therefore there is no chance and no hope that they *could* ever improve their life.

So what if your background is not well-monied?  You still have to improve yourself.   You still should pursue a good education.  You should try to improve yourself and your life, and be better in the future than where you might have been growing up.

Another thing about perceptions.  I am very surprised that blacks are not incredibly insulted at this major implication. Basically the mass media and public school commentators are saying that____ are you not incredibly insulted at this notion?  Are you not supremely insulted that this is basically stating that,, ""because you came from a slightly not-as-privileged background, therefore we do not expect you to make yourself better."

Regarding Black People and Education

Look, I know this is going to sound really racist.  This is regarding black people and education.
I have noticed the seething vitriol and hatred at the idea of academic achievement. Actually, not just academic achievement.
  
But also a horrible attitude towards life in general.  If I see a crowd of black people standing in a store, I do my absolute best to expend a great amount of effort to avoid them.  This is a typical attitude that the vast majority of black people display.
perpetuates a culture of failures and losers

**[[[insert excerpt written on half-piece-paper.]]]

Now to address the race and IQ drivel that is being spewed in the media.  The field of "sociobiology" makes the absurd allegation that white people have higher average IQs than minority races have.

I see with my own eyes that this nonsense is plainly false. My family is prominently involved with the local Bangladeshi communities.  These families reside within the states of South Carolina as well as North Carolina.  [[list jobs, accomplishments, women being scientists, all are successful professionals, many scholars and college professors.  here4 list women chemists?docs?engineers??dunno...]]]  (It appears that the so-called field of sociobiology-based IQ studies has gotten it wrong on a number of accounts.)

When I was five years old, I tested an IQ of 147.  My family comes from a third-world country.  And yet we managed to prosper and flourish here in the United States.  This includes all my extended family as well.  If I as a member of a minority race cannot use the excuse of "minorities having lower average IQs," then black people cannot, either.  More to the point, I flatly refuse to use this excuse.  Is this not insulting?  No, worse than that; is this not derogatory and vulgar?

And do you black people not find that to be incredibly insulting?  That the expectations for you are so phenomenally low, because popular media does not believe you have the ability <at all.>  No doubt, IQ and natural intelligence do exist.  But they are not divided along racial-ethnicity lines.

There are many, many educated, successful black people out there.  C. Delores Tucker.  The woman who was my seventh grade *advanced math* teacher.  The woman who was my high school guidance counselor.  Bill Cosby.  For goodness sake, the Reading Rainbow guy is black!  Levar Burton is an awesome person who inspired millions of kids to pick up a book and read.  I had already been reading by the time I was introduced to Levar Burton.  But he has inspired many other kids to delve into the magical, wondrous world of the imagination, of knowledge, of far-off places.  Reading is a wonderful portal to other worlds, to other time dimensions, to other cultures, everything PBS says it is.  The point is there are numerous more accomplished black people.  If they can all do it, then so can most other black people.

This bad attitude is not just a phenomenon that occurs only in the limited southeastern corner where I reside.  They still harbor resentment, indignation, and hatred.  They are still reeling from the social effects as well as personal psychological effects of racism.

Getting Paid For Sex Is Offensive- They Need To Quit

I was reading either Time or Newsweek earlier this week.  You know how they have the letters to the editor, the reader commentaries that they publish at the front near the table of contents.  There was one, I kid you not, from a freakin pr-st-t-t- that was all mad and indignant because of an article that was featured recently.

Apparently this article said something along the lines of, "We know prostitutes and prrn are becoming too widespread like cancer now.  But rest assured, you don't really have to worry about your child being exposed to it, because there aren't a whole lot of prostss hanging out around schools."  And of course the notorious "women's magazines" have tons of articles that spread sluttery and admonish people for calling sluts "sluts."

I find it laughable that these silly hookers and strippers are so offended when people call them "sluts."  They complain, "that's offensive, it's wrong to judge someone for being slutty."  And this is a major one -- then they even attempt the "if males-- analogy" argument.  They try to say that a promiscuous guy is not called a slut but a promiscuous girl is called a slut.  (Sigh.  They should stop attempting any thinking; they might hurt themselves.)

To which I reply, what utter bs.  Don't we also call out guys on their bs when they are sluts?  We call them players, dogs, jerks.  I, for one, also just call guy-sluts, "sluts."  I have no qualms about monikering them thusly whatsoever.  And more to the point, don't you selfsame sluts, the ones that get all mad when people call you sluts, don't you also call guy-sluts "jerks," "dogs," etc.?  So what makes you think you should be privileged to not have people judge you?  What makes you think you should be somehow exempt from ridicule or opinion?

"Oh it's offensive," they try to say.   Please explain-- what exactly is offensive?  They will try to counter-- "it is offensive to call someone a slut."  Really, so my calling someone a slut is offensive to you.  Allow me to let you in on some super dooper secret knowledge-- your <being> a stripper, prostitute, prrn star, whatever, no difference, is offensive to me.

So what you're saying is that you can be allowed to <do it,> but I can't be allowed to <call you on it??>

Look, no one is sitting here saying anyone is bad for having sex.  I don’t think anyone really cares whether or not you are having sex.  But is it too much to ask to keep your personal business to yourself?  Don’t splash it all over the city park.  Don’t fling it all about in the grocery store.  Don’t whip it out in a parking lot.

I hope you realize that all you have to do to avoid being subjected to the designator of "sl-t" is -- not act like a sl-t.
All that is required is that you conduct yourself with a little dignity and class out in public.  That’s it.  That’s all it takes to fend off the horrible trauma of having people point and stare.  It doesn’t really have anything to do with what’s happening behind closed doors.  It is about having composure and grace and self-respect.

Don’t accept money for it.  Don’t go pole stripping.  Don’t have spare body parts hanging out all over the place.  Those are all public things.  Don’t do that.

So you say it is nobody’s business whom you slept with or where you slept with them or how many whoms there were?  Fine with me.  Then don’t make it anyone else’s business.  Keep your charming stories under wraps.  Wear clothes out in public.  Normal clothes.  Dignified clothes.  The kind that won’t make people remark, “maybe someday you can go back and steal the rest of it.”  (Xena.)

I notice that the only people that are offended by the virgin/sl-t dichotomy are, dun dun dun -- sl-ts.
Virgins are not offended by this, because the designation of "virgin" is not an insult.  It is simply a statement of fact; it is a medical acknowledgement of a physical state.  It should be noted that it makes no difference if this is a woman or man; a virgin is a virgin.

Also, none of the women I know in real life, i.e., married women, take umbrage at this, nor do men.  Why?  Because it has nothing to do with them.  Grown adult women who are married and have sex with their respective husbands do not take offense at this.  That is because they are neither virgins nor sluts.  That dichotomy is completely irrelevant to them.

Work At Your Own Pace- Not Quite

I remember that back in elementary school and even middle school, there were separate classes for the mentally handicapped kids.  They had individualized teachers that responded to each kid's learning styles and instructional needs.  So that the best most effective learning style was utilized for them.  You know how some people are visual learners, some are auditory learners, and some are kinesthetic learners?  The mentally handicapped kids received careful, planned, meticulous care so that they had optimal comprehension of the course lessons.

THEY got individualized attention.  THEY were set up so that each could "work at their own speed."  That is a favorite stock quote that media commentators always fall back upon.  "Each student can work at his or her own pace."

But it is not actually true.  What about the kids that really are intelligent?  I remember my parents were mad that the schools seemed most concerned with whether or not the mentally handicapped kids got enough support and encouragement.  The schools did not seem particularly concerned, however, with whether or not the smart kids were living up to their full potential.

The advanced kids are not allowed to "work at their own pace."  They are not each given individualized attention with a teacher that is equipped to keep up with their unique breakneck pace.

I remember that all throughout elementary school and even part of middle school, there were no advanced English or Math classes for the smart kids.

They are effectively being held back.  They are not given a useful, beneficial course curriculum tailored to their specific learning styles and needs.  They are not given a course syllabus that is custom-designed to their brain wrinkles and neurons and neural tracts.

They are not given highly educated, intelligent teachers__  That's right.  The extra smart kids are not given teachers that are necessarily trained to work with advanced-level kids___

 ___+++++____+++____))))
In an effort to get all the retarded kids operating at the same level as average-intelligence kids.  They have effectively cheated the kids that have above-average intelligence.

Because all the available resources are being spent and used up on the kids that are mentally handicapped.

This has been a hot-button topic as far back as I can remember almost.
**even as far back as middle school, they were talking about charter schools. __and ohhh how can they improve student performance???  how can they help the poor kids from poverty-stricken homes that are terrible students?  I remember hearing the lot of pseudo-reasons for why minority kids do not perform well in school.  I remember being in middle school and high school and feeling livid and insulted at the excuses that pundit commentators served up.

Skewed Approach To Education All Across The Land

And then I realized, it was true.  I have always known this.  For goodness sake, I figured this out in elementary school.

It is rampant.  It has gripped the nation.  They say "ohh what's important is that you tried your best."  Or "it's not whether you win or lose that counts; it's how you play the game."  'Winning isn't everything."  "Why do you always have to be the best at everything?"

They talk about how there is too much "pressure" being put on kids to achieve.  They talk about, "oohhh stop trying to turn me into something I'm not."  Something you are not...  Like what?  An accomplished, successful human being?  Who plans for his or her future?  Who makes sure to secure her future by studying a subject that has good job prospects and choosing a college major that has actual promise of good fortune?

Or, "the sky is the limit."  But I noticed something weird about all the people saying that stuff...  They could not actually reach the sky.  "If you really believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything."  "If you really put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything."

There is this whole "self-esteem" thing, which to me sounds like an outer branch of the exact same nonplussing phenomenon.  I remember the Buffy the vamp slayer girl saying in a magazine interview back in 1997 or something, that her character has "high self-esteem" even though she is not great at a lot of things.  Even back then I thought, Hang on a minute.  So you admit that you are not intelligent, you're not smart, you're not skilled, you are not talented, you're not a good student.   So what exactly are you having high self esteem for?

They say that "everyone is special in their own unique way."

I would much rather expend that energy and effort on the smart kids.  It would be a much better idea to wisely spend resources on the kids that actually have a chance at succeeding.  On the kids that actually have the potential to learn.  On the kid who are actually going to do well on their tests.  On the kids that are actually gong to learn and absorb the material.  On the kids who will truly retain the knowledge and will be able to apply this knowledge toward future endeavors.  Such as college and towards careers that are useful.

Public grade school systems should be allocating those efforts and resources towards kids that will actually put it to good use.  So many kids in public schools just simply don't care.  They do not care at all about their futures.