Five Books Everyone Should Read

 This is a subject I normally avoid, mostly because a) reading a book covering a given topic is usually more important than the specific book and b) it's virtually impossible to determine a book that is relevant to everyone.  But I was reading 1984 at work and one of the guys was totally unfamiliar with it and I suddenly realized that there are books that I think everyone should be familiar with.  And so, this list.  It was originally going to be ten, but I couldn't come up with ten specific books that I genuinely thought everybody needs to have read.  I did well to come up with five, to be honest.

Before we get to the list, I do want to take a moment to go over the criteria I used to make my selections.  Firstly, I'm going to define everyone as being relatively Western--i.e. European, North American, or Australian.  Loosely, we can say first world nations.  African tribesman and Chinese sweatshop workers are off the hook, although I think this would certainly be an excellent introduction to western culture.  Secondly, I want it noted that these are not the only books everyone should read--there are billions of books out there. There's a lot of ground to cover out there.  If you want a longer list, ask me for authors or subjects.  

The criteria are as follows:

• I have to have read it. (Which covers a lot more ground than one might expect--I average at least 3-4 books a week.)
• cannot be a series or trilogy, but it can be part of one (e.g. The Lord of the Rings is right out, but The Fellowship of the Ring is okay)
• it must either have unique topical content, or be the epitome of its kind (e.g. The Lord of the Flies, The Hunger Games, and Battle Royale all have the same theme and it's debatable which is the best, so none of them is on the list)
• the content must be relevant to "everyone" as defined earlier (e.g. Twilight has nothing to offer anyone with a penis)
• the book should be relatively readable (i.e. not exceedingly boring or overly difficult to decipher--Chaucer is right out)
• the content should be such that it warrants rereading (i.e. you get something different every time)
• the content should positively affect your brain (i.e. loosely speaking, there should be some sort of intellectual value--again, loosely speaking)

I feel like these are pretty reasonable criteria if I'm going to seriously expect everyone to read the books in question.  I'd also like to note that I'm not playing favorites here, either.  While I do have a certain fondness for the books on the list, as a serious reader, I have a lot more than five favorite books, and I can safely say that if I were marooned on a desert island with five books, this would not be my list (there might be some overlap, but not the whole thing).  I will say, if I was marooned on a desert island with five books to last out the apocalypse and reboot western culture with, these might be good (if bizarre) picks.

And so, without further ado....

5. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling

The Why:  All too often, we focus on serious, literary works with all sorts of meaning and allegories and moral struggles and all kinds of bullshit.  While you can certainly read that into Harry Potter, at its core it's just a fun story.  Yes, you have your good vs. evil stuff and you have your extra special hero, but really, that's just the basis for a good story.  Everyone should read a good, fun adventure with nasty villains, mysterious legends, and a fairly unremarkable hero.  While it's part of a series, book one can safely stand alone, and encompasses an innocence that the later books loose.  Plainly put, it's good clean fun, and everyone needs to experience a fun book.  It allows the reader to a) escape b) use their imagination c) enjoy the act of reading.  While there are a lot of books out there that accomplish this, I've picked Harry because of his accessibility.  It's not a difficult read, and we can all relate to him on one level or another. 

4.  Where The Wild Things Are, by Maurice Sendak

The Why:  Picture books, while usually for small children, don't get the credit they deserve.  From a cultural perspective, they are instrumental in teaching children about the world--these books are one of the first ways we begin to teach kids how the world works.  However, picture books also have value for adults both as artistic pieces, and as reminders of what it is to not be bitter, jaded, and all grown up.  The ability to see the world through someone else's eyes--nothing does this like a picture book.  I selected Where The Wild Things Are firstly because of its art. There are a lot of beautifully illustrated kids books out there, but Sendak has a very unique style.  Of his works, this one stands far above the rest in detail and in color.  All too many kid's book have lame illustrations, or really cartoony ones.  Sendak is one of the very few whose work could stand on its own in a gallery setting.  As for the story itself, our hero is a very real character--he's no angel, spouting virtues.  He's a kid who won't listen to his mom and gets punished accordingly.  He runs away, and then realizes that maybe--just maybe--his mom was right.  On a grander scale, we all do that.  We may not literally run away, but we've all had that moment where we thought our parents were full of crap, did what they said not to, and then realized they might have had a point there after all.  And best of all, when Max realizes that and comes home, Mom's forgiveness sits silently on the table in the form of a steaming bowl of soup.  You can guess where I'm going with this.  The point is, if you're going to pick a kid's book with fabulous art and a surprising amount of meaning in very few words, this is it.

3. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess

The Why:  Okay, now I will admit, this one is pushing it on the readability scale, but once you get accustomed to the quasi-Russian slang it's not too bad.  What, you didn't think it was all going to be kiddie books, did you?  Anyway, the why on this one is pretty easy.  A lot of your critics and reviewers go on about the violence (rape victims should hold off on this one until they've finished their therapy), but that's not really the main point of the book.  Your take away from this one is the importance of free will in the whole good vs evil quandry.  Seriously, Burgess pretty well bludgeons us with this in the end, so if you miss it, you might want to just watch the movie (which is not only excellent, but also beautiful).  As a society, we tend to gravitate towards the quick fix, especially when it comes to morality.  It is all too easy to equate a forced good act with goodness itself.  You can't make someone good by force--it has to be a choice.

2. 1984, by George Orwell

The Why:  1984 is always classed as science fiction, most likely because it's a tale of the future (of course, so is our previous entry on the list, but that one goes in fiction).  You can call it a dystopian horror story, but I like to think of it as a cautionary tale.  Orwell is great for those.  This is the only fiction book I've read that is less fictional and more real every time I read it.  There are so many concepts in this book that are relevant today--the idea of Big Brother watching us (this is where the term was coined), those in power reducing the freedoms of the people in order to maintain control, the mutability of history, and the way the masses allow it all.  If you don't get nervous reading this book, you're not paying attention.  This is very much a  warning from the past, and one we would do well to heed.

1.  Cosmic Trigger I, by Robert Anton Wilson

The Why: This may be a bizarre number one choice for a book that everyone should read, but hear me out.  Firstly, I'd like to point out that while it's part of a trilogy, it can stand alone very well, and you can go on your merry way without reading the other two volumes.  That said, those of you with more eclectic reading habits will probably recognize this one and either love me or hate me for it.  The rest of you should be thoroughly baffled at this point, and for you I'll elaborate.

Cosmic Trigger serves two purposes: firstly, it is the best primer on conspiracy theories, new agey weirdness, and alternate theories of consciousness that you will ever find.  It's Kookery 101.  At least half of it is complete and utter crap, but it's up to you to figure it out.  Once you've gotten over that hump (the realization that the author is not taking this nearly as seriously as you might expect), it's a passable deprogramming manual.  If you take nothing else out of this book, it should be that you should be paying more attention and asking more questions.  Don't take everything you're told for granted.

Now, some of you may be asking why I would include a new agey book, but not more traditional religious tomes (i.e. the Bible, the Koran, etc.).  That's pretty simple.  If I were to include any one holy book, I'd have to include them all.  Not out of political correctness, but to give the hypothetical reader of this list balance.  I sincerely believe that no one religion has all of the answers, so to only provide one holy book would make the list biased.  There's also the fact that religion should be approach on an individual basis--there's no one size fits all solution.  Besides, at this point, most of us have taken our sides in that argument, and all of the big religions are respected.  It's the little ones that get written off as being new age mumbo jumbo, in spite of the fact that a lot of that new age crap is no more or less ridiculous than the more "legitimate" belief systems (72 virgins? A guy rising from the dead?  A pantheon of gods repeatedly killing each other?).

The point here is, look at what you're dismissing before you dismiss it.  Make your own decisions. 

Think for yourself.

That's why my number one pick is Cosmic Trigger.  By drawing a wide array of connections, it will force you into thinking for yourself, if only because you can't trust the narrator (Or can you?  A disturbing amount of what he mentions checks out).

Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Massacres

So, I ordinarily try to avoid discussing current events.  They rarely stay current for long, and they tend to bring out the irrational in people, so there's a chance I won't bother posting this.

But the reaction to the most recent shooting spree and a few other trends I've noticed have got me a tad nervous, and I want to be sure I'm not the only one noticing these things.

At the time of this writing, it's been a few days since a shooting spree at a grade school in Connecticut.  The first news article I saw mentioned that the shooter had a "personality disorder," and I immediately predicted that it would soon come out that the shooter had been in therapy for years, much like the last one (James Holmes, who, if you'll recall, shot up a movie theater in Colorado).  Now, we haven't gotten any testimony from his shrink yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

Ordinarily, incidents like this get a public reaction railing against guns, and how we need more gun control, yada, yada, yada.  And there certainly is a contingent doing exactly this right now.  To them I have only this to say:

 

But seriously, you've already made up your mind where you stand on that, and no amount of Willy Wonka pictures is going to change that.  We're not going to go into any depth regarding gun control, because the arguments are already out there.

But we are going to talk about mental illness and guns, because these last couple of shootings have laid the groundwork for a movement that would prevent "mentally ill" people from acquiring firearms.

And there is a lot of talk about this--just google it.  And on the surface, this is a good idea--after all, if we make it so psychopaths can't get guns, they can't go on shooting sprees, now can they? (And if you believe that, let me point you back to Mr. Wonka.)  I mean, I don't want crazy people to have guns.  They're crazy.

But the problem is when you start saying that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns.  Because you know what?  "Mentally ill" covers a heck of a lot of ground, most of which is relatively harmless to others.  And mental illness is not necessarily a life long sentence.  Some people have one episode, and are perfectly fine for the rest of their lives.  Others are able to control their problems with a combination of therapy and meds, and still others just have an iron will.  Banning the mentally ill from having guns means that not only people who are legitimately and dangerously batshit insane will be forbidden from having a firearm (which is good), but it will also prevent people with problems like depression, anxiety, OCD, body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia, bulimia, hypochondriosis, pica, trichotillomania, social phobia, and a host of other so called mental disorders.  Now, I'm not saying there aren't some mental disorders that don't warrant some caution--some psychotics and schizophrenics can get dangerous (but they aren't necessarily always violent), and someone in the middle of a depressive episode probably should not have a gun, just because they're a danger to themselves.  But someone with OCD?  They're probably too busy neatly arranging the bullets to kill anyone.  Someone with bulimia?  Too busy throwing up their dinner.  Heck, somebody with social phobia is going to be too afraid to leave their house, much less shoot people.

According the National Institute of Mental Health, around 26% of adult Americans suffer from a mental disorder (mental illness) in a given year. 

About a quarter of our population suffer from mental illness.

A quarter.  1 in 4 people.

And, if you follow that link, you can see exactly what most of those people suffer from.  Here's a hint: it's depression and anxiety, neither of which prompts people to go on shooting sprees.

Am I saying crazy people should have guns?  Of course not.  But I am saying that if you are going to even attempt to legislate something like this, you need to be damned careful how you define "mental illness."  


Now, on the other end of the spectrum, we have a great hue and cry for better mental healthcare.  And I can't support this strongly enough.  Having been through the system a couple of rounds, our mental healthcare system is failing most of its patients.  It's great if you have a relatively minor problem, or it's an acute issue.  But, to be frank, this profession doesn't really know what they're doing.  When the shrink gives you that Prozac, it's because it helps most people.  Do they know what it does?  Absolutely.  It affects the serotonin levels in your brain.  Do they know why that makes some people less depressed?  No freaking clue.  It's really only been since the fifties that we stopped just locking up mentally ill people, and actually started trying to fix them.  Mental health is in its infancy. What even more disturbing is that most of the "professionals"in the field suffer from a variety of mental disorders themselves (I invite you to explore the psychology section of your bookstore and look at the mental illness memoirs--most of them are written by psychologists).  While this theoretically makes it easier for them to relate to their patients, it also adds a pretty heavy element of "the inmates are running the asylum" to the situation.  I don't know about you, but I don't really want someone with a mental disorder branding me with one for the rest of my life.

And that's where we really get into it.  For years, people with mental illness have been trying to overcome the stigma of being crazy.  And there is a stigma.  But most of these people can't help it anymore than someone with diabetes or heart disease.  We've made such great strides--most of our culture is much more accepting of problems like depression and anxiety, even bipolar.  But by branding these insane killers as being mentally ill, we are inadvertently tarring everyone with the same brush.  We run the risk of making mentally ill synonymous with murderer. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help these people--God knows they need it--but, again, we need to be a damned sight more careful about how we word things. 

I'll admit, most of this is just theory at this point.  But we are dancing on the edge of a very slippery slope right here.   I hope to God I'm wrong, and that we're able to enact laws that will protect our children and our freedoms (I'd like to point out that I'm not even going into the potential conspiracy theories associated with increased gun control).  

And I'm sure that by this point some of you are asking, "But, Linda, if we don't enact stricter guns laws and improve our mental health care, how do we stop this from happening again?"  And I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure.  I suspect that we'd have to change an awful lot of our current attitudes and habits.  We'd have to create a society that doesn't put so much pressure on its people.  In short, we pretty much need to overhaul our entire system.  But that's not a practical solution--changing our entire society would simply take too much time and energy, not to mention more change than most of us are willing to accept.  Honestly, we'll probably experience a full on societal breakdown before it even can happen.

In the meantime?  We'll just have to do what we can to prevent it, and show each other compassion and mercy when we can't. 




Next time: We will be returning to the bike trails series as soon as possible.  I've been kinda sick and not overly mobile, so my information gathering has been stalled.  There's one thing I absolutely have to check on the next one, and it'll be kind of exciting, so be sure to tune in! 

Bike Trails of Lexington--Liberty Trail

Parks and rec lists the length of this trail as 1.3 miles, but that's really going to vary depending on where you access it.  With five different start points, this is definitely one of the more accessible trails in the area.  You'll find it just next door to Hamburg, and about as navigable as the shopping area (i.e. you're probably going to get lost).  I started my exploration at one of the two access points one Flying Ebony Dr.--yes, there are two start points on the same street. 

Here's the first entrance.

 The second is much further down the street than you would expect.

It's also worth mentioning that the trail from the further entrance runs right next to the road, making you question why you bothered.

I really was not overly impressed with this trail.  There's not a lot of shade, and while the multiple entrance points provide easy access, they also make for some confusing intersections.

And they all look like this.

This is particularly bad, as one of these forks leads to yet another entry point, which is in a completely different and unconnected neighborhood.

If you live in that neighborhood, this is what you're looking at.

 

 The only people who will use that entrance are the one who live in the Killington subdivision, a neighborhood accessible only from Liberty Rd. (at a point where there's not even a shoulder to bike along).  Having inadvertently wound up over here the first time, I also find it important to note that the maps app on your smartphone may be completely useless.  I know mine was.  There's nothing like getting lost and pulling up a map, only to find out the street you're on doesn't exist.  There are about a million dead ends and a steep hill, too, so be careful not to wind up over here by mistake.

Once you've managed not to get turned around and lost, you'll soon pass by the fourth entry point, which is actually kinda cool.  There's a path that leads down from Liberty Elementary, so, presumably, teachers can take their classes for a walk.

I would have a better picture, but it was recess, and I didn't want anyone to think I was photographing the kids.

Once you get past the school, things are pretty straight forward.  You'll go under a bridge...

 

Okay, this is the other side.  But there's not that much of a difference.

...and then you'll pass by the fifth entrance, which is off of Red Leaf Dr. in The Shetlands neighborhood.

At least this one has a clear view of the street.

From this point, it's all up hill.  Seriously.  It's steep, and there is absolutely no shade.  This is not a trail for hot summer days, trust me.  But hey, surely there will be something interesting at the top of the hill, right?  Maybe the trail connects to nearby Liberty Rd.?

 

Or maybe it just ends in the middle of a depressing field.

Actually, it just sort of ends.  You go through all that effort to get to the top, and the trail just stops.  Never mind that if it extended maybe 100 ft to the right it would connect up to the sidewalk on Liberty Rd.

Numerical ratings:


All areas are out of five with one being bad and five being good.

terrain (steepness): 2 (that hill is a beast)
shadiness:1
length: 3
scenery: 2 (these photos were taken the same day as the ones for Hamburg Trail)
accessibility: 5

Overall: 13/20

Other comments:  The layout makes the trail confusing and annoying.  Not recommended unless you live in one of the adjacent subdivisions.

Bike Trails of Lexington--Hamburg Trail

So,at the risk of making it easier for the internet to find me, I've decided to explore my local bike/walking trails.  I thought it might be nice to review each one, just in case you wanted to bike/walk around the area.  That, and it gives me a good excuse to get out there and get exercise while the weather is decent.  I'll be covering this roughly by area of town, but otherwise in no particular order.  So, without further ado, let's get started!

Hamburg Trail

Parks and Rec describes this as a shared use (bike/walking) trail from Sir Barton Way to near Winchester Rd.  They give its length at about .3 miles.  It has three access points.

Point #1--Sir Barton Rd.

Point #2 (that really long staircase on the left) Lowe's parking lot

 Point #3 (ramp extends to the left, as well as staircase) Walmart Parking lot

If you're driving, you can park at Lowe's or Walmart (top of the hill), but you will have a steep climb back up to your car.  For our review, I came in from Sir Barton.  Having seen the trail from the parking lot, I can say without a doubt that this is the easiest and prettiest place to start this trail--it also give you the longest route and avoids annoying hills.   This trail is surprisingly scenic for its location, and has a bonus horse cemetery.

 

I'm dead serious about the horse cemetery.  This is Kentucky.

Scenic view towards the cemetery.

You'd never guess this was next door to a Walmart.

I'd say its biggest drawbacks are its short length and the way it just sort of dead ends, instead of looping back on itself.

 

Seriously, they couldn't have connected it to another parking lot or a sidewalk or something?

Still, not a bad trail for a lunch time walk.  I also noticed some lamp posts, so it may be doable at night, too.

Numerical ratings:

All areas are out of five with one being bad and five being good.

terrain (steepness): 5 (1 if approached from the parking lot)
shadiness: 3
length: 1
scenery: 3 (average for central KY)
accessibility: 5

Overall:  17/20

Other comments:  Would use on a regular basis.

Poking the Wasps Nest, or, Let's Talk About Politics!

So I generally avoid talking about politics, mostly because a) I don't care that much b) I tend not to be overly informed on the subject and c) people who talk about politics tend to be a lot like rabid dogs.

Only rabid dogs are more rational.

But I've noticed that lately, people seem to be paying a bit more attention to the circus that our electoral system has become.  And when I say that, I mean that people are starting to notice the media focus on relatively unimportant side issues, and the way that only certain inflammatory statements by particular people make it to the front page.  It gives me hope that maybe, one day, the people might rise up, say, "Enough," and actually do something about our broken system.

Of course, in order to fix the system, you have to acknowledge and identify the problem.  And that's the point we're at now.  In an effort to get one more voice out there pointing out the inconsistencies (and get myself on yet another watch list), let's talk about some of them, and the possible reasons behind them.

Focusing On Side Issues:  If you listen to the media, the key issues for this years presidential election are women's rights and gay marriage.  Now, I'm not saying those aren't important issues--as a woman, having a say in what happens to my body is important to me, and who doesn't know a wonderful gay couple or three who deserve the rights and privileges that a legally sanctioned marriage provides?  However, I'm pretty sure that there are one or two things that are just a wee bit more important.  Like jobs.  Yeah, yeah, I know unemployment rates have gone down.  I also know that's there's a limit on how long you can collect benefits, and there's a lot of people who have passed that limit.  Unemployment has gone down because people have run out of benefits, or gone back to school to retrain (or to hide out until things get better), or because people have settled for two or three crap jobs just so they can pay the bills.  Go check the want ads--the jobs that are available are either highly specialized (i.e. require specific training) or shit jobs that nobody wants because they don't pay anything (like fast food).  How many people do you know who have had to move back in with their parents, or take on an additional roommate, or who have lost their job, or who can't afford to replace their broken down car, much less pay their bills? That probably describes about half the people I know, and if you can say the same, I think we definitely have an employment problem in our fine country.  So why isn't the media covering that?  There could be a lot of reasons.  My theory?  By focusing on side issues like gay marriage and women's rights (both of which will eventually resolve themselves for the best), it gives the candidates the chance to hide the fact that they don't have a solution for the job problem.  Alternatively, if you go in for your conspiracy theories, it could even be a way to hide the fact that the main candidates don't want to solve the problem.  Pick your reason for why.  Either way, it's a ploy to distract our attention from what's really important.

This is what's going through my head whenever I think of this.

Manipulating The System:  Now, I'll admit we're traipsing into conspiracy theory here.  At the same time, some things just don't add up.  For example, let's take a look at the debacle that was the republican primary.  How many candidates got put out there for president?  It doesn't really matter, because pretty much all of them were crackpots, crazy, or otherwise horrible candidates.  Seriously, next to the republican hopefuls anyone would look good--especially Obama.  I'm not saying he had a hand in it, or that there someone somewhere is pulling strings.  But after the demolition derby that was the primary, I question who can take the republicans seriously at all.

You saw a primary.  I saw Thunderdome.

Whatever your position, it's looking pretty good for Obama.  But wait, you say, what about third party candidates?  Surely someone else is running.  Yes, Sally, there is.  However, there are these things called ballot access laws.  I didn't even know about this until it was brought to my attention.  You see, in order to be on the ballot, a candidate has to pay a fee and get so many signatures on a petition.  The exact numbers vary from state to state, but you get the idea.  However, if a candidate is backed by a third party--i.e. not republican or democrat--they have to not only pay a higher fee, but get substantially more signatures (think 2000 as opposed to 200).  And, of course, those signatures can be challenged, which means at best a delay in getting on the ballot, at worst not being there at all, if they can invalidate any of those signatures (and something as simple as writing the wrong zip code can invalidate one).  Our current third party candidates are having to do this, and last I was aware of, at least one was dealing with a challenge in Pennsylvania.  If they refuse him ballot access, he'll probably still be a write in candidate, but you tell me how many people are going to know of him.  On the other hand, if he's on the ballot, there's a good number of people who will look at Romney and Obama and say, "Oh, hell no, let's go with the other guy."

The Two Party System:  While I paid as little attention as possible in my history classes, one thing that always stuck out to me was the number of political parties and the way they seemed to change around every few decades, at least to start with.   Now?  We pretty much have two parties and a bunch of fringe groups.  Those two parties have been on top since about Lincoln.  To top things off, we haven't had a serious contender from a third party since Nixon (George Wallace of the American Independent party garnered a whopping 46 electoral votes in 1968).  What's the deal here?  I'm going to go out a limb here and say it's money.  Let's face it, at this point, the winner is whoever can get their name out there the most, and the more money you have, the better you can do that.  It's like voting for prom queen in high school.

Seriously, they have billboards and everything.

The republican and democratic parties have so much more funding than our third party guys.  The other guys simply don't have enough money to compete on the same level.  But at least they still try, even if it means standing on a street corner with a sandwich board.

Voting Against The Other Guy:  Okay, this isn't really the media, but I hear this a lot and have to challenge it.  The idea here is that the third party candidates have no chance, so, even if you hate both the republican and the democrat, you should vote for the one you hate less, just so the other one doesn't get into office.  This always reminds me of a particular passage in a Douglas Adams book, as follows:

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

• Douglas Adams, in So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish (1984) Ch. 36.

(Thanks to wikiquotes, from whom I shamelessly copied and pasted.)

Yes, the candidate that you so despise doesn't get in.  But the one who does is still a bloody lizard.  Either way, you have just elected someone who doesn't truly represent the people or has their best interests in mind.  I mean, with our current election--who actually believes that Romney or Obama has the slightest clue what the average American is going through right now?  They're both millionaires.  Seriously, we just had Romney defining the middle class as topping out at $250,000 a year.  Of course, it got twisted a little, but I think we can all agree that if your income has more than five digits in front of the decimal place, you are not in the middle class (unless you have like ten kids).  For actual middle class, you're looking at more like $30,000-$70,000.  Either way, you're electing someone who has no idea what you're going through and honestly doesn't give a shit (they just pretend to to get your vote).  You're still voting for a lizard.  Now, I'm not saying the third party candidates aren't lizards, but there's a chance one of them might be a human in a lizard suit.  Maybe if everyone voted for the candidate they most agree with instead of against the one they most disagreed with, these other guys might have a chance.  I'd love to see how many people vote for Obama because they don't want Romney vs. how many people vote for Obama because they think he 's the best choice. 

I'm not saying third party candidates are the solution to our problem.  They probably aren't.  What I am saying is that instead of getting distracted by the slight of hand and logical fallacies, we need to be examining how each candidate stands on the issues, and voting accordingly.  If you look at how Romney stands and genuinely believe that he's the best man for the job, you should vote for him.  If that's how you feel about Obama, go with him.  Personally, I'm for Gary Johnson, but hey, it's your decision.  The point is, if we keep electing idiots who benefit from our broken system, it will never get fixed, and this problem exists on every level right now.  The presidential race isn't even the most important one (just the most publicized).

Let's stop electing the damned lizards, okay?




Rational discussion welcome below.  Trolls, people who refuse to acknowledge logic, and people who attempt to start a flame war will have their comments deleted.

Girly Fru Fru Stuff!

So, a while back I was wandering the internets and I happened upon a blogger who mentioned this thing called Birchbox.  It's a subscription thing where you get a box of various and sundry toiletry samples each month.  I've been exploring my girly side, so I decided to check it out.  It's $10 a month (less if you get a full year--I opted for the monthly so if I decided to cancel I wouldn't be out as much).  It's also high end stuff, so it's a cheap way to try out products you might not be able to spend the money on.  There was a waiting list, so it was a month or two before I was able to sign up.

The reason I tell you all this, of course, is because my first one came in and I wanted to share/show off my loot.  Now, before you menfolk run away, I do want to point out that they do have a men's box.  Anywho, I'm super excited because a) I didn't expect it to get in until Friday and b) it's like a tiny Christmas!

This is what was in my mailbox.

Apparently, they theme each box, which is pretty neat.  This month is a back to school theme.  Inside the mailer was the packaging you see on  the website--a brown box with their logo.  And inside that....

So cute!

And because that photo is way blurrier than it was on my phone (yes, I know I have a spiffy camera, but the battery was dead) let's do some closeups, shall we?

 The small jar turned out to be pomegranate scented shaving cream.  It smells really good.

 Also included was a razor, with coupons for blade refills.  Convenient, yes?

 And then there was a cute little tissue wrapped package.  I love packages inside packages!

And inside that was a gel lip stain, perfume, and a hair tie.  

The perfume actually doesn't smell half bad, which was a pleasant surprise.  I'm usually not overly keen on most perfumes.  The little booklet that came with it all also had the full name of each item, and the price (the whole idea is that if you like the stuff you can order a full size version).  I'd just like to point out that the full size perfume is like 70 bucks for a small bottle, so that's probably why it's tolerable (it's also like the third most expensive thing they sent out samples of).

Overall, I'm pretty pleased with my first box.  I'm actually looking forward to the next time I shave my legs (did I mention the shaving cream smells really good?)  and I can't wait to see if my husband likes the perfume (he's at Gencon right now--I'm not going up until Friday, so I'll have to wait).  And, of course, I'm looking forward to next month's box now, too.  I love getting packages, and it's extra fun when it's a surprise!

I may make this a regular thing for ye old blog, mostly because it's fun for me.  And who knows, maybe some of you guys are also still discovering how this whole girl thing works (I'm a late bloomer, I know).  I will say you don't have a whole lot of choice for your samples (the surprise is what makes it fun), so if you have allergies you may want to give it a pass, or share your bounty with your friends.

Don't worry, I'll try to keep up with some of the zany fun you've come to expect, although I'll admit, it's been a bit tough lately.  Things have been kinda boring/stressy, and I hate to go into rant mode too often.  But it'll all be good, so you kids have fun till next time!

Girls With Glasses

Before we get started, I just want to let you know that this was almost a post about how not to pick up girls (hint: you should get out of your car, unless she's a hooker) or a rant about how people are always needlessly invading my space.

I think you got lucky.

Because today's subject is girls wearing glasses.  Which, based on the search results also appears to be some sort of fetish--somewhere around half the results are galleries filled with pictures of hot girls wearing glasses.  It's both scary and reassuring.  At the same time, I'm pretty sure none of those girls wear glasses on a regular basis (there's this thing you get in the area around the nose pieces).

I also learned of a quote that apparently still gets bandied about, even though the supposed originator  has been dead for over forty years:  "Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glass," Dorothy Parker.

Knowing that I wear glasses, I think you can guess how I feel about that.  I mean, I've worn glasses since the third grade.  I've worn glasses for so long, that sometimes I go looking for them and freak out, only to realize that they're on my face.  I feel like I should have heard about this whole glasses are unattractive movement a long time ago.  I mean, I remember trying to go without them at one point in grade school because they weren't cool, but cool and attractive were two very different things to me as a child (and still are, to be honest).  Of course, I did grow up with a mother who wore glasses, and none of my friends ever really picked on me about them.  But men not liking women who wear glasses?  There's just so much wrong with that statement.  Firstly, a woman's life is about more than just finding a man.  While that statement might have been relevant in a time when a woman's place was to find a man, settle down, and pop out babies, we have a lot more options these days.  Let's leave outdated concepts of the role of women in the past, shall we?  Secondly, it's just plain wrong.  There are apparently lots of guys who find girls with glasses sexy, otherwise the following wouldn't exist (I apologize for the list of links instead of pics.  For the guys who stumbled upon this looking for pics, congrats, you now have a list of sites to check out):

girls with glasses
girls with glasses
sexy girls in glasses
The 20 Hottest Girls In Glasses
Hot Girls With Glasses
30 reasons girls with glasses are hot
curves and glasses
20 Hot Girls In Glasses
girls with glasses on reddit  (link is SFW, links from it are not)
Asian girls with glasses
Hot nerdy girls with glasses (excessive autoplay ads, be warned)
Pretty Black Girls In Glasses

And I'm tired of looking at all these pictures, so we'll leave it there.  Trust me, there are a lot more.  Either way, I think we can pretty well say that while not all guys dig a chick with specs, enough of them do.  So suck it, Dorothy Parker.  

I feel like I may have gotten sidetracked there.  I also feel like I've been looking at porn after finding those links for you, so I hope you appreciate it.  Ugh.  I don't even want to see what the most popular search terms on my traffic are going to be after this one.

Still, even though we have a surprisingly large group of supporters out there, popular culture still holds to the Dorothy Parker school of thought.  Seriously, how many ugly duckling movies have you seen where they take the nerdy "ugly" girl and transform her into a beautiful princess.  What's the first thing they do?  Get her contacts.  We see this over and over in movies, and not just your teen feel good crap.  How many romance movies portray the heroine as a frumpy woman in glasses (because nothing says frump like spectacles), then take those glasses off to reveal the sexy girl beneath?  I'm pretty sure I've seen this gimmick in almost every genre.  While we may not outright say it, our culture is permeated with the message that glasses are not attractive.  Models don't wear glasses, unless they're modeling them, or going for the naughty intellectual look.  People in movies and TV only wear glasses to look smart and nerdy. 

But I've known stupid people who wear glasses.  And I've know beautiful, sexy girls who wear glasses--and are beautiful and sexy in them.

So what do we do?  Do we accept the standard our culture has given us?  Do we rock the naughty librarian look for the fetishists? Or do we look for a third option?  How about we show society that just because a girl wears glasses, it doesn't mean she's a nerdy ugly duckling.  You wouldn't ask an amputee to take off her leg to increase her sex appeal.  And for many of us who wear glasses, those lenses are just as necessary for getting around as that leg (just a whole lot cheaper).  If you want to take off your glasses or wear contacts so you can get a certain look, that's fine.  But you shouldn't feel pressured to do so because of society's crazy standards (they're not always right--remember lead based makeup?).


Let's focus on accepting ourselves and our flaws, and making changes because we want to, not because society says we have to.