onomatopoeia

In my years of extensive relationship experience (ha), I've often found myself in one of two situations.

The first is where a guy and I just click. The conversation is easy, unaffected and enjoyable.

Then there are those times when I come across a fellow and there is an undeniable spark. It's like some greater force strikes the two of us together and flames erupt out of nowhere.

Rarely, however, has someone crossed my path who gives me a significant click coupled with a hot, hot spark. I've met and loved those who gave me a modest amount of both, but it was just never enough bang for my buck.

This makes me wonder. Is it possible to have both a spark and a click with someone, with maybe even some snap, crackle and pop for good measure? I'd like to hope so.

But maybe I'm just idealistic.

WTF Mate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/us/15census.html?em&ex=1161230400&en=a26705a7fc88bdec&ei=5087%0A

I definitely have something to say about the recent finding that unmarried households now make up the majority in these here United States. Considering the fact that my brain is not functioning properly at the moment, however, you'll have to give me a day or so to put my opinion into words. Peace.

!Lovely Monday, Bubbles and Candy Canes!

Yeah, right.

The weather and the day of the week are very befitting of my shitty, shitty mood.

It's cold, damp and gray outside, and it will be 4 days before I get any rest and relief. There is no makeup on my face and no product in my wet hair...I just didn't care today. At least my desk isn't by the window ... it's fugly out there.

I'm usually quite proud of and happy with myself, because I work hard and hold myself to high standards and a strict moral code.

But I hope I'm not alone in thinking that sometimes, I really hate myself. I really suck sometimes.

While I'm wading in this shallow pool of self-loathing, the rainclouds over my head will slowly dissipate and I'll catch one, maybe two rays of sunshine in the hours and days ahead. Right now, I'm just looking up so I don't miss them.

Mean, Motive and Opportunity

I find it simply frightening that in this day and age, national governments can blatantly deny accountability for proven historical events. Sure, we've all heard of wackjobs who deny the occurrence (sp?) of the Holocaust, but the fact is that those are individuals (crazy Middle Eastern presidents notwithstanding) and the German government, among others, has spent the last few decades apologizing and bearing the burden for what happened.

But to this day, the Turkish government flat-out rejects the label of "genocide" when referring to the 1915 deaths of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children, instead attributing the losses to a Civil War that also took the lives of many Muslim Turks. Historical evidence, including pictures, documents and personal accounts, however, will suggest otherwise.

In the last century, displaced Armenians from all over the world have worked together to essentially defend the honor of their fallen relatives by continuing the affirmations that this genocide did occur and, as a result, have built and maintained a fierce national pride, despite the absence of a nation to call their own.

Now, Turkish writers are being criticized for acknowledging the Armenian genocide as a historical event and supporting today's Armenian. Most recently, Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his literary work that focuses on Turkish history. He was also prosecuted several months back for stating that the Turkish government should own up to its involvement with the Armenian genocide. While he's a wildly successful novelist, he has often been criticized for being "un-Turkish" and writing to a European audience, rather than a Turkish one, and this has led to allegations by the Turkish government that Pamuk's prize was a political favor from the Swedish government.

I could go on for days about this ... in fact, I sort of have. But the fact is that although Pamuk has put a considerable amount of effort into cultivating his controversial opinion, I can't know what his real motive is--considering that he's garnered more attention outside of Turkey than inside. For being who he is, he sure chose subject matter that would get everyone's attention.

Was it opportunistic? Maybe. Did it bring him international fame as the first Turk to win the Nobel Prize? Yes. But is this prize also a powerful tool that will strengthen the Armenians' arsenal and their resolve to continue affirming their horrific history? YES.

So everyone wins. Except, of course, for the Turkish government.

Read the article.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9f3f5ada-59f1-11db-8f16-0000779e2340.html

Guns and Wedding Bells

Hi.

So I'm back from a wedding weekend in good old Sacramento. It was bizarre to see a girl who could drink/dance me under the table just two short years ago promising herself eternally to one man right in front of my eyes ... to see THE girl who taught me how to party radiating in virginal white as I twirled drunkenly on the dance floor.

Seeing how much she's grown and then looking within, I realize that despite the party persona I have taken on of late, I'm not so bad myself. Two years ago I was a bright young girl--but I was also a naive, quivering idiot. In spite of popular belief, I can take care of myself now and view situations more completely than ever before. And that brings me to the wonderful people I met this weekend.

Normally, I would approach a family that I know to politically and traditionally conservative with a polite, distant demeanor, simply because I'd assume that the differences between us would be too great to even attempt to relate. But this time, I took on a "people are people" attitude and opened myself up to understanding, admiring the family's arsenal of hunting rifles, having frank conversations and making friends along the way.

Shame on Me

A kind young fellow pointed out that the girl who was sent home to die was not the same girl whose funeral is scheduled for tomorrow. Fuck. My bad. I still think the article was written in a misleading way, but that's precisely why I should check multiple sources before I comment on the facts at hand. And the next time I take a stab at news commentary, I will!

Or I can just stick to my usual, useless love/life/lies/bitching fodder.

Oopsie

You know, everyone always tells me that Fox News is highly sensationalized, speculative and just plain wacky and, after watching certain newscasts, I often feel the same way.

But everyone deserves a second chance in my book, so today I decided to get my "news" from good old Fox ... I wanted to see what they had to say about the world this lovely morning.

Upon my first click, I read this:

GEORGETOWN, Pa. — Black, horse-drawn buggies glided past roadblocks in Lancaster County Thursday as hundreds of Amish families and their English friends prepared to bury four of the five young girls who were shot to death inside a schoolhouse this week.

Meanwhile, one of the five girls injured in the shootings was being taken off life support to come home to die.

Nice lead, inventive, minimal yet telling. I was drawn to the first line in the second paragraph immediately. Wait a second ... the fifth girl was shot and she is remaining alive with support, but does that mean she was shot to death? She's not dead yet, but she was shot to death? Is it possible to change the phrasing with the goal of less shock value and more accuracy?

But then I thought, maybe I'm wrong and this is protocol. So I clicked on to another story on the same topic. This one focused on an anti-gay church in Kansas that wanted to protest the girls' funerals due to their disagreement with the Amish way of living. Yada yada, blah blah blah ... and then we come to the last paragraph in the story.

On Monday, Charles Carl Roberts IV killed five girls — Naomi Rose Ebersole, 7; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; Marian Fisher, 13; Mary Liz Miller, 8; and her sister Lena Miller, 7 — in a rural Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster County, Pa.

OK, so I know this is wrong. Whether or not the writer in story 1 (Todd O'Connor) determined that because the shot would produce a death, it was OK to use the phrasing "shot to death," I have issue with the way writer Sara Bonisteel just went straight to "killed." Girl number 5, Anna Mae, was still alive at press time! It's simple enough to get it right and these examples were both insensitive and irresponsible and for what? This phrasing didn't even add to the shock value and sensationalism of the story ... they were just distasteful without a purpose.

Sickened, I figured that I can't trust anything, so I might as well read my horoscope for some entertainment and alas, accuracy in the unlikeliest of places!

Your energies continue to shift, drawing you into a conflict that stems from a difference of perspective rather than from a difference of goals. It's likely that you both want the same result, even if that's not apparent now. Use your analytical powers to find common ground and work from there.
Thursday, October 5, 2006

You know what I think? Whoever is spying on my little, insignificant life should go and work for Fox News and bring some order to the world.

I need to rant

I am done censoring myself, it's not getting me anywhere.

I know what's good for me and what's right, but I choose to walk in the opposite direction with the thought that I am young and it's OK to do stupid shit while I still can. It's just not.

I know I am strong, but I let myself be weakened when I push down my spirit and let others, people I want to impress or keep in the picture, walk all over me. I've done it with friends, coworkers, boyfriends, family, everyone who is significant in my eyes ... and every time I let it happen I feel like less of a person.

I do this because I always feel like it's me that is in the wrong and that, as a solution, I need to somehow adjust myself completely while letting all others continue with their quirks and faults ... and just take it up the tail pipe. I'm very sorry, but fuck that. I am done. I am in the position to take control of all the situations in my life, so that's what is going to happen.

No one is infallible ... no matter what he or she may think. I'm certainly not, and this new POV I'm trying to adopt doesn't mean I will never admit wrongdoing again ... in fact, I plan on it. But I will not ADD to my infallibility (is that a word?) in order to satisfy others with their false sense of perfection!

Wow, that feels better.

Stuff and shit

An update ....

I can't bring myself to sit down and write lately, just because there is way too much to say, way too much swirling around in my little head.

I have a very specific idea of the person I want to be: intelligent, well-informed, comfortably independent, strong, attractive, respected, modest yet confident, balanced, mellow.

It seems easy enough, but it's actually quite difficult. You see, instead of trying to live a certain way and take things as they come, I rely on results, even when it isn't time for them. When I'm not presented with results, I am ill at ease, even though it isn't those damn results that I need. Sadly enough, this carries into every aspect of my life.

I rush to establish an opinion when I really should know more about something. I make decisions simply so they are not left unmade. I mail letters when I know there's more to say. I go in for the kill before it is time. You get the idea. I jump and leap and dive when strolling along would work so much better for me.

This is something I am working to change about myself, so that I can come one step closer to achieving personal perfection =).

Kidding, of course.