...Evolution and Gay Marriage
So. Evolution. And gay marriage. What do these two things have in common?
Well. They're both things that are opposed by the religious right. Usually for reasons that are very specifically religious, or at least they tend to make religious arguments. I could get back into the post I made a few months back saying that a lot of the anti-gay marriage people are looking to legislate comfort, but that's not the point of this.
Let's look at the similar path that both have been taking. In both cases, the opposition started by using religious motivations cloaked in secularism. This was a necessary step, because pure religious motivations fail something called the Lemon Test, the little thing that was set up by the Supreme Court many years ago saying that to maintain the separation of church and state, legislation cannot be entered into under purely religious motivations.
Of course, in the case of evolution, there was at the beginning no hiding the religious nature of the anti-evolutionist movement, as it came right out and called itself Creationism, and made no bones about being centered firmly in the writings of Genesis. That, however, was shot down in Edwards v Aguilard.
So, secular phrases were invented. In the case of gay marriage, the answer is trying to protect Family Values. In the case of creationism, it's been Creation Science, which turned into Intelligent Design.
In both cases, they have lost in the courts. Legislating against gay marriage and legislating in favor of intelligent design have both been hit with the big ole label of UNCONSTITUTIONAL by those pesky evil liberal activist judges. Especially Judges Jones, put on the bench by noted lefty George W. Bush.
Therefore, if something is unconstitutional, well, the next step is to rewrite the constitution. Which is what those foes of gay marriage have been able to do with frightening success throughout the United States. My own state of Virginia is going to be voting on a similar amendment in the near future, and I have no compunction that it's going to be anything but an unqualified success.
So why bring that up? Well...someone from the Intelligent Design camp has latched onto this idea. It's something that I fully expected to happen one day, but had always hoped I was just being cynical and paranoid about. However, there is a move underway to amend the constitution of the state of Nevada. Someone wants to put it to a vote of the people, and if successful, the constitution of the state of Nevada will include such Discovery Institution canards as that cells are too mathematically complex to have evolved. Or that there is a serious debate going on.
It worries me that something like this could be put in front of the voting public, because the voting public is mostly scientifically illeterate. Public opinion polls are often in favor of teaching the so-called controversy, or worse, not teaching evolution at all. But an amendment vote or a poll would be based on the biggest possible fallacy: the thought that science is a democratic process. It's not.
Hopefully this will go nowhere. But I'm damn scared that it will. And that it will be precident setting.
For those who haven't seen what's going on in Pennsylvania, I first present some pre-reading before I start to rant:
WaPost: Parents Seek to Block Teaching of 'Intelligent Design.'
CNN.com: 'Intelligent Design' debate back in court
This goes back a few months, but is back into the news now because the lawsuits are about to finally go before a judge, and the question is this: should Intelligent Design even be mentioned in public school classrooms. If you read the newsletter
that Dover Area Schools released on the subject you will see that they are defensive about being labelled as teaching Intelligent Design. Which is, to be completely technical, true. What they are doing is having teachers read a statement to their students making it clear they are only being taught evolution because Pennsylvania education standards require it, continuing the old chessnut of calling evolution a "theory" while not explaining that the scientific and laymans use of the word are different, claiming gaps in the theory, offering Intelligent Deisgn as an alternative, and again stating that students are being taught evolution only because Pennsylvania requires it. If you follow the "newsletter" link, you can read the whole three paragraph statement for yourselves
It also presents a long statement of support from Sen Rick Santorum, but that's another matter.
What the school district is doing is making available a book called Of Pandas and People available to students in school libraries. For those curious, you can check the book out, as well as what people are saying about it, at Amazon
(though following that link will probably make Amazon suggest all sorts of Creationist screeds to you for the next few days). I've read through some of the sample text that they make available and...it's amazing. It's amazing just how many logical fallacies can be packed into a book, and still have it considered a textbook. Just from the portion available, it's quite clear that this is not meant to be an Intelligent Design textbook, it's meant to be an anti-evolution textbook, which is succumbing to the classic gem that disproving evolution is a proof of Creationsim. Oops, I mean Intelligent Design. Which is NOT Creationism in any way, even though an early draft of this book used the word Creationism instead of ID. Plus, the publicity material for the book includes quote mining, the process of taking quotes from noted scientists out of context to make it sound like they question evolution. Specifically, this time they choose to take a popular Gould quote out of context trying to imply that he feels Darwinian evolution is dead, even though he was talking about something entirely different than evolution.
And this is what they want children reading. This is what they would be using as a classroom textbook if those pesky Pennsylvania school requirements didn't require evolution. Faulty thinking, quote mining, strawman presentations of evolution, it's all present. This book would serve as a great textbook...in a Philosophy of Science classroom discussing logical fallacies.
So. I did some research with a source I have available to me: a relative who works in a library in my old school district. She did a search, and discovered the book is not available in any school in Fairfax County, thank goodness. I'm somewhat hoping that it stays that way.
It's important for people to know what is going on out there, what people are trying to teach students. Outrage is the first step.
The odd irony of all of this is that, on the same day all of this is happening, the Washington Post also revealed research that backs one of the mathematical predictions of evolution
. That on the same day people are going to court in PA to keep Intelligent Design the hell out of schools, we have even more proof of evolution. Not that proof is likely to sway many people, but it's nice to know it's there. Of course, yesterday, they had an article about the opening of the Creation Museum
, the Creationist organization who acquired a T-Rex skeleton, which they are using as the center of a display about how teh T-Rex was a vegitarian living in the Garden of Eden.
Just a news filled week in the battle to keep science in science classrooms.
Well, another college football season is about to start, so it's time to start the two new annual traditions: ripping on the BCS and trying to fix the BCS.
The BCS started with one very noble goal: determine a national champion in division I-A college football. It was the only of the Div I-A sports to not have a set way to determine the national champion. Most of the sports had easily handled tournaments that whittled the field down to two teams, who played each other, and the winner was the national champion. No matter what their season record was, or who finished above them in their conference or overall, it was undisputed that the winner of the tournament was The Champion.
Football, however... It's hard to run a tournament in football, because only one game can be played every week. To allow for a tournament of a size that would allow the public's attention to be held, you'd probably have to max out at about 16 teams, less than a quarter of the 65 teams that make the March Madness mens basketball tournament (not counting the 32 more than make the NIT). A tournament will not work. It's not a viable solution. There are too many football factories that will dominate the field without allowing for any other teams to get in. The nice thing about the basketball tournament is that last year's creampuff can turn it around enough to get a bid.
So, we've got the Bowl Games. An institution that has been going on for years. Now, some might argue that there are too many Bowl Games (we're at a point now where a bowl eligable team is all but guaranteed post season play....but is that a bad thing?) but that's neither here nor there, cause what we're discussing in the BCS.
The BCS had the stated goal of creating a national championship between the two best teams in the country. However, when teams play no more than 12 games and don't often share opponents, it all has to come down to subjectivity. Sometimes it's easy. Two teams in the whole country go undefeated, there's little argument that they should be playing for the national championship. But it's rarely that easy, and every year something has "gone wrong" that no system would be able to fix.
Three teams go undefeated. One does, so which one-loss team gets to play them? Three teams have only one loss. Plus, you start pulling in human subjectivity, and polls where you get rewarded by being a pre-season pick who met expectations, rather than a preseason middle-of-the-pack who historically bested expectations. There will always be someone put in and someone left out. And, every damned time, people complain about the team left out. No matter who, no matter why. There's always that question of why Team X deserves to play for the national championship and Team Y doesn't.
And every time it happens, the media has pressured the BCS into changing the methodology for picking the two teams who will play for it all. Without looking at the blatently obvious: it's impossible to "fix" the BCS! There, I've said what no one else seems to be willing to. The only way to completely fix the BCS is to always have two and only two undefeated teams. Since that can't be a guarantee, the BCS will always have the effect of putting someone it, leaving someone out, and generating controversy as to why.
So. What's the solution? Scrap the whole damn thing. Screw the whole concept of a national championship game. Let the four BCS bowl games go back to classic conference matchups, and let the media vote on which team they think deserves it, even if that means the major polls disagreeing. Cause it worked just fine for years. The BCS was a fun expirement, but it has failed, and there is no way to make it work. So why even try?
Yeah, it's the second baseball entry in a row here in My Take On... Hey, can't all be my evil politics. But yeah, another conversation, and another thought about baseball. This time, instead of Barry Bonds, and instead of throwing made up statistical measurements around like some low cost sabermatrician, I'm just looking at Florida Baseball.
Baseball, leading up to the 1990s, had 26 teams. 14 in the AL and 12 in the NL. None of those 26 teams were in the state of Florida, home to such large markets as Tampa Bay and Miami. At that time, Florida baseball was the prodigious minor league system within the state, and college baseball. Then, in two consecutive rounds of expansion, when baseball went from 26 to 28, then from 28 to 30 teams, there was major league baseball in the state of Florida.
The Marlins first game was in 1993. A few seasons later, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays kicked things off. Both have had interesting histories.
In the short time that the Marlins have existed, they've taken the World Series twice. In the short time that the Devil Rays have existed, they've managed to be not the last place team in the American League East just once, and after that foray into the lofty heigths of 4th place last year, they're now in last place, 11 games back just from being in fourth, and 16.5 out of the running for being in first place.
And both now have their problems.
The Marlins are being evicted. After 2010, they're going to no longer be welcome to play their home games in Dolphin Stadium, because the stadium wanted to explore more lucrative sporting options. Like cricket. Seriously, one of the sports listed in the press release by the owners of Dolphin Stadium made it clear that they would rather host cricket events than Marlins baseball. That means that the Marlins are running out of time, as it takes, on average, 3-4 years to build a stadium. One year to finalize designs, and two to three to build the thing. The problem is that the Marlins have failed to secure all the funding that is necessary to build a new stadium. They've blown by several deadlines that have been put into place by MLB, and I'm guessing the league is going to start running out of patience with the team. My guess is that if they don't have funding in place by the end of the 2006 calendar year, that a one year search for a new city will launch, with a new site for the Marlins announced in 2007 or 2008 to give Las Vegas (or wherever else) a chance to build their stadium. That's 18 months that Miami has to save the Marlins. And that's me being kind.
The Devil Rays have another problem. For the last few years, they've been able to look good by comparrison, as they were drawing more people than the Montreal Expos. Last season, the Expos averaged 9,356 fans per game. Pathetic. A big part of why the team has moved, and nearly quadrupled it's number of fans per game. The Devil Rays managed just shy of 7,000 more fans per game. Just over 16,000. The problem is that attendance has falled off, even from this pathetic number, to the tune of 3,000 a game. 13,241 per game. And that's being skewed high by the fact that Red Sox fans manage to sell out Tropicana field (and I'm guessing outnumber home fans by 3 to 1). They find themselves 6,000 fans per game behind the #29 team. The largest gap, by far, between any two consecutive teams on the list of fans per game.
I'm surprised that there's been no talk about Devil Ray relocation. I suppose that's because (1) there's a team that might be in more immediate need of relocation and (2) there might be the question of "yeah...but is there a city without a team that will draw better". I look at the cities that tried to bring in the Expos when they were moving. Only three of them really had a good chance at the team. And one of those was Northern Virginia, which is now out of the running, probably forever, cause hopefully the Nationals ain't going anywhere, and if they do, I doubt the area would be able to lure back a fourth team. That leaves Las Vegas, who I think would be the prime candidate to get the Marlins if they had to move, and Hampton Roads. Maybe Nashville, maybe San Antonio. Hard to say how excited cities are if they didn't try for the 'Spos.
I wouldn't be surprised if Florida is baseball free by 2015. If the Marlins have to move, then after that, cities that want baseball will see that there have been two relocations in one decade (after over three decades without a relocation) and that there is a team that could possibly be courted. It's kinda sad, and it'll be interesting to see how things turn out.
I was talking about Barry Bonds with someone today. It was a general progression of conversation. It started with debating that Casey (of Casey at the Bat) should have been intentionally walked. This makes sense, because first base was open, and he was, by the evidence in the poem, the most powerful hitter that mudville had. But, we wondered, was the IBB even a strategy back when Casey at the Bat was written. The answer is...probably not. Casey was written at 1888, and the earliest evidence of the intentional walk I can find is 1896, so Casey predated the strategy by 8 years.
Then, through the searches about IBBs, we found some old articles about the thought that there might be a Barry Bonds rule. Some kind of rule that would respond to the obscene number of walks that Bonds was getting (and this was written after a season he had just gotten in the 60+ range, and in 2004 he drew 120 doses of pitcher respect). Of course, the natural problem with any IBB rule is that the classic IBB (catcher stands up, and takes a step away from the batter, then just plays catch with the pitcher for four throws) would be replaced with walks that, while intentional, don't look such.
But this all brought us to the king of IBBs. Barry Bonds. And the one thing that amazes me about him. There is one element of his ability that I don't think any steroid scandal can take away. He has, likely, the best eye in the game. He can pick out balls, he can choose his pitches, and he probably creates more quality at bats than most players can hope for. Even without his unquestionably larger-than-they-used-to-be arms, he's dangerous, just because he knows when to swing, and when not to.
So, I started crunching the numbers of the 2004 season, and was surprised.
First, his main stats. 373 AB. 135 H. 232 BB. 41 K.
So we know he got 120 IBB, which leaves 112 of those walks as "unintentional". (Though how many of those were just four unhittable pitches without being a classic IBB is unknowable). So, let's say that 485 plate appearances that he got legitimately pitched to. Of those, only 8.5% resulted in being struck out, and an amazing 23% of those resulted in being walked. Hits, home runs, anything power like that...that can be affected by steroids. But, knowing when to swing? That's pure talent.
Let's run a comparrison. Nick Johnson right now has the best batting average on the Washington Nationals, and one of the top five in the National League.
228 AB. 74 H. 40 BB (6 IBB). 46 K.
So, legitimate plate appearances? 262. 13% walks, 17% strikeouts.
Major league leader in walks this season is Adam Dunn (a left fielder for the Reds)
213 AB. 53 H. 50 BB (6 IBB). 70 K.
That's 257 of what I'm calling "legitimate" plate appearances. 17% walks, 27% strikeouts.
It's no coincidence that these numbers are nowhere near the numbers that Bonds manages. So yes, perhaps the home run record might be tarnished...but he might still be one of the best at-plate guys to ever shoulder a bat.
...being a product of my era
Something came to mind when I was sweating through an 80 degree apartment, and complaining to everyone who would listen/read about my lack of air conditioning...
One of those questions that people always ask (what people? You know, those people. Them. The kinds of people who ask these questions...) is "if you could live in any other era, which would it be?"
Oh god. Just shoot me!
I can't imagine that I would have lived to the ripe old age of 25 if I lived in any other era.
One of the things that people would occasionally point out to me while I was slogging through a few days without air conditioning is that AC is a fairly recent invention. Even more recent that it's widely available in private homes. When it was 90 degrees outside and 82 degrees inside, the only option was to be happy it wasn't 90 degrees inside, fan yourself, and just think some cool thoughts. I just can't do that! I'm built for the cold! I have blood about as thick as molassas, and when it gets hot out, there's no way to deal with it! I'd have collapsed of heat stroke and skin blistering and flaking off years ago.
Or take what I'm doing right now.
Right now I have two browser windows open. Two instant messanger programs. IRC. And a service for buying music whenever the fuck I want directly from the damn internets! I'm connected! I'm wired in! I love it!
For someone so introverted as myself, it's really the way to get out into the world. I've met so many more people and done so many more things than if I'd never had the internet. I've got people I consider close friends who are in England. I've been to Vegas. I've been to Austin. I've been BACK to Vegas. I would have never done any of this. And what the hell would I do with my free time if the internet didn't exist, if I couldn't be connected. I'd probably have died from boredom if I hadn't succumbed to the heat.
What other age would I want to live in?
I can't think of any better time to be alive, or at least to be alive and myself, than right now. All those peopl who want to live in the middle ages? Fucking insane. The 1800s? Oh god no. Ladies and gentlemen, this is here. This is now. THIS is when it all is! For all the little foibles of the turn of the millenium, there has been no better time in human history to be alive, to be around, to just BE.
Live it up.
There's something about the modern era of politics that always interests me. It's when people from opposite ends of the spectrum start to make the same arguements for seemingly (and actually) completely different issues. I just noticed one of these today.
There are those on the far right who are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals getting married. Oh please, like you know this is the real reason behind most of the legislation. Sure, it gets trumped up as protecting families, thinking of the children, and hiding behind the Bible. However, I think what it really comes down to is that a lot of the people against gay marriage are just thinking to themselves "well...ick!" They don't want it to happen, they'd be uncomfortable with it happening, so by God, the government needs to do something about it.
I think even most of those saying "But look! Leviticus!" are just using that as a way around saying, "oh come on
, just look at that, I don't want to see that!" Sure, there might be some out there who view it purely from a liturgical point of view, but I bet if you polled them, most would say they're uncomfortable around a homosexual couple.
They're uncomfortable. Laws get passed.
Now, look at the other side of the spectrum, my fellow liberals, where most of the fight for banning smoking in public places comes from. Because they're protecting health, thinking of the children, and hiding behind suspect medical studies. However, what it comes down to is that they're uncomfortable being in the same are with a smoker. They think to themselves, "well...ick!" And so, by God, the government needs to do something about it.
It's all the same thing, though, this idea that the government should create and enforce laws based on people's comfort level. And it's not just these issues. Look at the FCC's crusade to "clean up" television and radio. Why? Cause people are uncomfortable about having seen 0.3 seconds of Janet Jackson's boob, or hearing Howard Stern.
Now, I'll admit... Howard Stern does make me uncomfortable. Being around smokers makes me uncomfortable. Being around ANY overly affectionate couple, whether it be male-female, male-male, and (in spite of stereotypes of my gender) female-female. I'm not as uncomfortable around swearing, but that's just one of the four. And yet... And yet I manage to just avoid situations where I am uncomfortable. I don't go to smoky bars. I ignore couples. I don't listen to Stern. Quite amazingly, I can manage to do these things, and still live a very happy life, and not think that it is the role of the government to legislate based on my comfort level. If it was, I could damn well think of a lot of things that would be illegal, including pushy crowds, Hummers (the cars...sicko), female body builders, and Maryland drivers. But apparently I'm just one voice, and there's a much louder one out there yelling "I don't like this! There should be a law!"
...St. Petersburg, Florida
This past week, I went back to St. Pete for the first time in several years. I think the last time I went there, I wanted to leave before New Years Eve, as I had plans with my girlfriend of the time. So yeah, it's been awhile. I was going there for a funeral. However, as I'd had, and acted on, the opportunity to say good-bye to my grandmother a little under a year ago, this wasn't so much an opportunity to say good-bye to her, as it was an opportunity to say good-bye to the city of St. Pete.
That's not to say I'm never going back. But I just don't know why or when. There's no real ties there anymore. I have relatives there, but none of a nature close enough to drop everything and go visit. I'd be more likely to head there if I was desperate to see a Devil Rays game, or if I get a chance to live my dream (or one of them, anyway) of doing an entire Spring Training with the Nats, as they'd have a few games in beautiful Al Lang Field.
St. Pete has changed in the time that I've known it. And thus, as the cliche goes, it has somehow remained very much the same. Two of the activities that my parents and I would always take part in while there (going to a St Pete Cards game, and visiting Sunken Gardens) are no longer possible. Many of the rest still exist. The Pier is still there, with the Columbia Restaurant, perhaps one of the finest Cuban/Spanish restaurants I know of. The Yacht Club is still there, and my great uncle is still a former Commodore of it, so we still get white glove treatment when we show up for a meal.
But St. Pete has decided that it needs to appeal to people slightly younger than retirement age. Thus has come about The Baywalk, a wonderful shopping destination witha few nice restauratns, some shops, and a beautiful Movico-run movie theater, where I went for my second viewing of Sith. However, the locals, the retirees, the older crowd, they hate it. Because it brings in the young crowd, with their hippity hop music, and their tendency to occasionally get into scuffles. The night before I arrived, there was apparently a knife fight at the Baywalk that started with an argument between two girls.
And the way the story is told is what makes me know that St. Pete hasn't really changed. Becasue, of course, it was two black girls. Which is made quite clear.
And the Yacht Club. Very much the southern institution, proper gentlemen having proper meals at a place that, until a half decade ago, still required ties for anyone over 18 who was eating there. Someone pointed out new members of the club. I'd never seen it before, but the club now had at the very least one black family who were now members. Or, as it was put, "see our new members? They've been out in the sun too long."
Now. I don't know. I realize that when I'm in St. Pete that I'm hanging around people of an age that these attitudes were, if not appropriate, were at least still quite common, quite the status quo. Still, it's quite a shock when this becomes quite apparent. I'm good about keeping my mouth shut, because these people are
family, so I don't want to antagonize. Something my parents approve of (with my mom's side, I'm not allowed to talk politics, with my dad's, I just bite my tongue about stuff like this, and change subjects). I always feel just a little dirty about it, though.
The other problem is that St. Pete is quickly becoming too expensive to support itself. Having limited area to work with, what with being surrounded on three sides with water, there's no place to build out. And the underlying bedrock only supports so much building up. So what happens is that prices go up. And up. And up. Until there's now the big question about where the health care people will live. Where will the nurses afford homes to go to after a day of taking care of the eldery St. Pete population. Where will the waiters go, the waitresses, anyone in the service industry who cannot afford price tags that are just soaring. It's becoming too affluent for its own good. Eventually this will all crumble in on itself, and St. Pete will find itself full of people who need services, and devoid of people to perform these services, something that worries quite a few residents. But not nearly enough of them, as is evidenced by nothing happening to correct the problem.
And so it is that I flew out of Tampa on Wednesday, unsure if I would ever return, or under what circumstances I would if I did. St. Pete. I will miss your food. I will not miss your weather. I wish you luck.
This is a bit of a sticky situation, and frankly, it scares the crap out of me. But not for the reasons that people might think.
I help to moderate a forum intended for serious discussion on a gaming site that I have long been a contributer to (yup, I'm on staff at a gaming journalism site...it's not nearly as exciting as that sentence makes it sound, my job is just to keep people from trolling a forum). I might bring it up every now and then. For those of you from Brunchma reading this, it's similar to The Library, but with a bit more...well, a bit wider range of right leaning opinions. Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
Anyway. Newsweek, which is what this is about. And what scares me about it. On that forum, people are using this kerfuffle as a reason to argue that the media should have some level of government oversite and regulation. Government oversite and regulation.
Now, the problem that I have with this is a rather obvious one, a single sentence, a handful of comma deliniated clauses (with an Oxford comma *glee*), a brief 45 words. Yeah, I'm being poetic and overstating, but it's the First damned Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The very clause that says that the press is a seperate entity from the government, just as churches are. The press, the grand high alter of American democracy, the fact that the government can be questioned, can be brought to task, and is answerable. The very press that helped break Watergate wide open. And now, people are so willing to want to impose government regulation where government regulation does not belong. Government oversite over a portion of American life that should be a black box to government. Felt so important that it was put first among all rights that Americans enjoy.
And because of this, because of the perception of some that there is a concerted effort by the media to promote liberalism, and bring down The Administration, that they want it reigned in, they want it muzzled. And that just scares the hell out of me. It terrifies me that people are so willing to throw away the rights that were fought and died for, just because they feel that those rights are being used. I was going to lengthen that sentence, but that's the entire problem. These people are upset that others are using their rights.
You'll notice that I haven't gone into whether the story was true, or accurate, or fairly reported, because I don't think that matters to the situation at hand. This isn't an issue of what Newsweek got right, got wrong, or why it got it wrong. I have my own feelings along those lines, but to present them here takes away from the point that I'm trying to make. We can't allow rights to be stripped away because of mistakes, or because of partisan bickering.
I have no fear of America ever being taken down from outside of our borders. Fellow Americans are so much more of a threat to our Republic than any foreign forces will ever be.
...Life, and the Length Thereof
My apartment complex seems to be morbidly obsessed with the mortality of the tennants who live here.
Thus it is that, in the monthy newsletter that the slide between our front door knobs and the door jamb, there has been a new feature for the past few months. "Life is too short..."
Now, while it is true that most of us get, on average, less than eighty years on this planet to make of our lives what we can, before we don't have lives to make anything of anymore, my apartment complex takes things a bit far. Let's look at a few examples. Much like the titles of posts in this blog, each of these is an extention. Life is too short...
...to trust the weather report. Okay, this is, in general, decent advice. Meterology is, at best, an inexact science that is trying to predict the inherently unpredictible: chaos theory. No matter how good of a computer project you can create, they'll always be wrong. Which is why most weather reports are built on compositing what multiple computer projections seem to agree on, and averaging out details as they go. I'm more than willing to give my complex a pass on this one, and start of with it just to be fair, and say that not all the advice is bad advice.
...to check your luggage. Ah, so this is why the asshole that gets on the plane in front of me invariably has a carryon bag that fits an entire overhead compartment. They're not inconsiderate pricks who believe themselves more important than anyone else on the plane, they've just realize that life is too short to wait through baggage claim, rather than making us all wait while the overhead compartments are all rearranged. Thanks.
...to worry about hem lengths. UP WITH MINISKIRTS!
These don't really bother me all that much. If it was just stuff like this, I'd generall roll my eyes, and just toss them into the trash. But the reason I've collected a few of these, and why I'm actually taking the time to write about them are a few of the other things life is too short for.
...to swim upstrem.
...to do things you're not good at.
Well. Isn't that just the best possible message that could be sent along. Life is too short to try. Too short to struggle. Too short to try to improve yourself. Too short to better yourself. Too short to cause ripples. Too short to perhaps make any changes to your life for the better. Don't swim upstream, don't try to go against the current, just let life sweep you away. Don't do things you're not good at. Stay in your box. Keep at your rut. It's a rut, but damnit, it's the rut you're good at, and life is too short to try and get out of it.
Of course, this is a rental property, which means that they profit from people staying at where they are in life, and not achieving for more, such as property ownership. That's right, rental agency, keep us down!
I'm looking forward to next month. "Life is too short to mortage." "Life is too short to live."
Okay, I'm being melodramatic, but it's my blog, and I'll melodramaticize if I want to!