In my entire life I 've only walked out of three movies. The first was Oh God Book II. I don't really remember much about it, except it had an interminably cute ten-year old girl and George Burns wasting my time. The second was Showgirls. I don't really remember much about it either, except that one chick with the overbite and Gina Gershon were topless for much of the movie. In hindsight, I'm not so sure what made that such a bad thing. I just remember getting up and leaving. Today was my third movie.
Now before I say what this movie was, I want people to know that I actually watched most of "The Blair Witch Project" (the rest I listened too in the aisle). You see, I get nauseated fairly easy by the shaky camera techniques. It doesn't add realism......or grit.......or integrity........or anything else good. It just makes me sick to watch. Blair Witch was the first movie I recall watching with this camera use. It was also a truly dreadful movie. But my new champ is "The Wrestler".
I like movies about redemption. Characters that realize the futility, or destructiveness of the path they have followed, who realize that they must change. Of course, the protagonist had screwed things up so badly I doubt he was going to make it. Even if the cameras had been mounted on a tripod this movie would have still sucked. With still cameras, I would have been physically able to view it without having to reach for my bucket of popcorn so I could fill it with puke. I don't know whether the movie ended well, poorly, or ambiguously. By the time I got up and left, I was convinced it just wasn't going to end!
The nausea that I felt was so severe, that I came right home and took a 25 mg Promethazine. I've feeling much better now. There were two good things about that movie though and Marisa Tomei had both of them. She's like my age I think. NICE!!
On to topic number two. I got some mail today reminding me that my daughter (who will be entering 7th grade) will need her immunizations to be current. It just two nausea-fueled (thanks to the movie) tangential leaps to think about the people that get incensed about young girls being immunized with Gardisil starting at twelve or so. For those not in the know, Gardisil is a vaccine against HPV which causes a large amount of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is a huge killer of young women worldwide. The vaccine makes a huge reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer. The people that developed it should have won the Nobel Prize for medicine. At the very least, I hope they are making gobs of money. They deserve it.
Anyway, I digress. The point I wished to make was that Gardisil has to be given BEFORE a woman becomse sexually active. There are those who bristle at the idea of the implication that girls as young as my daughter are sexually active. Infact, the thought of my daughter being sexually active is repugnant to me also. However, this isn't about morality, or propriety, or anything else but public health.
Are kids aren't supposed to start drinking until they are 21. Does that mean we should withhold any discussion about the dangers of excess alcohol consumption or drunk driving until they are 20? Of course not! Even the puritanical blowhards would have to agree with me on this one. So my advice to all those with young daughters is this. Get her immunized on time. If your feeling nauseated, come by the house. I've got a few extra promethazine.
One more thing. I don't want anybody in my presence to misuse the word nauseous. People always say I feel nauseous. Some people are I suppose, but most are nauseated not nauseous. For example: If I eat an unidentified mushroom and get very sick it is because I was POISONED by a POISONOUS mushroom. If I eat a rancid 7-11 burrito it is because I became NAUSEATED by a NAUSEOUS item of food. I might also say I was nauseated after seeing that nauseaous movie. That's about it for now.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Fat Tony and the Nobel Peace Prize
There is a movement afoot in our state to put limits on the interest rates charged by payday lenders. I think the entire industry is unsavory. I also think that regulations are not needed.
People fall into the trap of being stuck with these loans every payday and cannot get out. These people are fools and need protection. But will it help? I've often heard the quote, "you can't fool an honest man". You can draw your own conclusions about what type of people I think are getting trapped in these schemes.
Back in the day, Fat Tony would make you a loan for a week and you'd him back an extra 10% in two weeks. Of course, Check City won't send their goons out to break you legs when you don't pay. They have to go to court. Nobody dared rob Fat Tony, because they'd end up dead. Check City needs the glass, the safes, the security etc. and all that stuff costs money. The cost of providing this microcredit is large, hence the large interest rates.
I'd like to see these payday lenders, as they exist now, all go out of business. HOWEVER, the need for rapid microcredit is very real, very large, and ignored. Let's assume that my furnace went out today. Say that I'd need $500 bucks to fix it. I could cover it with checking. If not, I could use my credit card. Not everyone can do that though. I think credit cards are foolish. I keep one with a 500 dollar line for making online hotel reservations, car rentals, etc. that I won't use my debit card on for security purposes. I could go the bank tomorrow and fill out the paperwork. And in a few days I'd have my answer. It's only because I have a job, a home, and a decent credit score. What about everyone else.
We need to find ways for the Regular Joes to get access to small loans. One suggestion is to pretty much make these types of loans to women. Women don't squander money like men do. When they say I want to borrow 500 dollars for a used sewing machine and start-up supplies they will use it for that purpose. Another example could be $1200 for a greenhouse and some drip irrigation equipment to grow organic vegetables. This is the type of stuff that is being done routinely in some countries in an effort to ease poverty. I think it can be done here. Microindsutries are viable, expecially in agricultural products.
People fall into the trap of being stuck with these loans every payday and cannot get out. These people are fools and need protection. But will it help? I've often heard the quote, "you can't fool an honest man". You can draw your own conclusions about what type of people I think are getting trapped in these schemes.
Back in the day, Fat Tony would make you a loan for a week and you'd him back an extra 10% in two weeks. Of course, Check City won't send their goons out to break you legs when you don't pay. They have to go to court. Nobody dared rob Fat Tony, because they'd end up dead. Check City needs the glass, the safes, the security etc. and all that stuff costs money. The cost of providing this microcredit is large, hence the large interest rates.
I'd like to see these payday lenders, as they exist now, all go out of business. HOWEVER, the need for rapid microcredit is very real, very large, and ignored. Let's assume that my furnace went out today. Say that I'd need $500 bucks to fix it. I could cover it with checking. If not, I could use my credit card. Not everyone can do that though. I think credit cards are foolish. I keep one with a 500 dollar line for making online hotel reservations, car rentals, etc. that I won't use my debit card on for security purposes. I could go the bank tomorrow and fill out the paperwork. And in a few days I'd have my answer. It's only because I have a job, a home, and a decent credit score. What about everyone else.
We need to find ways for the Regular Joes to get access to small loans. One suggestion is to pretty much make these types of loans to women. Women don't squander money like men do. When they say I want to borrow 500 dollars for a used sewing machine and start-up supplies they will use it for that purpose. Another example could be $1200 for a greenhouse and some drip irrigation equipment to grow organic vegetables. This is the type of stuff that is being done routinely in some countries in an effort to ease poverty. I think it can be done here. Microindsutries are viable, expecially in agricultural products.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Down's syndrome, parents that need their children's forgiveness, and memory loss
I'm going to start with the memory loss portion first.....before I forget. This morning I had wanted to rant about three different things. I went to church and came up with a fourth. But now I'm back down to two, because I forgot the other two. Either that or they weren't of any significance and should be relegated to the ravings of an overweigkt lunatic. Me.
Wait! I just remembered! In an earlier blog I mentioned that extreme political positions are to ignored. I'm still waiting for Obama to stick it to the far left. I wanted to sing the praises of our own Governor Huntsman who has come out in favor of civil unions. The far right took out a full page advertisement in the paper today. I started reading it. I got about a third the way through and went looking for some promethazine. Which helped me remember the other thing that I wanted to mention before I get to the actual topics mentioned in the title.
I am opposed to abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This is the mantra of the far right. They pretty much got it right on this issue. I am also in favor of abortion when the child will not enjoy a quality of life befitting a human. I'll get back to this later.
Naturally I support measures that reduce the numbers of abortions performed in this country. Whether it be better and more readily available prenatal care, age appropriate sex eduation in the schools, Planned Parenthood, and all the other things that the right wishes to do away with. Anybody care to venture a guess about whether there were more or less abortion during the Clinton years? Anybody want to guess what happened under W? The one thing that is most often ignored in the abortion debate is POVERTY. When people don't have jobs they are more likely to have abortions. Especially all the 'healthy white ones' that some adoptive parents clamor over. Poverty and jobs are a moral issue just like abortion. Anybody care to guess about the correlation between level of education and abortion rates? Education is a moral issue. So instead of passing more laws, placing more restrictions, let's deal with the reasons women have abortions to begin with.
I mentioned earlier that certain defects should be considered in deciding when to have an abortion. There was an op-ed piece in the Deseret News railing against the evils of a more reliable (and safer than amniocentesis) test for determining whether a fetus has Down's. Again the far right has things partially right when they say that Down's patients should not be aborted. Most should not be. Most in this country are. The test is not evil. What we as a nation are doing can be argued. Hopefully this test will lead to more reliable tests that can determine the severity of the what the child will have. Then better choices can be made, more Down's children will live and not be aborted.
Earlier I alluded to a quality of life befitting a human. Perhaps I should quickly clarify. One should be aware of one's environment. One should be able to continue to learn. One should be able to experience joy and sadness, pain and pleasure, loss and gain, and have some measure of perspective about what is right and wrong. One should have eventually have some measure of independence.
One of the tenets of my religious beliefs is not only a hereafter but familes persisting. My father died a few years back. I hope to be reunited with him someday. Yet I fear that my father will likely be angry at me for letting his life extend past the point where the previous paragraph would not define his existence. I should have liked to have done what he often told to do when I was younger, "John, if I ever get so bad that I'm not living any more you have to promise that you'll just shoot me". Sorry Dad. I am genuinely sorry I had to prolong things, but I would have gone to jail had I done what you wanted. Were it not Alzheimers, but some type of genetic conversion whereby people became progressively Down's, or spina bifida, or anencephalic there would be an outpouring of understanding for those who might want to prevent it from progressing past a certain point.
Finally, I wish to rail against a common attitude of supposedly adult children when a parent dies and the other remarries. It happened today in church. One of the speakers went on and on about her divine nature in 'forgiving' her father for remarrying after her mother passed. I take special exception to this being someone who has lost a spouse and remarried.
We don't need anyone's fortgiveness because we have done nothing wrong. I don't know the specifics of this particular couple, but I can't imagine a scenario whereby he shouldn't remarry. People have notions I suppose that one should 'grieve' for a certain period of time. And should stay single, alone, and unhappy after that. I encountered some of this when I started to piece together the lives of me and my boys. After Teresa's funeral, the boys and I drove her best friend to the burial. Her friend was living in the Bay area, for about a year previous, and had barely flown in. Imagine the sight of me getting out of the van with a blond with a spiky-haired blond, who had a loooooooong hug for me and a kiss for both boys. Some must have thought I brought a date!
Why did I remarry so soon? Not that it's anybody's business, but because my first wife had told me to. She must have had some premonition I suppose. Starting a few months before she died, she would tell me that if she died that she wanted me to remarry right away. Less than five months after it happened, I had remarried. Many were aghast. The one group that it could have been the most expected from was Teresa's family. In fact, they were the most supportive and understanding. They were all happy that the boys had a new mom (and two new brothers!). They went out of their way to make my new family their family. This act of true divine nature is one that I shall not forgive nor be able to repay.
Wait! I just remembered! In an earlier blog I mentioned that extreme political positions are to ignored. I'm still waiting for Obama to stick it to the far left. I wanted to sing the praises of our own Governor Huntsman who has come out in favor of civil unions. The far right took out a full page advertisement in the paper today. I started reading it. I got about a third the way through and went looking for some promethazine. Which helped me remember the other thing that I wanted to mention before I get to the actual topics mentioned in the title.
I am opposed to abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This is the mantra of the far right. They pretty much got it right on this issue. I am also in favor of abortion when the child will not enjoy a quality of life befitting a human. I'll get back to this later.
Naturally I support measures that reduce the numbers of abortions performed in this country. Whether it be better and more readily available prenatal care, age appropriate sex eduation in the schools, Planned Parenthood, and all the other things that the right wishes to do away with. Anybody care to venture a guess about whether there were more or less abortion during the Clinton years? Anybody want to guess what happened under W? The one thing that is most often ignored in the abortion debate is POVERTY. When people don't have jobs they are more likely to have abortions. Especially all the 'healthy white ones' that some adoptive parents clamor over. Poverty and jobs are a moral issue just like abortion. Anybody care to guess about the correlation between level of education and abortion rates? Education is a moral issue. So instead of passing more laws, placing more restrictions, let's deal with the reasons women have abortions to begin with.
I mentioned earlier that certain defects should be considered in deciding when to have an abortion. There was an op-ed piece in the Deseret News railing against the evils of a more reliable (and safer than amniocentesis) test for determining whether a fetus has Down's. Again the far right has things partially right when they say that Down's patients should not be aborted. Most should not be. Most in this country are. The test is not evil. What we as a nation are doing can be argued. Hopefully this test will lead to more reliable tests that can determine the severity of the what the child will have. Then better choices can be made, more Down's children will live and not be aborted.
Earlier I alluded to a quality of life befitting a human. Perhaps I should quickly clarify. One should be aware of one's environment. One should be able to continue to learn. One should be able to experience joy and sadness, pain and pleasure, loss and gain, and have some measure of perspective about what is right and wrong. One should have eventually have some measure of independence.
One of the tenets of my religious beliefs is not only a hereafter but familes persisting. My father died a few years back. I hope to be reunited with him someday. Yet I fear that my father will likely be angry at me for letting his life extend past the point where the previous paragraph would not define his existence. I should have liked to have done what he often told to do when I was younger, "John, if I ever get so bad that I'm not living any more you have to promise that you'll just shoot me". Sorry Dad. I am genuinely sorry I had to prolong things, but I would have gone to jail had I done what you wanted. Were it not Alzheimers, but some type of genetic conversion whereby people became progressively Down's, or spina bifida, or anencephalic there would be an outpouring of understanding for those who might want to prevent it from progressing past a certain point.
Finally, I wish to rail against a common attitude of supposedly adult children when a parent dies and the other remarries. It happened today in church. One of the speakers went on and on about her divine nature in 'forgiving' her father for remarrying after her mother passed. I take special exception to this being someone who has lost a spouse and remarried.
We don't need anyone's fortgiveness because we have done nothing wrong. I don't know the specifics of this particular couple, but I can't imagine a scenario whereby he shouldn't remarry. People have notions I suppose that one should 'grieve' for a certain period of time. And should stay single, alone, and unhappy after that. I encountered some of this when I started to piece together the lives of me and my boys. After Teresa's funeral, the boys and I drove her best friend to the burial. Her friend was living in the Bay area, for about a year previous, and had barely flown in. Imagine the sight of me getting out of the van with a blond with a spiky-haired blond, who had a loooooooong hug for me and a kiss for both boys. Some must have thought I brought a date!
Why did I remarry so soon? Not that it's anybody's business, but because my first wife had told me to. She must have had some premonition I suppose. Starting a few months before she died, she would tell me that if she died that she wanted me to remarry right away. Less than five months after it happened, I had remarried. Many were aghast. The one group that it could have been the most expected from was Teresa's family. In fact, they were the most supportive and understanding. They were all happy that the boys had a new mom (and two new brothers!). They went out of their way to make my new family their family. This act of true divine nature is one that I shall not forgive nor be able to repay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)