Earth to Matilda
Why is everyone so mad about the air traffic controller who let his kid talk to pilots? I understand the importance of the job and how absolutely critical it is to the safety of hundreds (thousands) of people on a daily basis, but how was anything that was done jeopardizing anyone?
The kid cleared a jet for takeoff. Undoubtedly, the child’s father had told him what to say and was sitting there ensuring nothing went wrong. As kids, i’m sure most of us fantasized about being able to do our dream job, and if we were ever given the opportunity, took it extremely seriously, had a great time with it, and felt very accomplished when it was over. I sure did. These kids weren’t running around giving bs transmissions to pilots. Who cares if it is the voice of an ATC veteran, tom brokaw, alvin and the chipmunks, or a kid? As long as the proper information is relayed, that is what matters.
Would this be appropriate if it happened on 9/11? Absolutely not. Was anyone endangered? No. What is the big deal?
I really don’t even understand how anyone could get so upset about this, especially knowing that it was in a very controlled and supervised environment. FCC, NATC, we understand that you’re important, but stop taking yourselves so seriously. It only makes you appear entirely incapable of adapting to anything ever. Maybe if your controllers worked in a less hostile environment, they’d hate their jobs less and stop falling asleep behind the desk….
CNN reports on Social Psychology Quarterly
Here is an article about the most poorly researched and presented study I’ve ever encountered:
(CNN) — Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.
The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.
“The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward,” said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. “It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people — people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower — are likely to be the ones to do that.”
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with “unconventional” philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be “ways to communicate to everyone that you’re pretty smart,” he said.
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a “new” preference.
For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.
Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.
“It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere,” Kanazawa said.
Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion,” Bailey said.
“Historically, anything that’s new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence,” he noted.
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
“Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach — looking out for the people around you first — fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. “It’s unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers.” he said.
The study found that young adults who said they were “very conservative” had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were “very liberal” averaged 106.
It also makes sense that “conservatism” as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.
Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is “a strong libertarian.”
Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey’s idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.
None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
“More intelligent people don’t have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen,” he said.
Did either of these researchers ever take a statistics class? No, I didn’t read the whole study or analyze their data (it’d be a waste of time because I can make the same data set give different results), but I’m fairly certain they never really understood how to do correlation factors to begin with. The first rule of statistical analysis is that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to.
I’m not about to propose that liberals are not intelligent regardless of how much I disagree with them.
There are a few vital flaws in this study. Firstly, many young adults consider themselves liberal, especially in their early to mid 20s due to life experience. Honestly, I’d consider my political views during college as quite liberal. Now, I’m quite conservative. Does it make my IQ any relevant? No. It makes my life experience relevant.
Secondly, personality traits have been aligned with certain evolutionary traits in tons of studies. I’m ok with that. However, the presence of personality traits in people (such as pride (national)) align with the evolutionary trait such as behavior in a group or pack. Those who show strong allegiance to the pack showed stronger national pride - conservatives. Those who displayed more individualism and less of a pack mentality were considered to align with others with liberal views. Personality traits (and therefore political views) align with intrinsic evolutionary behavior, not with IQ.
Thirdly, IQ and sexuality are not related. Period. Monogamy/fidelity is aligned with the balance of human nature and morality. You can be smart and immoral. You can be dumb as a doornail and moral. No correlation. As for men with higher IQs being more monogamous - that is also total crap. I had a lot of trouble with the claim that monogamy had not changed for evolved (higher IQ) women. Women don’t have a need for a single partner. Women today have the same needs as always, and nowadays it is manifested in financial support which laws have so nicely provided regardless of the presence of a male. I’m really confused by this sexuality claim. It holds no water.
If fighting against instict makes you “liberal” then anyone who is claiming to be religious is going to fall into that category. Whereas claiming to believe in God may be “safe” according to this article, it is also not popular. So where is the rebellion there?
I think a little more research is going to show that IQ has nothing to do with political alignment. Like i said, you can make statistics say whatever you want. Too bad that kind of stuff had to be published… because now we have to listen to more crap about how the democrats may actually know what they’re doing, because someone thinks that science (and math) says they’re smarter.
Gag me.
Failing Grades
Budget cuts, tuition hikes, “no child left behind.” All of these things are helping us make the American education system into yet another failure.
Firstly, I feel badly for teachers. American children are required to be in school whether they want to be or not. Teachers are required to attempt to teach them. Subsequently, the government is blaming teachers for “failing” by judging their students’ performance. I don’t care if you have a teacher who is the perfect blend of Einstein and Mister Rogers - if a kid doesn’t want to learn, he’s not going to. There’s no need to explain this any futher; we can even look at our politicians and see how even a perfect explanation with sound logic and pure intent can fall on deaf ears. How many times have we told our politicians that this is case? And how many times have they failed to listen, acknowledge, and take action?
The longer I sit here and write this stream of conscious, the more i realize that what this all boils down to is quite possibly the fact that people refuse to be accountable, and when they are held accountable and are displeased with the outcome, they place blame.
It’s the kids’ fault. But no one wants to blame the angelic innocent child (or their parents). So there are no repercussions for the actions of the child: failure is not an option. Even if a child is a “failure,” we’ve made it so that it isn’t their fault - it’s their teacher’s fault. Teachers cannot make kids care. Instead of making students (and/or parents) accountable, we are making teachers accountable for the failures of others. Ridiculous.
Secondly, I do not believe that everyone should go to college. The recent global economic crisis should be another clear example of this rationale. Countless college graudates sat idly unemployed for months - even years - with degrees that did not fulfill a business or economic need. The perception that a college degree is necessary for success is one of the most untrue statements that have ever been made. People who were meant to be great will rise to the top and will find ways to take advantage of any beneficial resource, but a “beneficial resource” is not necessarily a formal education. It may be anything from hands-on experience, to military/police training, to vocational school, to daily activities… and beyond. Unfortuantely (and fortunately for some), the only thing that many college degrees prove is that an individual is willing to enroll in something beyond a requirement and to complete that undertaking. But in my eyes, a meaningless American history (i’m just picking on history - it’s nothing personal) degree to a person working as an “administrative assistant” is an enormous waste of time and money. Investment versus return… is your ROI what you had expected? Probably not for most people. And the worst part is the sense of entitlement that many people feel because they have that degree. “I have a college degree, so I should have a job.” No, not necessarily. And now, because nearly everyone has a college degree, those who actually are meant to rise to the top oftentimes have to jump through a few more hoops such as an extra degree (that they may not actually need because they already know the concepts in both theory and practice due to experience), or a few more training classes (that are unnecessary but they need that completion certificate). That is quite unfortunate for our society as a whole. A sense of entitlement is making everyone lazy.
Success is not contingent upon the actions of others. It is the sole responsibility of the person who desires to be successful. Because no one who makes decisions regarding education (or the future of education) realizes this, we are failing, and will continue to do so.
Irresponsible? That’s Fine!
This riled me up today: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/22/children.choking/index.html?hpt=C1
Mark today on your calendar: we are officially one step closer to being completely unaccountable for every single one of our actions. As I shared this link with a few of my friends, the first remark was something along the lines of “of course you can choke if you eat - everyone knows that!” Obviously. And although I think it is asinine to even have to tell that to someone, that is not what frustrates me either.
Requiring a food producer/manufacturer to put a warning label on food immediately makes the manufacturer liable. If your kid eats a Nathan’s hot dog and chokes on this hot dog, sure, you should have known it was a very feasible and tragic turn of events - logic tells you that. But what lies deeper is that Nathan’s had to tell you that. And if your child chokes and Nathan’s didn’t tell you, that’s their fault for not telling you something you should have already known. You can sue. We are taking away accountablity and handing out liability.
The fact of the matter is that coffee is hot, food can make you choke, you can get hurt in a car accident, your electrical outlet can shock you, if you drop something heavy on your foot, you might break your foot. However, in America, if no one told you, and you learned that lesson the hard way, you can place the blame on someone other than your own moronic self.
Requiring food to have warning labels is new fodder for lawyers. I’m sure they are drooling over this.
All of this unaccountability drives me crazy. I wish we could just go back to “survival of the fittest.” Turns out sometimes doing something really dumb and blaming someone else can really play in your favor - because laws are so skewed and this society refuses to use logic. What a bitch slap to Darwin… and unfortunately the rest of us as our costs for literally everything goes up. Don’t get me wrong - I understand the importance of safety and being aware when something is not safe and it is not obvious.
But come on… take some responsibility. Think! Don’t let your kid run down the hall with a pen in its mouth! Don’t put your coffee in between your legs when you’re driving. Don’t put the bag that your xbox live headset came in over your head! I think it is sad that manufacturers, companies, and designers now have to constantly consider people’s incompetence.
addicted to facebook
one time on facebook (heh), i was “married.” someone who was my “friend” on facebook called my dad and asked him when i got married. my dad called me and asked me when i got married. i immediately retorted with “of all people, when were YOU the one to believe everything on the internet?”
i’ve noticed this unbelievable dependence on facebook by people that i know. some people update their status every 15 minutes (which for some reason i can’t stop reading whether i care what they’re doing or not), and some hardly go near it for fear of information release. job recruiters lurk online and scout out their prospective employees, and we all have checked to see what the hot guy in high school is up to now.
this is complete and utter crap in my opinion. there have been countless articles written about how our dependence on social networking is actually making us less social. but when it all boils down to it, it makes us less personable and more picky. i work with this girl who is the sweetest thing ever. i’d love to be better friends with her and i think she deserves the absolute best of men. two other coworkers and myself are on a hunt to find a suitable man for her, and (guilty as charged) we turned to our friends list on facebook. we’re reliant on it! we’re dependent on it! why!? (what i should have done was gone through my phone because i only keep people in my phone that i will call at any given moment for anything, or whose numbers i need to know so that i can screen the call.) my “friends” on facebook are hardly that. i have 478 facebook friends. what the heck is up with that?
everyone has facebook!
alright, i am calling myself out in an attempt to explain the addiction. right now. i do not have 478 friends. at least not 478 real, true friends. i probably have 3. maybe 4 if i catch someone on a good day. so what the heck am i doing? in fact, i find myself annoyed when i have some of their crap pop up on my home screen.
a few years ago, benjamin and i would have a little competition to see who could cut down their facebook friend list to the fewest amount of people without lying or diminishing a friendship. we called it “the cut.” i think benjamin got down to 22, and i could only narrow it down to 31. but… i just said 3 to 4 true friends, right? i guess the point is that you’re either socially networking or you’re not, and going out of my way to say “here are my real friends” is not the way to do such a thing.
maybe i have 478 people because some of them want to keep tabs on me or see what i’ve been up to, otherwise they would have deleted me, right? maybe some of them want to look at my AWESOME (cough cough) pictures. surely some of them want to see who i’m dating now. some of them want to know where i live, or where i’m working. and maybe i want them to see this so that i have some sentiments of self-worth. having people interested in me definitely is appealing whether i want to admit it or not. i (and probably lots of people) like to be liked. so maybe facebook is my way of doing that. if i have 478 “friends” maybe that means that 478 people give a crap about what i’m doing… and that makes me feel wonderful.
too bad the truth is that only 3 or 4 of them care enough to keep up with it on a regular basis.
and i’m not saying that i’m free of this either. clearly i have friended people for the same reason. vicious cycle, i’d say. so is it social networking, or is it another way to give us little confidence boosts and a sense of importance?
i think i almost just convinced myself to delete my account…. but not quite. i’m still addicted to facebook, whether for its entertainment value or for my fix of self-esteem.
the inability to speak proper english
i feel the need to first mention that i am no linguist, and that i certainly do not have the largest vocabulary or greatest grammar in the world. regardless, there are a few words and phrases that literally make my skin crawl when i hear someone say them. in fact, i lose a bit of respect for the person uttering them. i once had a conversation with my father in which i asked him if it were shallow that i was about to stop seeing a man because of how inarticulate he was and the fact that a second grader could compose a more eloquent email. (literally, words were severely misspelled to the point that they were unrecognizable, sentences were missing verbs… the list goes on. example “how doing tody?” interpretation: “how are you doing today?”) dad said that it was not shallow because i valued educated men and found education, wit, sarcasm, and knowledgeable humor to be attractive traits. therefore, i feel entirely justified in my gripe because dad said it was ok.
i was interviewed one time by a man who used the following words over and over again. i was unable to concentrate on the interview because of my intense focus on the incorrect pronunciation.
“supposebly” (supposedly)
“expecially” (especially)
“excape” (escape)
“nucular” (nuclear)
“upmost” (utmost)
“excetera” (et cetera)
am i the only one who has an issue with this? does anyone else have this complete lack of respect for people who cannot formulate a sentence properly, or mispronounce common words on a regular basis? i was told a story about a guy who applied for a refrigeration technician job, and although the man was the most qualified for the position based on experience, the employer refused to hire him for one reason. When the prospective technician submitted his resume, the receptionist asked him to write the position he sought in the top margin so that she could direct it to the correct manager. He hastily scribbled “r-e-f-r-i-d-g-e-r-a-t-i-o-n t-e-c-h-n-i-c-i-a-n” above his name and handed it to her. He heard nothing back from the company for weeks and was completely puzzled since he knew his resume was extremely strong. The secretary passed him to the hiring manager who said one thing only to him: “I will never hire someone who cannot spell the name of the position they desire.”
again, let me reiterate that i do not claim to have the most amazing grammar, spelling, or pronunciation. in fact, it is probably lacking a bit. but please please please… pronounce the easy words correctly! it’ll make me feel so much better! and will likely make me respect you much more than the die-hard Napoleon Dynamite fans.
the new and improved airline ticketing policy
benjamin and i tend to entertain ourselves throughout the day with random banter, and recently he sent me the following article:
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.
The high court declined to hear an appeal by Canadian airlines of a decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are “functionally disabled by obesity” deserve to have two seats for one fare.
The airlines had lost an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal in May and had sought to launch a fresh appeal at the Supreme Court. The court’s decision not to hear a new appeal means the one-person-one-fare policy stands.
The appeal had been launched by Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet.
(Reporting by Randall Palmer)
how is this even remotely fair? i am being punished for the “disability” of those who are unwilling to change the physical condition in which they have been living? - ultimately by paying higher prices for my own plane tickets. i have a very very huge problem with obesity because a healthy lifestyle is a choice, and whereas obesity is certainly a genetic trait, the sedentary lifestyle is not. i have an even bigger problem with paying more. i have always been an advocate of the pay-per-pound airline tickets. trust me, i will GLADLY step on a scale and take advantage of the fact that i am the size of an average 12 year-old girl and shell out a little bit less money.
benjamin, however, gave the ultimate solution to this problem and has figured out how to price tickets. i suggest he submit it to delta:
There is a baseline there for which the airline must account. If the total cost of flying an empty plane from point A to point B is X, and flying a full plane (with average weight for passengers and baggage) is Y, then you would have to charge a base of X/C, with C being the capacity (in no. of seats), plus a weight based charge of WI(Y-X)/C, with WI being a weight index of your weight (plus baggage) over the average weight. Total cost of a flight is [X+WI(Y-X)]/C
pretty good, huh!?
on a somewhat related note, my father and i have been having dialogues about the comments we receive about our physical appearances. dad is 5′7″ and about 130 on a heavy day (mom is 5′3″ 100), so you can see where i get my tremendous size. regardless, people are always telling both of us that we need to eat more, or that we look unhealthy. for those of you who know me and have seen me with less-than-conservative clothing on, would you consider me too small? dad can lift a ridiculous amount, runs more (and faster) than i do, and has a fabulous diet (diet does not mean less food, it means better dietary choices). i have an appointment with a nutritionist on 12/6 so that i can work on losing some of the “extra fat” that my nutritionist says that i am storing. to be honest, i’m pretty stoked. i’m working on that jessica biel/evangeline lilly body. oh, it’s gonna get here. just in time for bikini season and my 25th birthday cruise.
Jessica Biel
i love how in the movie wall-E, all of the humans have robots and machines doing everything for them to the point that they cannot think for themselves and are entirely overweight. i honestly think that we are well on our way to that point. it is just a shame that nature’s rules of survival of the fittest does not seem to apply anymore. sigh.
i’m a size what?
last sunday, i was feeling pretty awful about a few things. in true lindsay fashion, i decided to drop a load of cash on myself (i don’t do that often). amongst the items i purchased (besides a new hair style and color) was a gray business skirt. i walked into express, grabbed a size 2 (which i have been in express clothing since i was about 15), and went to the register.
monday morning, i threw on the skirt. to my dismay, i could not keep the skirt over my hips. that’s correct, not my waist, my hips.
my “measurements” are approximately 33-24-34. this is the only thing keeping my small frame looking remotely feminine - i am relatively proportional. knowing these numbers, this can lead one to conclude that the waist of this skirt was at least 33 inches. i was able to pull the skirt off of my waist, make two fists, and fit them easily into the gap between the skirt and my waist.
i double checked the size. size 2.
i read somewhere that the size 8 of today is the size 16 of 30 years ago. clothing manufacturers are relabeling clothes with smaller sizes. i would surmise this is a move to make women feel more confident. there are numerous times that i have talked to girls who are about 15 to 20 pounds heavier than me, and have claimed to be the same size as me. i never questioned it aloud, but always wondered. but after this past weekend, i will no longer doubt their claims for a second.
sure, i understand that if a manufacturer sizes their clothing so that a larger woman thinks she is a smaller size, it may entice her to purchase that brand of clothing more often because she can get into a “6″ instead of a “10.” however, for those at the other end of the spectrum, my only remaining option is to shop at kids clothing stores which does not lend itself well to a working professional.
the only rational thought that comes into my head is that women need to get over this horrible self image hurdle. yes, i understand that i am much smaller than most females, but have you looked at my training page? i work relatively hard to be as petite as i am. i hurt, i sweat, and i spend (on average) 2 hours a day working out. granted, i have nothing else to do, but it is somewhat of a priority for me.
if you are unhappy with your clothing size, get your ass to the gym. i promise that if you are working out, working hard, and eating right, no matter what your body type and body size is naturally, you will become content with what you have achieved, and the little number on the tag in your jeans will not make a difference to you anymore. don’t let your lack of motivation affect my ability to purchase adult-sized clothing.
i am offended that you are offended
why is everyone so offended all the time? the sweet lil old lady at work was chastized at work for spreading a “racially and politically insensitive email” in which “many did not find humor.” why does everyone take everything so personally?
first of all, the woman at work meant absolutely NO harm by what she forwarded. yes, it was a bad call on her part, but honestly was someone SO offended by what someone like her sent along that they felt it necessary to report her to HR? (granted, they probably needed something to work on other than the health fair…)
i am the only woman in my department. in fact, there are days that i do not see another female for the entirety of the work day. there are plenty of “woman” jokes that i hear that if i were even remotely sensitive may in fact bother me a bit. there are also georgia tech jokes, white jokes, short jokes, blonde jokes, (the list goes on) jokes that i could easily take offense to, but i do not because of the INTENT.
i think that the most offensive “jokes” are the ones that are malicious since most “jokes” have a hint of the truth in them. but when did the world become so politically correct? i offended someone the other day when i referred to MYSELF as “mankind” and i heard someone else correct another person when they said “colored” and not “black.” when i was in high school, i half-heartedly asked my english teacher to refer to me as “european american” if he insisted on continuously saying “african american” while referring to a jamaican (he didn’t get it).
i figured i’d try to pin down why being politically correct was so important. this is from wikipedia:
According to Edna Andrews, using “inclusive” and “neutral” language is based upon the idea that “language represents thought, and may even control thought”; per the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, a language’s grammatical categories shape the speaker’s ideas and actions,although Andrews says that moderate conceptions of the relation between language and thought are sufficient to support the “reasonable deduction” of “cultural change via linguistic change”.
so does that mean that if i am not politically correct, my language defines my perception of culture? and i am, in fact, a male chauvinist because i do not acknowledge “female” PC terms? damn, i thought i had the independent woman thing down. Edna Andrews is an idiot. in some instances, sure, language defines cultural perception. in others, language is part of regional dialect, life experience, and communcation skills. i wonder if i just offended edna andrews. i sure hope so.
the second important thing i’d like to mention is that it is NOT ok to have a double-standard for political correctness. it is NOT ok for a black man to call a white man a “cracker” (the term “cracker” comes from the sound a whip makes…) but it is not ok for a white man to call a black man a “nigga” (”can a nigga borrow a pencil?”) ! it is not ok for jews to make priest jokes, but for catholics to not retort with a joke about being horribly cheap. it seems that in our society, it is ok to pick on the majority, but God forbid you poke a little fun at a minority.
beyond race, i am offended that people are offended that they should stand or say “God” in the pledge of allegiance. this country was founded on the principles of a christian base of politicians. it is because of those people that you have the RIGHT to NOT stand for the pledge, or the national anthem, or anything for that matter. you do not have to respect the symbols of your country, and if you choose not to, you are not punished, nor asked any questions. you have the right to say whatever you want, to write whatever you want, to do (within reason) anything your heart desires. but you cannot respect the country that gave you those rights? why should we change our money? why should we change our pledge? why should we cut out songs like “God Bless America?” we shouldn’t. this is national history, people, not the imposition of religion on every person in this country. if you think it is, you are an arrogant jackass.
are you that easy to offend? are you THAT sensitive to every little nuance and cultural or religious difference in society that the second it is even mentioned that you have to scream like the little kid who got picked on in elementary school? grow a pair. life isn’t easy, and you will not always get your way. plus, most people don’t mean anything being politically incorrect it in the first place, unless of course they down-right, flat-out hate you personally to begin with.
my dad attended a church meeting about five years ago where the elders of the church wanted to add that “diversity” was an extremely important mission and to establish such diversity would be a part of the mission/vision statements for the year. dad’s remark was that by bringing attention to a lack of diversity, the moment that an opportunity presented itself to embrace a member of a minority, so much effort and emphasis would be placed on integration that it would actually be nearly offensive. in a nutshell, here is the scenario: 97% white church has a latino family walk in the front doors for the first time. white church vultures who need to ESTABLISH and CELEBRATE their “diversity” swoop in and shower the latino family with all kinds of attention. latino family leaves thinking “damn, what a bunch of crazy white people. we’re not going back there…” there is a difference between accepting diversity and forcing it. you cannot force diversity. ironically, everyone thought my dad was an ass for saying something like that. turns out he ended up being right.
another situation is actually even at work. all of our engineers are white. all of our lab techs are not. our lab techs think our engineers are a bunch of racists because our engineers try so hard not to seem even remotely racist. isn’t that ridiculous?!
i have no intention of being politically correct. the world is what it is. i am deliberate in my words, and i am pure in intent. i hold no prejudice, i couldn’t care less what color or religion you are. i am angry that it is such a big deal. i am angry that if i voted for mccain then i MUST be a racist. i am angry that racism and politics are now holding hands and are suddenly the same thing. you’re either a democrat or a racist, right? left and racist? white or democrat.
ridiculous.
i am offended that everyone is so offended. get over yourself.
“what is it about the green ones?”
normally i sit around and salivate at the thought of buttery popcorn or sucking the salt off of pretzels. however, for some reason i have recently gotten a bit of a sweet tooth daily at about 3 pm. i don’t know why, but if it’s going to be sweet, it’s got to be chocolate.
naturally, i went next door to target over my lunch break. halloween candy on clearance?! sign me up! i bought three bags of m&m’s: milk chocolate, dark chocolate, and peanut butter for a grand total of $5. as always, at 3 pm the urge hit me and i cracked open the bag of peanut butter m&m’s. after eating 10 and deciding that i am in actuality getting a bit heavier from my increased caloric intake, i reached into my desk drawer for a paperclip, loosely sealed the bag, and went to put the one-pound bag back into my file cabinet drawer when a small saying on the back of the bag caught my eye.
directly above the bar code and next to the nutritional information, the phrase “what is it about the green ones?” boasted itself clearly.
The Green Ones
so what, exactly, is it with the green ones? as urban legend would have it, the dye in the green m&m candy coating was an aphrodisiac and it became fairly common knowledge that green m&m’s “make you horny.”
side note: i learned that green m&m’s make one feel a bit amorous in elementary school. my best friend at the time, kristin, was eating m&m’s out of the dish at her house when she was about 7 years old when her older, 12 year-old sister told her that she should ONLY eat the green ones. when kristin asked why, her sister told her proudly that they’d make her horny! i’m sure kristin’s sister thought this was hilarious when her little sister consumed every last green candy… until of course kristin’s mother asked her why she only ate the green ones. kristin responded boastfully with a large smile that the reason was because “they make me horny, mom!” inevitably, big sister got in a bit of trouble.
so, if green m&m’s are the legal (and drastically less potent) version of ecstasy, would the marketing department really make a point to print that on the bag? i have to surmise that it was entirely intentional, especially because afterall, “nothing services like a good bohn,” and “innovation never felt so[ooooooo] good.”
digression:
rumor has it that the true renteria dance may be resurrected. renteria is synonymous with victory.
Edgar Renteria
who would i trade for renteria? absolutely anyone. he is one of my all-time favorite baseball players, and i was horribly saddened to see him go to detroit this past year. if he comes back to atlanta, i will be one very happy lady. renteria and peavy? i’m salivating, and not over m&m’s anymore.
(crap. colin, i will write another julio teheran article soon. i’ll have to pull out my spanish-speaking skills again. afterall, i did get 14th in the national spanish exam in 10th grade simply by guessing!)