Topics

People up in the North end of the West Hills can't keep cats around. They can have them, of course, but they have to keep them inside or they disappear. They'll tell you it's because of coyotes, and it's true that coyotes do live in the park, along with other things. There are owls and bobcats and small black bears, and the feral people, of course... most people prefer to call them "homeless encampments", because it sounds nicer. Easier to digest, more manageable. And there are the actual homeless encampments, on the fringes of the forest.

But everybody who lives there and anybody who's listened to the stories, especially the stories the scared old men tell when they come tumbling out of the woods and into town to panhandle for enough fortified malt liquor to pass out in the grassy planting strips of the inner-city neighborhoods until the police to come and take them to a cell overnight. They talk about one of their number they call Old Weird Ben, only they say Old Weird Ben doesn't camp with them. They don't know where he camps, but they come across him sometimes, and even though he seems kindly enough something about him scares them. He has a fondness for cats, they say, but the way they say it makes it sound like it isn't something nice.

So this time I'm talking about, I might have told you about it before... my friend was out walking, and he got a wild hair to walk up one of the old abandoned roads that leads into the park, just to see what's there. He hops the barricade and strolls on up the road, which is all cracked with moss and grass growing on it, on its way to being reclaimed by the forest, and rounds a corner to see a bunch of old foundations. He'd happened on one of the old subdivisions, either one that got torn down or one of the ones that never got finished. As he got closer to the foundations, he noticed that there were little tin cans on them, everywhere. Then he saw a cat. And another cat. And they started coming at him, just heading right for him, and one after another joined in until he said there were probably close to two dozen cats running toward him.

At that point he just turned and ran. He looked back once after he rounded the corner, and didn't see any cats, but kept running all the way back to the main road just to be sure. He won't go back and he won't tell me where it was at, but I think I have a pretty good idea.

What I have no idea about is what on earth Old Weird Ben wants with all those cats. 

[Here's that paper I mentioned in the TED thread, that I wrote for my writing class. I thought it might be interesting to some of the people here because I think it aligns well with the humanistic philosophies most of the folks on the forum seem to share.]

Here's that paper I mentioned in the TED thread, that I wrote for my writing class. I thought it might be interesting to some of the people here because I think it aligns well with the humanistic philosophies most of the folks on the forum seem to share.


       In 1979 in Portland, Oregon, after a particularly grueling day in school, a mother turned to her eight-year-old daughter and asked, "How would you feel about not going to school anymore? What would you think about being homeschooled?"

       The little girl's heart leapt and she pretended to think about it, pausing for a long moment and looking as serious as she could before replying "I would miss my friends at school, but I think that I would like it".

       That conversation opened the door to a world of education that she could never have imagined; an education she rarely even realized that she was receiving. Because, despite her mother's well-intentioned decision to homeschool, the reality was that she was a bit flighty and lacked the capability to take on such an endeavor. Instead, she did whatever it is somewhat flighty people did in the seventies and eighties, and the little girl, equipped with a bus pass, a bicycle, and a library card, spent her days roaming the streets and fields, swamps and forests, and one of her favorite places, the library.

       She read books and played and amused herself, and if she ever had a curiosity that the library couldn't satisfy, she asked her mother, and her mother would help her find the things she needed; a microscope and slides for looking at amoebas in the pond, or a spindle and wool for learning to spin yarn. She was never, ever bored. As she got older, though, she began to worry; would she be able to go to college? Did she know as much as the other kids?

       That little girl was me, and what I learned as I came to the end of my time at home and was ready to go into the world as an adult was that not only did I know as  much as the kids who had attended schools, even excellent ones, I knew more. Fearful of math, I hadn't studied it since leaving school, but found to my surprise that I could learn all the math that is taught in the first eight years of public school in just one three-month community college class. Accidentally unschooled, I had, through simply being allowed to exercise the natural curiosity that is inherent in children, given myself a finer education than most of my peers received in school.

       Unschooling is the educational process of child-directed learning without a structured curriculum. Rather than acting as teachers for their children, as with homeschooling, parents instead act as advisors and facilitators for their children's interests, providing suggestions, discussion, materials, and transportation when needed, rather than a list of books and assignments to be completed in a given time-frame.

       Unschooling has many advantages over what we have come to think of as traditional methods of schooling, particularly for children over the age of twelve years old, the age at which young people are beginning to explore autonomy and self-direction in preparation for adulthood. It takes advantage of our natural inborn human curiosity and drive to learn, harnesses children's natural aversion to boredom by empowering them to entertain themselves through learning, building their sense of self-direction in the process, and sidesteps the traditional curriculum's tendency to often stifle interest in learning by pushing too many subjects at a time in a rigidly structured format, regardless of a student's interest or readiness.

       They say that curiosity killed the cat, but no animal is more curious than Homo Sapiens. Children are natural learners from birth; the drive to explore and explain our world manifests itself almost immediately. As Alison Gopnik, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, says, "Babies are like little scientists, continually getting data and overthrowing theories that no longer fit the new evidence" (42).  Not only that, but we are hardwired to find learning fun; according to Dr. Stuart Brown, director of the National Institute for Play, we are, as a species, primed to play from the time infants make their first social smiles and continuing throughout our adult lives, and play is a crucial element in learning and developing our intelligence.

       These are bold statements, and one of the concerns parents might have is whether children, left to their own devices, will simply while away the hours watching TV and playing video games. However, there seems to be ample evidence that, left to their own devices, children grow bored with these activities just as they do with any others, and will seek challenges and stimulation of their own accord. Karl F. Wheatley, an Associate Professor and the coordinator of early childhood teacher education at Cleveland State University, says "The child who is stressed from too many activities slows down his day; the child who is bored seeks more stimulation and challenge. Children learn to self-regulate because they are allowed to self-regulate, which is very different than just obeying" (31). According to Wheatley, one of the consequences of children having so much unstructured time in which to do as they choose is a better quality of boredom; when they are free to do with their time as they will, they learn to recognize that boredom is a result of their own choices, and that they must take responsibility for addressing it. This responsibility helps develop and strengthen their ability to self-regulate (30).

       Another concern often voiced by parents is the question of socialization. Don't children need to socialize with their peers? Indeed, they do, but that also raises the question of who exactly their peers are. In traditional school settings, they are in essence ghettoized by age, forced to associate and build rapport only with other students within a year or so of their own age. In the adult world, our peer groups are diverse and tend to be structured by field and experience, not by age. Unschooled children have access to socialize with a wide range of ages through community center activities and after-school programs, and in addition, through one of the most powerful tools of socialization teens have today, the internet. Meetup groups allow older children to find others who share their interests and are a wonderful way for them to interact with people of varying experience levels in a chosen interest, allowing them both the opportunity to learn and to teach, as well as the opportunity to become socially fluent in relating with people of different ages. Says Carlo Ricci, a teacher in the faculty of education's graduate program at Nipissing University and editor of the online Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, "To see people of all ages freely interacting with each other, rather than being segregated by age, is simply magical" (46).

       A common misconception is that only the extraordinary, the innately motivated, the boldly gifted will thrive in an unstructured child-led learning environment. However, many experts on learning believe that the opposite is true, and that institutionalized learning, with its boredom, its memorization and routine and repetition and adherence to regulation and conformity, extinguishes the extraordinary within ordinary children who are born with a driving curiosity and the inherent thirst to learn already within them. Says creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson, PhD, principal author of The Arts in Schools: Principles, Practice and Provision, "My contention is that all kids  have tremendous talents, and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly".

       We are, after all, the most curious species. Todd B. Kashdan, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Psychology at George Mason University and author of Curious? Discover the Missing Ingredient to a Fulfilling Life. In his blog Curious? on the Psychology Today website, Kashdan posits,

If you want to steal a child's love of a topic, make it mandatory for them to follow precise guidelines of what they have to know and what is irrelevant. Don't answer tangential questions which will steal time away from the omnipresent syllabus (no time for intrigue!). If you are the principal, make sure that teachers and students know that you are always observing them. Deprive children of choices and alternative perspectives, and you might lull them into compliance.

       Grace Llewellyn, former educator, unschooling advocate, and author of The Teenage Liberation Handbook, writes "Although compulsory schooling was begun partly in hopes of educating people worthy of democracy, other goals also embedded themselves in the educational system. One was the goal of creating obedient factory workers who did not waste time by talking to each other or daydreaming" (60).

       Llewellyn's position may seem extreme, and the reality is that unschooling may not be for everyone; there are, after all, children who thrive and seem very happy in the structured hierarchical world of middle school and high school. Those children might not make the decision to leave school for unschool, and it would be contrary to the core principles of unschooling to compel them to do so, as unschooling is fundamentally about allowing children to make choices and master the art of self-direction.

       However, for those who would leave if given the assurance that they will still have the same opportunities in life as their peers who finish traditional high school, unschooling opens up worlds upon worlds of possibility for developing the potential of passionate lifelong learners, future writers, artists, scientists, dancers; people with the capacity to realize the very best of Homo Sapiens' natural Pandora's Box of curiosity locked within every child.
   

Works Cited

Brown, Stuart. Play is More Than Fun. 2008. Video. Ted.com. Web. 11 Mar 2013.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s _vital.html>.

Gopnik, Alison. "What Every Baby Knows." New Scientist 178.2395 (2003): 42.
MasterFILE Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.

Kashdan, Todd B. "3 Ideas to Prevent Schools from Killing Creativity, Curiosity, and
Critical Thinking". Curious?. Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, LLC. 11 May 2011. Web. 11 March 2013. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ curious/201105/3-ideas-prevent-schools-killing-creativity-curiosity-and-critical-thinking>

Llewellyn, Grace. The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quit School and Get a
Real Life and Education. Eugene, Or: Lowry House, 1998. Print.

Ricci, Carlo. "Unschooling And The Willed Curriculum." Encounter 24.3 (2011): 45-
48. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.

Robinson, Ken. Schools Kill Creativity. 2006. Video. Ted.com. Web. 11 Mar 2013.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity
.html>

Wheatley, Karl F. "Unschooling: An Oasis For Development And Democracy."
Encounter 22.2 (2009): 27-32. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.

https://soundcloud.com/pomdeterrific/pomdeter-call-me-a-hole

(crossposted from Open Bar)

The main mistake that I see people making with regards to things like major life change/self improvement is spending too much time thinking about it.

Once you know what you need to do, thinking about it don't do shit but make you feel bad and immobilize you. So instead of thinking, you have to DO IT. Sometimes people get bogged down in all the different myriad first steps they COULD take, trying to decide which one is best. FACT: all of them are best, as long as you're doing one.

Just ONE. Start with ONE, and do it. Don't even think about the other steps until you have that ONE under your belt.

Let me give you an example. I was, for years, a masterful drinker. Talk about being part of your basic personality; I was a fucking GENIUS at drinking. People loved to drink with me, because I could hold my liquor and I was entertaining as hell. I drank all the time; parties, bars, home, wherever. And then I discovered that a lot of my other problems, like mood instability, irritability, poor memory, and sleep problems, were directly related to my drinking.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that I'm an alcoholic, simply because I'm not clear, as a scientist, on what that word means, but I will say that I was psychologically and physically addicted to alcohol. And I was highly functional, for the parameters of what I needed to do in life at the time. But it was also fucking me up in a lot of ways, in terms of interpersonal relationships, and doing ANYTHING different with my life.

But instead of "OMFG I need to quit drinking" or even "I need to cut back" (I hate "Needs" and "Shoulds" and "Ought tos"), I said "OK, I'm going to change how I drink". So I quit buying the half-gallons of bourbon for home. That was my first step. That was it. Before long, just changing that one thing changed my entire outlook on alcohol. I still have the tendency to drink ALL OF IT if it's in the house; if I have three drinks, I'll have eight (SORRY ABOUT DRINKING ALL YOUR PBR, J-DOG). But I go there much more rarely now and overall I feel a lot better, function a lot better, and am accomplishing more in my life.

So, basically all I'm saying is that if you feel stuck about one major thing that has come to define you in a way, that you don't like about yourself and want to change, just pick ONE small thing to work toward that change and do it until it becomes habitual. Then, pick another. Make them reasonable, and make them small. Don't say "I am going to lose 30 lbs by May!", say, "I am going to go for a 30-minute walk on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings".

If you really have to think about it and make a list, then make that list, PICK ONE THING, and throw it away. Don't keep the list, because you can make a new one when you're ready, and the new list might be different anyway.

A pitfall to avoid is the trap of thinking "OH NO, I FAILED AT DOING THIS ONE THING TODAY, SO ALL IS LOST AND I AM A FAILURE AND I AM BACK AT SQUARE ONE". That kind of thinking is why I loathe 12-step programs. They base your success, and thus your status, on being perfect. Slip up, and they consider you "relapsed". There's no "Shit, yeah, I got WASTED at the party last night and now I feel like crap, reminds me of why I decided to quit doing this in the first place": instead, it's YOU FUCKED UP YOU PIECE OF SHIT, MIGHT AS WELL GO BACK TO DRINKING A FIFTH OF VODKA EVERY DAY, TURN IN YOUR CHIP AND CONFESS YOUR SINS 'CAUSE YOU'RE A FUCKING LOSER.

Sure, that might be an effective approach for some people. Somewhere.

However, for most ordinary schmucks, that kind of absolutist thinking is totally self-defeating. If your goal is to go for walks and you let it slide for a week, so the fuck what. It doesn't mean you "failed", it just means you let it slide for a week. If you let it change your thinking from "I go for walks three times a week" to "I FAILED to go for walks three times a week and now I have to START AGAIN" you are shooting yourself in the foot by creating an arbitrary failure point. Just go for a fucking walk.

Most of all, keep perspective and don't let the big goals dominate your thinking to the point where you lose sign of the small goals. I have a lot of goals. I want a PhD. I want a flat stomach. I want to catch up on my mortgage. But right now, all I can do is do my homework, go for walks a couple times a week, and spend the couple hours between coming home from school and my kids coming home from school in my studio making beads.

One last thing; sometimes accomplishing something you REALLY want means letting something else slide. You have to decide how important the thing you want is, and how important the other things in your life are. For me, housekeeping and going out drinking with my friends are the things that have to slide. It's a bummer, I miss my friends and my house is constantly just barely on the verge of squalor, but if I really want that college degree, that's the way it's going to be, and I can live with that.

THANK YOU AGAIN, YOU RULE!


Also, can you PM me your mailing address? I sent a thing and it came because because apparently I didn't address it correctly.

This one addresses tribalism and privilege really nicely, IMO

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/07/tribalism-isnt-about-feelings-its-about-the-zero-sum-outlook/

Hey, those of you who have been through it; I am thinking about taking public speaking concurrently with writing next term. My question is, is it kosher to adapt papers from the writing class for use as presentations in the public speaking class, or is that considered a form of cheating?

I hope it's not, because I'm hoping to bore the shit out of both my writing class and my public speaking class with papers on topics from my psychology class.

[DEAR PROFESSOR EASBY]

DEAR PROFESSOR EASBY, if you find this through Google, please note that I posted this only minutes before turning my journal in to you in class this morning. It was inspired by conversations here so I thought I'd share it. Thanks, you're the best! Love, K.


One of the things that I think about often is the future of humanity; despite the mounting evidence that we are, through overpopulation, climate change, and resource depletion, making the planet inhospitable to ourselves, there are those who argue that the Earth can sustain 20 billion human beings, and that as-yet-undeveloped technology will take care of our emerging problems. Many of these same people argue that we will take to the stars, and the population crisis will be taken care of through expanding to other frontiers.

For me, the question is not how many people Earth can sustain, or whether we will colonize space, but what happens when people have a high standard of living, and how many people can be realistically sustained at such a standard. What advantage is there to a planet with 20 billion people? As a species, none. There is certainly no advantage to other species, and the standard of living could not possibly be as high as I personally would want it to be, if we lacked forests, greenspaces and wilderness, species diversity and wildlife.

There's another factor, too, that is often overlooked; I believe that we, as a species, must choose between expansion and a high standard of living. We cannot have both, for reasons that seem as hard-wired into us as the desire to procreate in the first place. One thing we have learned from experience is that, over and over again, all over the world, women who are given a choice overwhelmingly choose not to be brood mares. Given a choice, most women who choose to have children choose to have only one or two children; rarely, three. Alternative families do not alter this fact; people in general, both men and women, who choose to be nurturers rarely feel called to nurture a large brood, and certainly not in enough numbers to offset the vast majority who find much of their fulfillment in life through other expressions of accomplishment.

This is not a limitation that technology can fix. Even if we could replicate gestation and lactation, there is no substitute for the crucial stable-nurturer connection that is necessary for the human child to grow up optimally healthy. This is not a factor that we can simply ignore or wish away in our science-fiction dreams of colonizing the stars, or even in our shorter-term goals of envisioning a better future for humanity; we can choose only one: a high standard of living, or an expanding population. Anything else is simple wishful thinking.

I found our new theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78oSuSMmFsE

Thing is, I can't just ride. Ain't it funny, to be in a part of life where you can't get the ants and just put your body on or in a machine and just

go

north.

Has anybody read it? I'm thinking about buying a copy, but it's quite steep. I've heard it's pretty far out there in terms of quasi-mysticism, which is why he never sought publication for it during his lifetime, but I'm really curious about it.

So, one of my daughter's friend's got kicked out of her aunt's house for skipping school.

This is a sweet kid, not some asshole truant. Plus, she's wicked smart and she deserves the support to get through high school and go to college.

She's staying with us right now and I'm going to try to get legal guardianship so I can get her health coverage and sign off on her school documents.

...the only thing that keeps me from being hopelessly lonely is knowing that I'm the only conscious person in a world full of sheep, just like everybody else.


(nods to xkcd)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num.%2015:32-36;&version=KJV

32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

WHAT A DICK!

More bijijoo goodness. What the shit

http://biggoose.org/

This article is old, but I'd never read it before and it's really moving.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html

The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html#ixzz2JHuHHBfm

This one's for you, bro: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33963.msg1237706/topicseen.html#msg1237706

Time to wake up and start posting, spags! It's almost eight o'clock in Portland, what are you doing still asleep?

Read the reviews for this Taco Bell: http://www.yelp.com/biz/taco-bell-chicago-5

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/brooks-suffering-fools-gladly.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

The phrase originally came from William Tyndale's 1534 translation of the Bible. In it, Paul was ripping into the decadent citizens of Corinth for turning away from his own authoritative teaching and falling for a bunch of second-rate false apostles. "For ye suffers fool gladly," Paul says with withering sarcasm, "seeing ye yourselves are wise."

Today, the phrase is often used as an ambiguous compliment. It suggests that a person is so smart he has trouble tolerating people who are far below his own high standards. It is used to describe a person who is so passionately committed to a vital cause that he doesn't have time for social niceties toward those idiots who stand in its way. It is used to suggest a level of social courage; a person who has the guts to tell idiots what he really thinks.

Sure, it would be better if such people were nicer to those around them, the phrase implies, but this is a forgivable sin in one so talented. The actor Ed Harris's "penetrating gaze signals that this is a serious, somber man on a singular quest," a writer observed in The Toronto Sun. "He doesn't suffer fools gladly, if at all."

This article came along at the perfect time for me, because just last night I was thinking about how burnt out I am on the cynical superiority complex and smug faux-misanthropy that I seem to see everywhere, particularly among my intellectual/age peer group. Among cafe, bar, and internet hipsters who clutch their cloak of disdain for humanity closely around them to conceal their own insecurities and flaws... they hope.

I realized that I'm sick of it. I'm done with it. I'm out of patience for humoring it, let alone participating in it. I'm glad this article articulated so well what I was just beginning to think about... it's just another form of petty cruelty. It doesn't make us better people to look down on others, it just makes us brats.

Everything about this makes perfect sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsEtENTEU8&feature=player_embedded

While I have said nothing that might lead you to "assume" anything like your strange response, all I was doing was referring to what several others had already said about you; Yes... too as I have to agree with them. Furthermore and rather oddly enough; as it is a small world, with your now added comments, I am pretty sure that you either actually personally know or at least, have heard of my ex-wife as she must be your peer ~ and what a blooming liberal nut case!

I will comment upon your believed anti-everything comment: America has become a collection of only two views. How so? Obama has ever-so skillfully divided our once great nation for his best advantage and I really cannot see any future at all with a Marxist living in the white house. With each administrative move we have become less as a nation in every way. Do I care? Not really, as I can only advise as a nationally known corporate consultant is to get out, America has lost its way and there is no longer any reason to invest in a fowl ObamaNation. However there is good news for you, you are going to be left with a very-very liberal America ~ Yes ... it will be Obama like in every way. However there is always one problem for boys like him; and your liberals, once you run out of other people's money your PC liberal la-la-land BS you fail as... well ... as everything.

Lastly ... why you are attempting to make me wrong for how you seemingly have effected almost a dozen other people's thinking is really pretty childish at best. However I will call you upon just one issue, ... I don't need your GOD in my life ~ Thank You!

You know, sometimes I see art on Etsy that makes me happy to see that creativity is still alive and well.

http://www.etsy.com/shop/PayneSculptures

Who is your little friend, and why is she an idiot? 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/

I like the part where he points out that it doesn't fucking matter "who you are inside", because people, rightly, judge you by what you actually DO. It's like all the people who claim that they're "really a nice guy and we would probably get along really well if you knew me in person".

BULL SHIT.

Also, man, his take on being "nice" is perfect.

I do think that every person has an intrinsic human value. But above and beyond that, you are only as valuable as you make yourself.

I was trying to figure out what damage it could be, what piece of social information is opaque to you, that you simply don't understand what "attention whoring" is. And then I realized that maybe you don't realize that, while almost everybody talks about themselves and relates things to themselves in some way or another on a regular basis, most people observe certain conventions about a socially correct time and place and degree in which to talk about themselves. You guys don't seem to naturally have that filter in place, so I thought maybe it would be helpful to spell it out a bit so maybe the social convention would seem a bit more transparent for you.

So, first general rule: Talking about other people = riveting. Talking about yourself = unbelievably boring.

Second general rule: Threads that are specifically about someone else are not an invitation for talking about yourself. THE GOOD NEWS: That means you can totally start a thread for talking about yourself! ONE AT A TIME. JUST ONE.

Third general rule: Threads that are about a new item or other such topic are also not an invitation for talking about yourself.

Fourth general rule: Threads like Open Bar, or threads that ask you what you're reading/thinking/listening to: TOTALLY ALL ABOUT talking about yourself! Go to town, sisters!

Fifth general rule: People sometimes do get stuck in that unfortunate stage of development where they really think that they are so fascinating that everyone's always thinking about them (this is especially evident with people who are drunk). However, you can take comfort in the fact that they're not. Everyone is pretty much always thinking about THEMSELVES, which is why we have these social conventions for minimizing the world's most boring conversations in which everyone just talks about their own self. No bueno.

Sixth general rule: If you put some work into it, you might be able to become a fairly decent and compelling writer, and author stories and essays that are really about you, but written in such a way that other people actually enjoy them. Think about it. You love you, and you want others to think about you as much as you do. That's impossible, but the next best thing is getting them to read stories about you and then share them with other people because your story about you makes them think about... themselves. Which is what everyone is already thinking about all the time, anyway. "Your story about you made me think about me!" is pretty much  the highest accolade any author can ever receive, if we want to be honest about things. Check it out.

I hope this was helpful!

Please change it to Komar & Melamid's "Most Unwanted Music" for the holiday season.

Thank you.

I AM INCREDIBLY BROKE AND WINTER FINANCIAL AID DOESN'T GET IN FOR ANOTHER MONTH.

So I have spent a great deal of this weekend being very very productive and filling my Etsy store. With stuff, lots of stuff. YOU can help me just by looking at it, because for some reason the more people look at my stuff the better it does in searches.

http://www.etsy.com/shop/Beadwife

Thank you for looking! Pass it on to your friends if you feel like it!

More stuff is coming soon. Big puffy hearts and shit like that. I think also maybe some long dangly bronze chains with a single colorful bead hanging off them.

http://merylschenker.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Gay-marriage-licenses/G0000UgY8lHd476I/I0000syI7G36ukRo



LOOKIT 'EM! DAWWWWW!!!!

http://imgur.com/a/YgsLW#6FMym

I think my nightmares just had a nightmare.

3. In the following situations, give a practical interpretation in words of the function described.

a. f(h(t)), where A = f(r) is the area of a circle of radius r and r = h(t) is the radius of the circle at time t .

I am walking along minding my own business, when suddenly, strange beings appear from nowhere. "We're from Cerberus," they say, "And we need to store this transdimensional portal here for a while. Bye!" and then they shout something nonsensical and disappear. But they've left behind a medium-sized glowing circle on the ground. It's pretty much the creepiest thing I've ever seen in my life, and even as the hair rises on the back of my neck, I can't take my eyes off it. I don't know how long I stared at it before I notice that it's growing. Apparently the radius of the circle increases as a function of the passage of time. Suddenly I remember what they'd shouted... "f(h(t)), where A = f(r) is the area of a circle of radius r and r = h(t) is the radius of the circle at time t", and I realized what it meant... the open circular area of the portal is a function of the radius which is a function of the passage of time... and I knew that unless those guys came back real soon, the Earth was doomed.

COME UP WITH THIS SHIT?

http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/loose-lips-buy-yachts

I don't mean the post. I mean what the post is about.

CLITORAL REDUCTION???? 

Ever wondered why it is that sometimes something shitty happens to you, but you still maintain a positive attitude afterwards?

Ever wondered why sick people, crippled people, and even people of color can find a will to live and joy in their hearts?

Well, I'll tell you why... it's because of The Good Reverend Roger! You see, TGRR has taken the hate that ordinary people like you and I have deep, deep in our hearts, and he has taken that burden into his own heart so that we can be free! Isn't that wonderful?

Yes, TGRR has taken the hate of the world upon his shoulders... big, strong, hairy shoulders as shaggy and russet as Scottish cattle... in order to give us, his distant primate relatives, the freedom to function normally in our daily business without seizures, keening, foaming, incoherent ranting, or throwing heavy objects at our coworker's heads. He does all that for us! Isn't that wonderful?

If this news of all that TGRR has done for us has touched your heart in any way, please join hands with me as we bow our heads and, together, give thanks for his great gift to us.

So, I was inspired earlier tonight by another member's post in the International Juggalo Erotic Fiction Writer's Association. I was inspired to follow in his footsteps and search "clown sex" on Amazon.

Result #3 was the Accoutrements Yodeling Pickle http://www.amazon.com/Accoutrements-11761-Yodelling-Pickle/dp/B0010VS078

Result #7 was Big Beautiful Woman Impregnated By A Killer Paranormal Clown: Impregnating Virgin Curves http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Impregnated-Killer-Paranormal-ebook/dp/B009FO3O9G

Result #41 was pure paydirt. Written by one Tits McGee, the title is Captain Spanky's Spanking a Sexy Police Lady http://www.amazon.com/Captain-Spankys-Spanking-Police-ebook/dp/B0081V77A6/ref=sr_1_41?ie=UTF8&qid=1354420983&sr=8-41&keywords=clown+sex

Intrigued by the compelling synopsis (excerpt: This is a sexy story full of detailed lovemaking, including sex in the ear!) I was driven to explore Tit's McGee's other titles. Some might argue that Captain Spanky's Spanking at the Republican National Convention is the best of the bunch, but I was instantly drawn toward the mysterious intrigue of Captain Spanky's Spanking Sex Dungeon and Sex. My fantastic good taste paid off, because not only is the tantalizing opening excerpt a jewel of erotic titillation, but this masterwork also has scintillating reviews. http://www.amazon.com/Captain-Spankys-Spanking-Dungeon-ebook/product-reviews/B007YUXPF6/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I am downloading it to my Kindle for free RIGHT NOW.

IT IS SAID THAT AN ISM IS JUST A UNIFORM BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT ISMISM IS ALSO A UNIFORM, A QUICK FIX, A PIGEONHOLE, A BOX, A WAY TO AVOID THINKING BY PUTTING EVERYTHING IN A CERTAIN CATEGORY LABELED "I AM BETTER THAN THAT". IT IS LAZY AND STUPID.

THAT IS ALL.

This is fucking amazing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/tobacco-deception-judge-ruling_n_2199973.html

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered tobacco companies to publish corrective statements that say they lied about the dangers of smoking and that disclose smoking's health effects, including the death on average of 1,200 people a day.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler previously had said she wanted the industry to pay for corrective statements in various types of advertisements. But Tuesday's ruling is the first time she's laid out what the statements will say.

Each corrective ad is to be prefaced by a statement that a federal court has concluded that the defendant tobacco companies "deliberately deceived the American public about the health effects of smoking." Among the required statements are that smoking kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes and alcohol combined, and that "secondhand smoke kills over 3,000 Americans a year."

This actually gives me hope.

Today's conversation in Open Bar contained a passing comment that spurred this thought:

If your own culture is so full of bad signal that you don't actually WANT it, what do you do next? What if that's the motivation behind a lot of modern-day cultural appropriation... not "oh look, that's neat!" but "GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!"?

What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?

Who coined the term "teahadi"? It's brilliant! The oldest reference I could find is this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4798474&mesg_id=4798488

Discuss: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

Women aren't women anymore.

To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven't changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.

In a nutshell, women are angry. They're also defensive, though often unknowingly. That's because they've been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

Now the men have nowhere to go.

It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.

But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women's fault?


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DDFwyJ7W

...what is up with that?

With all the stalking that many of our members, including myself, seem to be on the receiving end of much of the time, it seems unnecessary and perhaps unwise to allow users who are not logged in to view people's profiles and search their post history. Few forums I am aware of have that feature turned on, for reasons that seem obvious; why would a non-member want to look at members' profiles and post history?

What do you say?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legalize-mariuana-recreational-use-oregon/ngFhFRK9

How fucking cute is that?

Also, this is the email he sent accompanying the link:

So, I don't know if this awkward, but I just feel incredibly strongly of this subject. So, as weird as this sounds, I created a submission on "We The People" to legalize for recreational use in Oregon. If you could sign that would be pretty great and I would appreciate it quite a bit. And if it's not too much to ask, could you maybe also try and spread it around from your friends? Thank you for doing however much you can.
http://wh.gov/XcAR

I am so proud of my little guy!

This podcast explains a lot of the theory behind what I'm doing in the study I'm working for, and if I'm not mistaken, directly mentions one of our sister studies in the same department. It's also just really interesting in terms of both cognitive and non-cognitive intelligence.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/474/back-to-school

is a million hours of fun.

http://www.theuselessweb.com/

Dear PD,

I need your help with a class project. Don't worry, I'm not going to experiment on you! But if you would kindly take a moment to answer the following questions, I'd be much obliged.

What are some words you would use to describe teenagers?

How do you feel the media portrays teenagers?

Do you think it is an accurate or an inaccurate representation?

What are your impressions of teenagers?

Do you feel like your impressions of teenagers in general are accurate for teenagers you know personally, or yourself if you are a teenager?

Do you think that media representation of teenagers influences your expectations and treatment of teenagers, or other people's expectations and treatment of you if you are a teenager?

Thank you very much for your answers!

I would like to ask us, we, the Internet population of peers with an overlap of common interests, generally known as "Pee Dee dot com", come together to rethink our usage of the term "aspie" to describe every amusingly incorrect pedant who is too hung up on their own ego to admit when they make a mistake.

I freely admit that until about two weeks ago I used, and would have defended the use of the term, and the use of the term assburger (which I still might use and/or find defensible, I haven't decided yet). I would have defended it thusly: that it is not actually making fun of people with mild autism, but making fun of people who display stereotypical characteristics often ascribed to mild autism, AKA Asperger's syndrome, such as lack of empathy, pedantry, and displaying a poor understanding of normal social interactions. There is, however, one thing all these people share which is not at all typical of autism, which is having an ego so fragile they cannot admit error. In my experience, autistic people may make social blunders, but they care more about being correct than being "right", and will readily admit factual errors. If they make them, which is not terribly common because they like to confirm facts before they insist on them.

Let me explain what changed my mind. About two weeks ago, Telarus, our fellow PD spag and also a local PDX spag, commented that one of our other local fellows, a spag called Kassianne, finds our use of the term "aspie" to describe egobound assholes with shitty social skills insulting and degrading. Kassianne is autistic. She is also lovely and fun and insightful. At one point in time, I would probably have responded with the sentiment that she needs to grow a sense of humor or somesuch shite, but in reflection on a lot of the conversations we've had here over the past year or so, intelligent and insightful and screeching and abrasive conversations in which I felt like all of us confronted some of our ugly habits and assumptions and got a little more bipedal, I concluded that Kassianne is right. It is insulting and degrading. I thought about all the autistic people in my life, including my ex-husband, my daughter, my brother, my good friend's son, and Kassianne, and I have decided that I am not comfortable using that term anymore.

... who question your most mundane actions, and give you unsolicited "advice" that inexplicably seems to assume that you don't know the most rudimentary aspects of adult survival?

I don't even know what to do when people do this. It puzzles me.

Pretty fucking neat!

http://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html

This is where I feel the need to point out that "Oh shit, we're starting to make millennia-scale problems that our descendants will have to deal with for centuries, we'd better build a giant eternal clock thing that future generations can use to remind them of the cycle of life and sustainability" is pretty much the death keen of every civilization that has ever existed.

That and genetically engineered bright turquoise agave.

End times.

http://io9.com/5958867/is-nasa-about-to-unveil-plans-for-manned-moon-mission

THANKS A LOT, OBAMA!

I was reading about glass artifacts and encountered this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Vase

I don't have a lot to say about it at the moment but something I've noticed repeatedly is that Greeks and Romans, or perhaps the scholars of Greek and Roman mythology, seem to "talk around" Eris even in scenes intimately involving her. Her absence from this vase, or at least the absence of her mention, seems like a glaring omission. Reflective of the Original Snub, perhaps? Is her absence from this wedding-themed vase depicting the origins of the Trojan War, in itself, a deliberate mention?

http://www.facebook.com/dok.zirroneous/posts/318171048290637?comment_id=1662262&ref=notif&notif_t=like

If anyone can see this and wants to join in.