Sometimes I’m not sure that I walk the line successfully between snark and just plain childishness.

I mean, everybody knows that nothing raises your blood pressure except for being fat and eating crap, so this article must be bullshit. Oh, wait…snoring is noise, and only fat people snore! Whew! Thought you were going to tell me that I still have to die someday no matter what. I feel better now.

See?

Also? This can’t possibly be right. Because I have it on good authority that my particular preeclampsia came from being fat and lazy. But all kinds of upside here, too, because we can just blame women for somehow getting infected with whatever.

Yeah, I’m feeling cynical tonight. So?

WTF, over?

Why is this not a problem for every being who lays claim to some human ancestry? We are BURNING FOOD IN OUR CARS, people. Why doesn’t that upset everyone? I mean, absolutely everyone? I mean, I’m an anarchist freak and I can see that this is wrong.

Then again, if it weren’t for the government corn subsidies…

Everything is class, even if class isn’t everything.

Via this week’s Carnival of the Capitalists, an article on professionalism for salespeople that talks about why folks don’t think of sales as a profession. He touches on something that’s dreadfully important, which is that the respectability of a given line of work depends heavily on class perception. You can make damned good money selling things, but I think you’re supposed to feel just a bit dirty for having done so, rather than being able to enjoy the fruits of your labor the way that you could if you had, say, invested an amount of money that produced the same income.

Everything is class warfare. Everything.

The atheists aren’t the problem. Hell, they’re not even *a* problem.

Via J-Walk, an interesting take on the godless among us. As one of said godless, I really appreciate any article that fails to demonize (I’m supposed to resist?) folks like me. Nice change of pace. Being an atheist might not make you a better person, but it sure as hell doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be a worse one. Why that even needs to be said is something I’ll never understand.

I’m impressively impressed.

With the way that Senator Clinton is managing to screw her campaign up. I’ve been saying for several years that the Presidency was hers to lose, this round. I’m really shocked, though, that she’s managing to, you know, actually lose it.

See something new every day.

A bit of history.

Once upon a time, I was 16 and totally excited to go to Berkeley because it was Berkeley, man. I wore a peace symbol on a chain around my neck everywhere I went, and I really, truly believed that people could solve any problem if they just talked about it long enough. I also thought that reason would win out when they did, and that reason demanded all sorts of bizarre and irrational things. I vehemently opposed the war in Iraq and spent a good portion of my first-period physics class arguing about it with one of my equally geeky friends.

I was 21 when I voted for Bill Clinton because he’d signed the bill expanding the student loan program, meaning I could scrape together enough money to go back to college. That was all I really cared about just then.

Then I was 25 and broke and tired of the grad school games, and I dropped out and joined the Navy. I’d given up being a Democrat because I couldn’t stand Clinton’s tendency to over-parse. I’d had enough of that sort of thing in the classroom and it infuriated me. I still thought that people could work things out without violence if they were only honest. I was tired of having a specific viewpoint rammed down my throat in my classes, so I joined up to have a specific viewpoint rammed down my throat while marching around in circles. I firmly believed that this was absolutely different because it was useful.

Then I was 26 and on hold indefinitely and busy mocking people who had voted for Al Gore. I took up going to church for the donuts and accidentally found Jesus. Somebody flew some planes into some buildings that September, and that made me very, very angry. Especially when they kicked me out of the service and I didn’t get an opportunity to help blow anything up. Because by then I was quite sure that sometimes the only way to deal with people is to blow them up.

In 2003, I started blogging. I started because I was angry at people who didn’t believe in the Iraq war, because I was sure that if we just showed the world how badass we were, it would back the hell off and leave us alone.

I must have had an inkling what was to come, because I remember clearly explaining to my mother why the Patriot Act was a bad idea.

I was also very certain that I knew what other people ought to be doing with their genitals. And their time. And their money. Because I was a conservative, dammit, and all about the personal responsibility. If you give people freedom, they’ll try to rob you, don’t you know?

Then life happened and I suddenly realized that I’d been wrong the whole time, both ways around. Gave up Jesus and voting. Felt better.

Expanding on this last point is pretty much why this site is here. Well, that and to get my wannabe anarchist rants off of our family blog and into a proper venue. I’m still hoping that some of our friends with different viewpoints will join in and make the site a bit more interesting than I alone can manage.

Either way, there you go. Reformed liberal, reformed conservative. Now proudly divorced from the political process. That’s me.

Another lovely quirk some folks seem to have…

Is a belief in time machines. I’m all for personal responsibility, but there’s a difference between wanting folks to have to work forward in their lives from a bad spot with minimal or no government hand-holding (a thing which is getting more and more impossible the more we depend on the government for basic services) and wanting them to go back ten years and undo their lives. The second, being impossible, is just a nasty and spiteful thing to suggest.

We all make bad choices. Some of them work out anyway, some of them don’t. I have no problem with someone saying (to use an example that came up a decade or so ago in Minnesota), I don’t want to pay for your education just because you’re a single mother, as there’s a rational argument to be made about whether anyone should be paying for anyone else’s anything, and another to be made about the acceptable rationales therefore. What I object to is the more and more common formulation, well, then, you shouldn’t have had a kid, which not only contains a barrel of bad or possibly assumptions (how do we know she wasn’t widowed?), but shames the target based on them. I find this especially sad because why a person might find themselves in a bad situation has no bearing on whether they should be publicly funded in escaping it, but we enjoy the idea that we can punish the sluts and glorify the widows somehow through artful government, and that’s not at all what government is for.