Tuesday, June 27, 2006

but he was all about jungle fever

so i was watching this A&E documentary about skinheads last night, it was totally fucked up. so they were drunk, watching this nazi propaganda film, and commenting about how happy everyone was. "all they wanted was a german europe, is that so bad? i mean look how happy they all are, obviosly hitler was a genius." hello! it's a fucking propaganda film! ofcourse they're all going to look happy! then they go on to talk about how our forefathers would be rolling over in their graves if they saw the america of today, inter-racial and all. "i mean thomas jefferson would roll over in his grave if he saw this shit!" obvoiusly they are missing the irony in this statement. seeing as jefferson had a bad case of jungle fever and all.

this is also irony...

Monday, June 26, 2006

3 days or two weeks

so the ex-relationship called today. pretty much true to form, every time we break up(five, six times now?) he calls either three days or two weeks later to say he misses me and can we try this again, in some from or another. yeah healthy, i know. the thing about it was, i knew it wasn't healthy and it wasn't going anywhere. is that normal? to date a guy you don't have feelings for even when he tells you he loves you? and no one wonders why we didn't last again. and no one is surprised when he calls, again. i guess what was different this time was it was two and a half weeks and i did what i should have done a few months ago, tell him how over we really are.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

can you have a happy divorce?

so i am a big proponent of divorce. i know that sounds bad. yes marriage is thick and thin, richer and poorer, sickness and health, i understand all that. i am not saying that you should bail once you hit a little bump in the road, but all out misery? yes. if my parents had stayed together i would have needed even more therapy than what i needed from their divorce.
so the question was posed to me last night: can you have a happy divorce? and if the divorce is happy, should you even be divorced in the first place? interesting question.
this came about from a friend of the family who has a pretty good divorce. they live in the same neighborhood because they have kids, and on and on... and it was suggested that if they can still be nice to each other shouldn't they still me married? well where to we draw the line? civility? lord knows a lot of married couples aren't civil to each other anymore, but shouldn't you be happy in your marriage? and if you're not, everyone around you (ie the kids) is going to be miserable too. you should have a chance at finding happiness again. at least that's my opinion.

a little public service announcement

it may not be a good idea to get drunkity-drunk-drunk with the parentals. drinking: ok. wasted ass: not ok. first goes the profanity filter. i start swearing. i dropped the f-bomb several times. then i am pretty sure i told my stepmom that i would pimp out my younger if she came out to visit because "she definitely needs to get laid by someone other than her asshole boyfriend". ohhh yeah. that went well. very well i think. christ on a bicycle.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

they always told me i'd use algebra as an adult...

quality conversation:
A: "how is getting pregnant worse than getting herpes?!"
B: "because you can't kill herpes! that shit is forever man!"
A "oh my god"
C: "that's true though. although i'd rather get syphilis that get pregnant. you can just take antibiotics for that"
B: "true that. it's like an equation, ya know. x is greater than 5, but less than 8. pregnancy is less bad than herpes, but more bad than syphilis."
C: "exactly."

Friday, June 16, 2006

reflection

so i've been thinking these past few days about something that happened last weekend, and how to react to it. so why not write a post about it? it will give me a good way to verbalize what is stewing in my brain. so basically i hooked up with this guy this weekend. he was supposed to be pre-screened (you know not a crazy psycho-killer, no stds, and no girlfriend, the big 3) because he was a friend of friend. he was only in town for two days, so it's not like i was expecting anything from him, but i find out the next day he has a long term girlfriend. i talked to him for a couple of hours, no mention of a girlfriend. but the girlfriend revalation didn't really disturb me, i think it was my reaction. i think my exact reaction was "'he has a girlfriend?' 'did you know?' 'no, but i probably would've done it anyway... maybe'"
yeah. so after thinking about it, and this is the second time this has happened in, ohh 3 months, i'm wondering if there is something wrong with me? did i lose my moral compass somewhere? i mean, true i didn't know beforehand, and had no reason to think he had a girlfriend, and it's not really my problem if the guy wants to cheat on her, but i really wonder: am i going to get a karmic kick in the ass sometime soon? or do i just have a black spot on my soul?

Monday, June 12, 2006

do i LOOK like a sinner?

so i'm sitting on the subway, the N in brooklyn, and this guys gets on. normal looking guy, but they always are. walks past 15 or so people, stops in front of me, reaches into his messenger bag, and hands me this flyer about accepting jesus into my heart and how he can save me from all of my sins. OK! so i can guarantee that i did NOT look like the biggest sinner on this train, so wtf! why me? do i look like an especially bad heathen or something? bullshit man.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

baby i'm love with a stripper

so friday night was a crazy night. it started out normal, a few friends were in town so we all met up on the UES for dinner, tasty mexican. then we wanted to head out for drinks. for some reason we ended up at this place called the big easy. if i never see it again, it will be far too soon. it was like an oasis of washed up frat boys, wasted 18 year old girls teetering on heels they couldn't walk in, tables of beer pong, and wretched footloose music. so we were outta there after one drink and down to the east village. we hit up this place called Plan B. it was pretty fucking hot, but the name... i mean i get it, it's at 1oth and B, but it just make me think of the morning after pill... anyway... several drinks later krystal and i were dancing up on a stripper pole, awwww yeah baby! this place is definitely a keeper.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

well we don't say her-ass-ment anymore...

so the campaign "group leader" guy that i'm working with on the King campaign was bordering on lecherous, until today when he took a huge leap into sexual harassment today when he said (and i quote) "well i'm just going to have to spank you, but not until the campaign's over" he also asked me not to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, jokingly of course. lech! he's like 40's! of course krystal's response: well is he cute? christ on a bicycle.

why are you such a girl?

so is it seriously my fault that you can't seperate sex from love?! you may think you are in love with me, but you're not! you're in lust. it's totally different. how can you be in love with me?! you don't know anything about me. my roommate's boyfriend knows more about me than you do. you're 24 years old, it's time to get over "i'm in love with being in love" bullshit. pleeeeeease.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

who knew?

so i have been working on the Charlie King for Attorney General campaign (woop woop)... yeah petitioning is soooo much fun, but you have to get on the ballot! but i observed some pretty funny things today:
1. a herd of guys in black hoods with huge signs screaming about the apocalypse (it is 6-6-06 today)
2. a woman WASTED ass drunk at 10 am this morning- classic
3. i outed a closet republican who was in a UNION!!! he was with his friend, who responded, yeah we're both registered dems, we're union guys, we'll sign, his friends says, welllll, actually i'm registered republican.... WHAT! YOU ARE?!?! his friend replies, great look what you did, you outed me! he says! i felt bad for a about a millisecond, but he's in a fucking union!! he should NOT be a registered republican!
4. a guy who said: "aww shorty, you so fine, i just wanna bag you up and take you back to brooklyn" bag me up? oook ummm no thanks, next please?
5. a man walking down the street in a suit and tie, with a broken nose, blood all over his face, and looking like someone just beat the shit out of him very recently
6. i was propositioned several times, i can see how a girl could make a good living asking, are you a registered voter?

Saturday, June 03, 2006

sometimes to look to the future you must learn from the past of your enemies...

from the NY Times:
How to Grow a Democratic Majority
Recently, an internal disagreement in the Democratic Party made headlines. That probably sounds familiar, since disagreements over party strategy are nothing new in the Democratic Party. But the recent conflict between Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic campaign committee in the House, and Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is more than just another family squabble — it shows just how difficult changing the course of party history can be.
Mr. Emanuel and others have questioned Mr. Dean's program to build the party organization in red states as well as blue ones. They want the committee to spend its money on key Congressional races this fall because they believe that the party has a chance to win control of the House in 2006 if it pours its resources into the most competitive races.
Mr. Dean has a different approach. He believes that for the Democrats to regain the majority and make it stick, they will have to build a strong organizational foundation everywhere, even in those places where Democrats don't have an immediate chance. Democrats may not win many red-state races this year, but Mr. Dean believes that they will be better off in the long run if they start shoring up the party in Republican strongholds now.
What is missing from the current debate is a clearer appreciation for how the Democrats got to where they are today, and how the current leaders might learn from the record of the past.
Since the New Deal, Democrats have given party building short shrift. Democratic presidents tended to use the formal party apparatus as an instrument for raising money but looked to other vehicles for building political support. They relied on organized labor to get out the vote; on urban machines and congressmen in the South to control local party operations; and on the strength of incumbents to win their own re-elections.
While this was a winning formula, it could not last forever. By failing to create durable organizational capacities in their party, Democrats were often forced to cobble together new political networks with each campaign season. Republican presidents and party chairmen, on the other hand, were driven by their perpetual Congressional minority status to strengthen their organization as a means of expanding their party. While Republicans won many presidential elections, they were the perennial losers in Congressional and state-level elections and did not gain parity with the Democrats among self-identified partisan voters until 2004.
To establish a new majority, Republicans aggressively built up their organizational presence in weak Republican areas, especially in the South. As early as the 1950's, they ran schools to train activists and campaign managers. By the 1970's, they were developing new methods of recruiting candidates and enrolling party workers and volunteers; they created teams of "field men" to travel from campaign to campaign to lend their expertise where needed; they built new small-donor fund-raising networks and became adept at sending money where it needed to go; and they invested in technology and voter database management. What's more, these practices were disseminated down to the local level.
For example, Republican presidents focused on party building in the historically Democratic states of South Carolina and Virginia in the 1970's. They gave local leaders the resources they needed to develop a campaign-support system that would entice attractive candidates to run for office as Republicans. Political neophytes, like business and religious leaders, were promised support — if only they would take a chance on running.
New candidates and activists were sent to work for the national committee, the White House, the Congressional campaign committees and affiliated political action groups. Many of the most prominent Republican leaders of the recent past — Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie — got their start participating in party-building programs.
Using detailed voter lists, phone banks and grass-roots workers, Republicans began to collect wins — at the mayoral, state legislative and, eventually, the gubernatorial and Congressional levels. Each victory softened the electorate's view of the Republican Party; more Republican officeholders encouraged more Republican voters; more Republican voters encouraged more and better Republican candidates to run for office.
And because every Republican president since Eisenhower contributed enthusiastically to these party-building efforts, the party was able to benefit from White House largess, presidential fund-raising prowess and the power of presidential persuasion.
Republicans did not emerge from the minority by trying to win a bare majority in the House or Senate. They put their organization to work for them and discovered that party building bred more party building.
This seems to be precisely what Howard Dean is trying to do. By developing an organizational structure now, Mr. Dean hopes that the Democrats will have something sturdy to rely on if, and when, they win back the White House.
It's uncertain whether Mr. Dean will succeed. After all, Mr. Emanuel makes a persuasive argument for his approach. Why should the Democrats trade a chance to win the House now for an uncertain future?
The answer? Because a victory now will most likely be short-term. As the Republicans have shown, creating a durable electoral majority requires a firm organizational foundation, something the Democrats don't have. But if Mr. Dean can hold fast to his plan, they just might be on the way to getting one.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

GOD! this just pisses me off...

From the NY Times:

In a country that spends so much time extolling the glories of democracy, it's amazing how many elected officials go out of their way to discourage voting. States are adopting rules that make it hard, and financially perilous, for nonpartisan groups to register new voters. They have adopted new rules for maintaining voter rolls that are likely to throw off many eligible voters, and they are imposing unnecessarily tough ID requirements.

Florida recently reached a new low when it actually bullied the League of Women Voters into stopping its voter registration efforts in the state. The Legislature did this by adopting a law that seems intended to scare away anyone who wants to run a voter registration drive. Since registration drives are particularly important for bringing poor people, minority groups and less educated voters into the process, the law appears to be designed to keep such people from voting.

It imposes fines of $250 for every voter registration form that a group files more than 10 days after it is collected, and $5,000 for every form that is not submitted — even if it is because of events beyond anyone's control, like a hurricane. The Florida League of Women Voters, which is suing to block the new rules, has decided it cannot afford to keep registering new voters in the state as it has done for 67 years. If a volunteer lost just 16 forms in a flood, or handed in a stack of forms a day late, the group's entire annual budget could be put at risk.

In Washington, a new law prevents people from voting if the secretary of state fails to match the information on their registration form with government databases. There are many reasons that names, Social Security numbers and other data may not match, including typing mistakes. The state is supposed to contact people whose data does not match, but the process is too tilted against voters.

Congress is considering a terrible voter ID requirement as part of the immigration reform bill. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, introduced an amendment to require all voters to present a federally mandated photo ID. Even people who have been voting for years would need to get a new ID to vote in 2008. Millions of people without drivers' licenses, including many elderly people and city residents, might fail to do so, and be ineligible to vote. The amendment has been blocked so far, but voting-rights advocates worry that it could reappear.

These three techniques — discouraging registration drives, purging eligible voters and imposing unreasonable ID requirements — keep showing up. Colorado recently imposed criminal penalties on volunteers who slip up in registration drives. Georgia, one of several states to adopt harsh new voter ID laws, had its law struck down by a federal court.

Protecting the integrity of voting is important, but many of these rules seem motivated by a partisan desire to suppress the vote, and particular kinds of voters, rather than to make sure that those who are entitled to vote — and only those who are entitled — do so. The right to vote is fundamental, and Congress and state legislatures should not pass laws that put an unnecessary burden on it. If they do, courts should strike them down.

my biggest fear, confirmed

so i went home for race day weekend, or memorial day weekend as the rest of the country refers to it. one night all of my of-age cousins got together to catch up and play some drinking games, all together good times, very drunk good times. so somehowthe conversation shifts to how i send out my laundry, and my cousins who have families are all sooo jealous, and there the conversation somehow drunkenly morphs into "well we only have sex once a month or so, so i don't have to wash my sheets every few days or anything" the response from hillary and i is "JIGGA WHAT!!!" and THREE of my cousins confirm that once they got married they really only had sex about once a month. OH MY GOD, i'm never getting married! wtf! seriously!