July 2005 Archives

   Today was my last day in my store in my current position. I will be returning in 2 weeks for some training, but I will officially be employed by another store. My last day was interesting - a code brown as soon as I clocked in, a crazy busy night, and sadness at cleaning out my mailbox. I think the code brown(s) was(were) the worst. Well, one wasn't exactly a code brown, but a child went into the men's room - 11 or 12 maybe, old enough to know better - and peed all over the floor. It wasn't like he missed the toilet. He just went all over the floor. A customer told me that a kid was in there using the entire bathroom as a toilet. Indeed...
   I also must share a recipe with you. You save up your business all day, then come poop at my store. You poop so much that the toilet is full. Then you add a ton of toilet paper, and perhaps even a paper towel or two. Then you flush about three times so that even though nothing goes down, the bowl is full of water. Yes folks, that's what we call "poop soup." Yeah....
   The best part of my day was when I walked outside and a big group of people jumped out from behind a car to surprise me. They were all there to send me off. They painted my car and put balloons and streamers all over - pictures to come. (Sheri, send me some pics!) Then we all went out and had ourselves a little party. I was truly touched that they cared so much to all come out at 11:30 at night to wish me well and say goodbye. It's obvious they will all miss me just as much as I'm going to miss them. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally excited to be moving stores and working with a new (and cool) group of people. But I will miss everyone that has grown so accustomed to my craziness. Thanks guys...

   I was just visiting the AFA website (an anti-gay "family" group) and I found one of the funniest things I've seen in awhile. There's a whole thing there about how awful it is that Kraft is a (proud) sponsor of the Chicago Gay Games. Isn't this a horrible thing to say:

At Kraft we truly respect all kinds of differences. And diversity is not a selective concept . By definition, it's nothing if not inclusive.

   After reprinting this statement of immorality, they go on to show what really happens at the Gay Games. And this is wrong on several levels. First is that they took (stole) some pictures off of a gay (porn) site and depicted it as the actual gay games. Yes folks, there's the crotch grabbing contest, the muscle buttocks competition, and the horny man relay. Who believes this shit?
   But the best part is the presentation, and as my friend Dan says it's all about production value. Instead of simply displaying the pictures, they are compelled to have several warnings about what you're going to see. But it's all done like it's a porn site itself - like "you don't want to see these pictures, but you really just have to". I mean when you print "These photos are horrible - click here to see them!" .. it's just too much to take seriously.
   Even more fun is to use their email sender to thank Kraft for their support. So convenient...

(source: AFA website)

   In California there is a movement to ban gay marriage. Funny that eh'. I do want to say though that it is very refreshing to me that the Attorney General renamed the proposed amendment to reflect the reality of what it is trying to accomplish. The proponents of the amendment wanted to call it the "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Act," but it was renamed "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights." Has anyone noticed over the past few years the rather Orwellian naming of things that have been opposite of their names? The "Clean Air Initiaitve" that made it easier to pollute. The "Patriot Act" that stripped Americans of various civil liberties.
   While we're renaming things, why don't we call more things what they really are instead of dressing them up in what looks like really bad drag. Like Bush's "Culture of Life" - how about "Life. Who Cares What Happens After You're Born." Or "protecting the institution of marriage" instead could be "Fucking Up Gay Familes Whatever They Do." I think "Compassionate Conservatism" could use a facelift too. How about "Congestive Cretinism."
(source: Calif. marriage ban language OK'd)

   I just have to say that I was very excited to see that Discovery launched this morning and without incident. I think it's incredible all the energy that has been put into getting the shuttle back into space. Watching the video of the launch is just amazing - they have so many new cameras on that launch now. I know it's not the first time into space or anything, but I'm still just a bit awestruck to watch us reach for the stars again. It's like all of humanity saying that we will not bow to fear of the unknown or of the past, but that we will continue to learn from mistakes and work towards the future.
(info. at NASA.gov)

Random things I find facinating:
- that the SBC customer service is closed at 6:30
- that people still beat their children in public
- that people can be so heartless to animals
- that people can get so terribly nasty about things like lamp shades
- that politics is more important than people

   When I heard the reports that British police had shot someone running from them I thought that maybe they knew he was a suspect or terrorist. But as I read and heard the reports it seemed they thought he was suspicious - different from being a suspect. I heard on NBC Nightly News (I think it was NBC) that the man was tackled and shot 5 times at point blank range. Now even if he was suspicious, why if he was down already would one shoot him (five times)?
   I think this shoot to kill policy is very dangerous. I realize that it can mean the difference between life or death for people, and that is painfully obvious in different situations. When you empower one person to take the life of another, you end up with all kinds of complications. And when the government has the power to take the lives of citizens without any process, that is just scary. To think anyone could be shot for a misunderstanding is frightening - I'm sure even more for those who are of arab descent (or arab looking). I realize there are good arguments on both sides of this issue, but when you're talking about more innocent lives being taken by the "good guys", none of it makes sense.
(source: British police admit shooting wrong man)

   Because there's not enough stuff out there about Mr. Rove, I just wanted to voice my opinion. It's simple - whether or not he committed a crime, it's obvious that he did something wrong. Now in my job, whether or not I commit a crime is irrelivant; whether I did something wrong or not is the issue. If I don't follow policies and procedures I can get fired. And if I blatantly do something wrong it likely increases my chances of being fired. I don't understand why Bush is holding this employee of the White House to lower standards than those that are applied to me at my job. And Rove failed at what the he in his position in the government is entrusted to work with - information. If a teacher's students don't do well because he is not teaching, the teacher gets fired. If a construction worker builds a house that falls down he gets fired. If someone who administrates information leaks classified info., he should be fired.
   Just my point of view of a common person.

   Kudos to the City of Akron for planting new trees on Route 8 where the construction took the old trees out. I swear every day I drive through more trees are being planted. Akron has been a "Tree City USA" for ten years, and I applaud them for keeping up the tradition.

   I'm up far too late, but I was catching up with TiVo. I watched a bunch of queer stuff tonight. The first was pretty light-hearted, but also somewhat annoying. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was about a nudist that the Fab 5 were trying to help out. Well, I usually think they are pretty funny. I especially like Thom because he's funny yet genuine. On this particular episode I was disappointed that he seemed to have such a problem with the nudists. I thought he was going to have a heart attack when the people were naked - as if he'd never seen someone naked before. It was funny at first, but then it struck a nerve with me. In the gay community, I'm always astonished when we judge other people. For a group of people who deal with judgement on a daily basis, it seems so backwards that we would turn that on other people. It was a little disappointed to watch.
   I also watched tonight's episode of Queer as Folk. Holy crap! [CAUTION: Spoilers may follow!] A bomb at a gay benefit, Michael in the hospital, Brian does a complete 180 in about 5 minutes! From the previews it looks like the end of the season (and show) are going to be crazy. Brian buying a house for him and Justin - it's almost unreal. And the story line with Hunter coming back looks bizarre. I'm hooked and can't wait to see what happens next week. (how pathetic)

   I made the remark that when I get my Advocate magazine it comes in this opaque wrapper like it's a porn rag. I thought that was ironic because the Advocate is a gay and lesbian news magazine. But the real irony was that the front cover actually looks like a porn rag. It has this muscled man on the front with his shirt all open, and one of the main headlines reads, "SUMMER SEX ISSUE." Everyone in the family took a look including Aunt and Grandma who actually think it is a porn magazine. They asked to see the inside, and of course out pops a picture of several naked men. So, now I know why it comes in a wrapper. I just wanted some news...

   I find the headline "Storm may affect US Gulf oil, gas ops" somewhat funny. I mean, if the king of Saudi Arabia sneezes gas prices go up. So duh...

   Two things I noticed while watching some TV this evening that annoy me and/or don't make a ton of sense. One - Commercials that advertise if you call their 800 number, it's a free call. Who these days needs to be reminded that an 800 number is a free call, and is that really a defining benefit at this point? The other thing is all the car commercials - it's not the fact that they tend to show cars seemingly out of control to make them look cool, or the SUVs that they show driving in the wilderness (who does that?) or even the annoying announcers. It's the simple fact that they cannot all be the number one car company. Not that I expect anyone to advertise the number two spot, but c'mon. As much as we'd like, we can't all be top dog.

"Listen, the United States, for national security reasons and economic security, needs to diversify away from fossil fuels. And so we've put out a strategy to do just that. I can't wait to share it with our G8 friends," [Bush] told reporters in Denmark.

   I wish I knew what the strategy was...    OK, I looked it up online, and that's great that I see what he has planned. The proposed $1.2billion for fuel cell technology sounds great; the tax incentives for hybrid vehicles is nice; running 85% ethanol vehicles is enticing. But I've heard more about gay marriage and social security in the past 5 years than energy. They say it's time that Congress got on the boat here, but it's a republican Congress - what's the hold up and why hasn't Bush pushed more for it if it's so important? Right now it's a plan, and a plan doesn't do anything for anyone unless someone does something. (source: Bush urges G8 to lead shift from oil and gas; White House: Issues: Energy)

   It's just what bisexual people don't need - a study claiming they are non-existant. I recently read a few articles about a study conducted that found that 75% of people who self-identified as bisexual were actually gay. My first problem with this is that the sample is 101 men, 33 of which self-identified as bisexual. I'm not a statistician, but 33 doesn't sound like a very broad sample. If the sample were say 101 bisexuals, maybe that would be closer to a sample that would be more appropriate. But when 1.7% of people identify as bi, 33 representatives of a potential how-many-million doesn't quite make sense.
   Bi folks are almost always included in the lgBt when people abbreviate, but the truth is that both the hetero and homo communities treat bisexuals like a part of the fringe - you know, they're not quite part of either. Both communities manage to alienate them at some point, and this study isn't going to make it easier for them. Who knows, the study could be right, but for the 25% of the 1.7% who cares. What would the reaction be from the LGBT community if a study came out that said that 75% of gays and lesbians were really straight? As Harvey Fierstein once said, wouldn't that be a kick in the rubber parts?
   Really, the study is a moot point. The truth of what matters is how a person self-identifies. That's what you have to take at face value. It's not fair to person who identifies as straight for gay people to whisper how that person is really gay, any more than it's fair for people to assume everyone's straight. So what is the point of this study - that if someone says they're bi there's a 75% chance they're actually gay? There's enough to question in life; who needs something else? And who should?
   If someone you know says they're bisexual, take it from them. It's their life, they live in their own shoes, and the important part is that we are all supportive - from any community.
(sources: Study raises questions about bisexual men; Is Bisexuality Self Delusion?)

   Having just watched the movie Testosteroneon Logo tonight, I'm still not quite sure what happened or why. But that could be because I started fast forwarding the slow parts... Really, this guy's lover heads off to another country, so the left behind goes after him to Argentina. There's some crazy plot where I really didn't know who was who and why they did anything they did - well I have an idea but it's so bizarre that I'm not sure I'm correct. It turns out pretty gruesome in the end, and it still doesn't make any sense. Some cute guys, but not worth the hour and a half to watch the movie and still be clueless in the end. Summary: Psychotic people plot to kill or have sex with each other, and no one is who they say. Sorry, I just didn't like it.