contrabland

Software Rant

2005-08-06T00:46:00.000-05:00

When it comes to computers, you have to have the most updated software for anything to work. Of course, having the most updated software means that you'll have more maintenance, and you'll have to use more ram.

AOL is the most basic example of this. When I was a young and naive internet user, I loved AOL, because I didn't know what the hell I was doing, and it simplified things by having everything in one spot. It took me a couple of years to realize that AOL was polluting my computer with unnecessary software.

Now that I'm free of AOL, I'm finding that Windows is the real problem. A lot of companies claim they will provide an earlier version of programs that will work with operating systems like Windows 98, or ME, but when it comes down to it, the earlier versions don't work at all.

I personally think it's a conspiracy. Everyone is supposed to have the most up to date version of Windows, the kind that our humble computer cannot handle. Our lack of income requires us to pay an additional price to enjoy our computer.

We are poor. I am not ashamed of that fact. Our best bet would be getting a new computer that could handle all of the latest programs, or, if anything, to spend $200 on a new motherboard and additional ram, but even this is too much for us, as we live paycheck to paycheck.

Maybe this is just America. You can't enjoy anything that you have unless you have money in excess, but personally, I think it's fucked up and prejudiced.

If people have the systems to support more updated versions of software, by all means, I think they should have it and enjoy it, but why should the previous versions fail to work as a consequence?

I already know why. They want to force us to pay for things that we can't afford.

That's the bottom line.

That's America, land of the free and in debt.

Maybe someday when I have a "real job" I'll be able to use my computer as I please.

I'll be completely successful. I'll have all of the updated versions of everything and my computer will handle them splendidly.

Maybe then I'll truly be an American.

Oh, and maybe then I'll start voting for Republicans.

Elizabeth Wurtzel on 9-11

2005-07-26T22:47:00.000-05:00

"I had not the slightest emotional reaction. I thought, 'This is a really strange art project.' It was the most amazing sight in terms of sheer elegance. It fell like water. It just slid, like a turtleneck going over someone's head."

Elizabeth Wurtzel was quoted as saying this in response to 9-11. I personally think that it's a great quote. I felt like I was floating in water that day, or as if I was underwater, and everyone was talking to me, but the sound was gurgled and unintelligible. I looked at whoever was speaking and blew bubbles like nonsense trying to say "What?". Nothing could really get through. I went to classes as usual, and at my college, there was some kind of welcoming week occurring at the time. Instrumental bands were playing celebratory music all day long as we dragged ourselves around from class to class trying to figure out what the hell was going on. It was completely surreal.

Apparently, Wurtzel's comments lead to Miramax pulling the film and releasing it safely on video four years later. As a fan of both the movie and the book, this angers me. I don't think Wurtzel is necessarily an unfeeling stuck-up American who makes light of the tragedies that exist in this society. On the contrary, she uses tragedy in her writing, and she does it well. Her reaction was just as genuine as any other American reaction, and censoring her movie (a movie that has nothing to do with war or patriotism at all) is simply asinine.

She is an American. I am an American. We're supposed to have free speech. Lucky for me, I'm not famous, and I don't owe any film companies any explanation.

The Onion's review of Prozac Nation

The Double-Edged Sword

2005-07-11T23:25:00.000-05:00

My husband washed a truck tonight with pictures of dead fetuses all over it. He wanted to refuse to wash it. Most of his coworkers wanted to refuse as well, but they all sucked it up and did their jobs. Apparently, the truck belonged to a "pro life" activist from Kansas. The driver thinks if he displays this horrifyingly grotesque truck around the country he will somehow stop abortion. I don't really understand the logic behind his theory. If I was a woman considering an abortion, obviously, I would realize that it would mean killing tissue that is currently forming into a fetus. Do people really see pictures of dead fetus on a truck and say "Oh my God, I had no idea! This changes everything!"

It's so absurd. We all know what abortion means.

Abortion clinics make sure women are well informed. In Wisconsin it's state law that you know all of your options first. The fucked up part is that you can either know your options point blank from a trained professional for $100 fee, or you can go to one of the religious activist groups in town that will take three hours of your life to drill the ideology of fundamentalism and anti-abortionism into your head. They do everything in their power to guilt you out of your abortion. That option is free of charge. I'm not the type of pro-choicer who thinks abortion isn't a difficult decision. The fact that women making this difficult decision have to subject themselves to religious propaganda when they can't afford to pay an extra $100 pisses me off.

On the other hand, in regard to the trucker, I realize that because I expect a fundamentalist pharmacist to fill the morning after pill prescriptions, I must swallow my pride and admit that my husband has a responsibility to wash the fucking anti-abortionist's truck. I don't like it, and he doesn't like it, but it is a double-edged sword. What really pisses me off about these people is that they are trying to change the country I live in. They view religion and politics as the same thing, when in fact they are a dangerous mix. I like living in a country this free, and I can't help feeling stifled by people who want to take that freedom away.

More about PETA

2005-06-16T20:24:00.000-05:00

This article speaks for itself.

Sex Outside of Marriage is Death!

2005-05-22T15:27:00.000-05:00

Wouldn’t you know it? The Christians are once again opposed to a wonderful new advancement in medicine. A vaccine, given to adolescents before they become sexually active, is proving effective in preventing cervical cancer (and genital warts). The religious opposition claims that giving this vaccine would be advocating children to become sexually active. They argue that abstinence should be viewed as the only form of protection against these kinds of health risks. This reasoning is so idiotic I’m not sure what to criticize about it first.

It’s obvious that kids will be having sex regardless of what their parents tell them to do. Depriving them of the vaccine is turning cervical cancer into a punishment for not practicing abstinence (how does one practice abstinence when it consists of inaction?) Of course, these people believe that sexually active people get STD’s because God is inflicting punishment on the sinners of the world. What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to devote their life to a God who tortures people with illness deliberately, and why they would prefer that their children die from a potential illness rather than protecting them against it.

According to Concerned Women for America, the only way to protect against God’s wrath of cervical cancer is to never have sex before or outside of a “mutually monogamous marriage”. Why is marriage is a requirement? The only requirement I can see is that both parties have to be free of infection. HPV could make this possible for everyone, and it is to be given before becoming sexually active, whether your kid has sex for the first time at 15 or 30 is of no consequence.

I think this vaccine should become an acceptable procedure for young adults and treated just like any other vaccine we give to kids. When you give your child a tetanus shot, you aren’t suggesting that he should go outside and step on a nail, you are protecting against the possibility. It could happen, and if it doesn’t, so much the better. If you’re a staunch Christian and you’ve raised your kids to believe that sex before marriage is out of the question, I really doubt a vaccine will influence your kids into sudden sexual rebellion. If Christians think recieving an injection will change their entire belief system, Christianity must be shakier than I thought.

A Bluegrass Blog
Body and Soul
cnsnews.com

Help Fight Draconian Anti-Drug Measures

2005-05-19T10:48:00.000-05:00

Congressman Sensenbrenner has introduced a mandatory minimum sentencing bill, which would hold accountable those who simply witness a drug transaction take place.

From the Drug Policy Alliance site:

If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.
Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:

You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.

Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.

You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.

Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.

This is ridiculous, and simply must not be allowed to pass. Take action immediately!
via Drug Policy Alliance
Read Bill H.R.1528

Humiliation Doesn't Help

2005-05-13T19:51:00.000-05:00

NBC recently did an undercover investigation to catch online predators "in the act". I first saw this story on Tuesday, but they've been milking it ever since. In this investigation, people posed as young girls and lured unsuspecting guys into coming over. The guys seek to take advantage of young girls home alone, but when they get there all they find are video cameras and accusing reporters.

When first watching this story, something didn't sit right with me. I'm certainly not in favor of grown men taking sexual advantage of underage girls, but I highly doubt that this story was done purely for the good of protecting children.

The guise of this story was that it was intended to bring awareness to parents about how dangerous the internet is for kids, and how online predators are everywhere. (Something that has been known by parents and most everyone with a brain for quite some time) I believe that if that were truly the objective, the faces and names of these men would have been protected, but they were not. The true purpose of this story was to publicly crucify potential sex offenders and to humiliate these men and destroy their lives, purely for the entertainment value of viewers at home who are full of distain for pedophiles and sex offenders. The result is that these men will forever be shunned by society for something they may or may not have been about to do. It’s like Minority Report. We are convicting them for a crime they haven’t even committed yet. It also shouldn't come as a shock that in a society where youthfulness is equated with beauty, situations like this will occur. (Women in magazines are often so thin that they look like 12-year-olds, but I plan to rant about that on another occassion)

It is my belief that pedophilia is a disorder. Many suffering from this disorder seek treatment because they know that what they are doing or what they desire to do is wrong. They would give anything to have the sickness removed from them. Likewise, I believe that some of the men duped in this investigative study are not necessarily horrible people who deserve to be publicly humiliated. These are human beings. They make mistakes. They have sick desires. They are lonely, and in their desperateness, they made a very poor decision. Because of this, they are treated with disgust by society. Many of these men lost their jobs after their employers saw them on the news.

Shame is powerful thing. If someone is suffering from some sort of sexual depravity it's no wonder that they keep it to themselves in a world where people are treated like this. If we really believe that everyone deserves equal treatment in our society, then we should be helping these people, not humiliating them.

protecting your kids online

I need Ambien. The TV told me so.

2005-05-08T08:48:00.000-05:00

With the exception of women seeking birth control from psuedo-moralist pharmacists, I think it's safe to say that our country's use of prescription drugs is excessive. According to the annual report in 1994, almost half of Americans are taking at least one prescription. Many of these drugs have helped people with serious ailments live fuller lives, while some prescriptions are completely unnecessary. For instance, one in ten women in our country take some form of antidepressant. Are that many women actually clinically depressed? It doesn't seem likely. Depression is tricky because it is a very gray area. We all (or most of us) have periods in our life during which we feel dissatisfied, empty and hopeless. For some people, these symptoms are a signal of a chemical imbalance in the brain. For others, the symptoms indicate a survivable period of sadness in their lives that will pass with or without the use of antidepressants. Psychotherapy, counseling or lifestyle changes may be all that is needed in such cases, but all too often people think that they can solve their problems by taking a pill. The risks of these drugs is frequently minimized and glossed over. In some cases, antidepressants may even make depression worse and lead to suicide.

I believe the source of our overuse of prescription drugs lies in the fact that we are a nation full of consumers. Prescription drugs are being marketed to us just like cars and tennis shoes. We see it. We want it. We get it. We are, after all, Americans.

It used to be illegal for prescription drugs to be advertised on television, but now television is an active marketing forum for prescription drug ads and a virtual playground for greedy drug companies. The FDA requires that drug ads give out accurate information, and promises to give more scrutiny to drug advertising in the future. Great. I'm all for stricter enforcement towards drug advertising, but wouldn't it have been better to scrutinize these ads before they gave false information to the public instead of pulling them afterwards? Television advertising of prescription drugs is leading people to believe they can diagnose themselves. We have licensed physicians for that. They spend years studying to know what is best for us and our bodies, while we see a 30 second ad on TV and think we have all of the answers.

We have a drug for everything now. If we can't sleep, we can take Ambien. If we are depressed, we can take an SSRI. If we have anxiety, we can take a benzo like Valium. The options are endless and continue beyond the realm of prescription drugs. If we want an herbal remedy for depression we can use Saint John's Wort (which may make birth control pills ineffective) or if we have trouble concentrating we can take Ginko biloba (which should not be taken with aspirin or other anticoagulants). We have a world of drug possibilities at our fingertips, and as many as 106,000 people in the US die each year because of adverse reactions to medications. Drug advertising is not only unethical, it is downright dangerous.

Right of Refusal

2005-05-02T10:05:00.000-05:00

There have been several recent cases of pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill because of "moral" beliefs. Two headline cases occurred in Texas, and others have popped up elsewhere in the country, including right here in Wisconsin.

It is my belief that if your religious beliefs interfere with the duties of your job, you are in the wrong line of work. Most of the pharmacists that have been in the news lately have been fired. I'm not saying that people can't have their own beliefs, but if you think those beliefs should trump company policy, you should be fired.

If I worked in a deli and refused to serve ham sandwiches because of my belief that eating pork is wrong, I would be a bad deli employee, and justifiably, I would probably lose my job. Likewise, pharmacists are employed to fill prescriptions, not to impose judgment on others, and if they refuse to fill prescriptions based on personal beliefs, they are bad employees.

I realize, of course, that pharmacists are required to use their conscience when filling prescriptions. The world is full of drug addicts. People will always try to forge prescriptions or increase the amounts of their favorite drugs, and in such cases, I think it's within the job description for a pharmacist to refuse. The problem is, these pharmacists are not drawing the line between their own personal beliefs and their professional ethics. Most company policies already allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription based on religious beliefs provided they allow another pharmacist to fill it, or transfer it to another pharmacy. For me, this policy is too lenient, but for some Christian pharmacists, this does not allow them enough freedom. More legislation to protect their right to refuse is being considered, and unfortunately, the pharmacists are not refusing ham sandwiches, they are refusing the right for women to choose how they live their lives.

It's a good thing condoms are sold over the counter.

Ryan's Lair
Drug Topics

I'm bored. Let's have a baby.

2005-04-24T20:28:00.000-05:00

A recent confrontation with the ass-talker has left me raging about people who seem to want to have kids just because it's the thing to do. They have kids because they believe that doing so will bring them a sense of fulfillment in their lives, and maybe, for some people, it really does, but I still think it's a terrible reason to breed.

Recently, generalizations about gender have really been irritating me. According to some of these generalizations, all women are dying to become mothers and all men are reluctant to become fathers. I am a woman, I am 26 years old, and I do not feel that my purpose here is to bring another human being into existence. If I did feel that way, I would simply reproduce, and then my offspring would reproduce, and their offspring would reproduce, and so on. What exactly would be the point of all of this reproduction? Is our society underpopulated? Certainly not. Some call it an evolutionary leftover, like craving sugar and fat. Others believe there is something sacred about carrying on the family name.

Maybe I just don't want kids because I'm selfish. I want to live my life for myself, but at least I can admit it. I think it's more selfish to bring a whole new person into the world because you think it will complete you. I'm not saying nobody should have kids, but there are a lot of people that probably shouldn't. If your goal is to nurture and protect your child and help them develop into a well-adjusted human being, then be my guest, go to it, but if you think having kids will satisfy the emptiness in your life, then no child deserves you as a parent.

Jacko Trial Goes Wacko

2005-04-24T00:21:00.000-05:00

If it wasn't enough that the prosecution in the Michael Jackson case has spent weeks putting on over 50 witnesses, the week-long examination of the alleged victim's mother takes the cake. Aside from all the other scams she has tried to perpetrate, most of her testimony was unbelievable, to say the least.
Now, two of Jacko's own security guards lend credence to the claim that the young man was confined to Neverland, via a huge posted notice not to let him leave the grounds. These were off duty police officers whose credibility was good.
Every week this trial looks different, depending on who has testified last. I guess the trick will be for the prosecutors to find some believable witnesses to put on last...more will be revealed, as McCauly Culkin is expected to testify soon for the defense.

Anything but Ethical

2005-04-13T10:11:00.000-05:00

It was over a year ago that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) handed out these flyers to children attending a performance of the Nutcracker. How can a group known for believing that the ends justify the means have the word “ethical” in their name? They are anything but, unless your concept of ethics includes practices such as terrorizing children with graphic images, taking the law into your own hands, disregarding the importance of human life and funding arsonists and terrorists.

Since handing out these flyers, PETA activists have also visited several Middle Schools dressed as a chicken or a fish, claiming that neither should be eaten because “fish are intelligent” and “eating chicken is unhealthy”. Who supports the medical claims made by PETA that meat and cheese are unhealthy? The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an organization with less than 5% of its members consisting of actual physicians. PETA, of course, funds PCRM, in fact, they are so connected that they are practically one in the same. How ethical is that?

I’m not saying that eating animal products is healthy or unhealthy (like 95% of PCRM, I am not a doctor), but I do think it’s wrong to say that eating meat is unhealthy just because the idea supports your cause. Recently, an article written by PCRM activists argued that giving milk to your kids as a source of calcium is unnecessary and urged other options, such as spinach. How many children do you know who are willing to eat eight cups of cooked spinach? One glass of milk contains the same amount of calcium. The article even alludes to the idea that milk is unhealthy, and PCRM’s website says it outright.

What bothers me most about PETA is that on the surface, they seem like a perfectly legitimate organization. If you visit their website, you will not see any evidence of their unethical practices or over the top justifications for criminal behavior. You will simply see an organization that cares deeply about animals, and even compromises with companies such as Petco and Burger King. It scares me to think about the amount of people who donate money to PETA without digging below the surface, simply because they want to help animals. Making donations to support a cause is a great way to get involved. However, as John will often remind us, people are stupid. They usually have no idea what kind of group they are funding, or what their money is going to be used for.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak, PCRM’s spokesperson, is known to have openly endorsed the murder of doctors who rely on animal research. How are animal rights activists supposed to convince us of the importance of the lives of animals when they don’t even have respect for human life? It’s so hypocritical. If you are against the cruelty and suffering of animals, your scope should include human beings. We are, after all, living creatures too.

petakillsanimals.com
activistcash.com
consumerfreedom.com

Planned Parenthood Protestors

2005-04-09T10:49:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, I saw protestors in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic in West Allis. It has always dumbfounded me to see anti-abortion lunatics in front of a building that doesn’t even perform abortions. In fact, out of the 31 Planned Parent facilities in Wisconsin, only two offer abortion services, and neither one of them is in West Allis. What are these people thinking? Most anti-abortion nuts think that the other services provided by Planned Parenthood are also immoral, such as birth control.

We have about 460,000 people in Wisconsin living in poverty. It seems perfectly logical to me that if people can barely afford to feed themselves, they should not have children, and options such as birth control help make that decision a possibility. Even if the fundamentalist anti-abortion wackos are right in their thinking, and I’m going to hell for my use of birth control, I really wouldn’t mind. If I had a baby every time I had sex and ended up with a houseful of kids that I couldn’t possibly handle, that would be worse than any hell I can imagine.

Our society is already full of parents who don't know what the hell to do with their kids. A lot of people don’t realize that being able to reproduce physically does not mean that they are capable of raising children, and if people who aren’t ready to have children get pregnant by mistake, I’d much rather see them have the freedom to choose abortion then to join the ever-growing society of apathetic parents, or worse yet, abusive parents.

One of the protestors in front of Planned Parenthood was holding a sign that said, “I regret my abortion”. I found this detail particularly interesting. Would it help preserve our right to choose if others who have had an abortion could stand outside with a sign reading “I don’t regret my abortion”, or if everyone who has had a child that they aren’t capable of raising held a sign reading “I wish I’d had an abortion”? Probably not. Mostly, it would just be in bad taste. Personally, I am glad to live in a country that allows me the possibility of regretting my decisions, because it means that I am a free person. The decisions I will regret are mine to make, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

As you may have guessed, I have chosen social movements/societal issues as the area that I would like to criticize. I plan to return to the topic of abortion regularly.

"Reverse-discrimination"

2005-04-06T09:16:00.000-05:00

I was watching the news last night and one of the anchors referred to the Arthur Jones lawsuit as a case of "reverse-discrimination". It really bothers me that the media uses this term. There is no such thing as "reverse-discrimination". To discriminate is to discriminate, no matter how it is done or who is involved. The term itself is discriminatory because it suggests that the normal, forward way to discriminate is for whites to discriminate against blacks. I hereby banish the term.

Welcome to contrabland

2005-04-04T23:33:00.000-05:00

Very shortly, ~~three~~ four people will take the world by storm, astounding and confounding everyone with our brilliance. That is how awesome we are. Kneel before your rulers, oh flock of human sheep!