2.19.2012

the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

January 19: Wellerism
[This one was completely new to me.]
A Wellerism is close to a pun on my internal hierarchy of verbal irritations.
February 19: stentorian
One of my family members is on the stentorian side, drawing far more attention in public places than the remainder of us put together.

    Postsecret blew my mind today.
     Since the site has gained (by leaps and bounds) in popularity, the "secrets" have seemed, more and more, to be mere showing off/attention seeking/artwork rather than what the whole project seemed to be trying to be, from the beginning. Lately, I've felt like it's less and less relevant to me - which is not such a bad thing, really, given the content of the average revelation. Today, however, it went a little wonky. Two of the "secrets" really, really pissed me off.
"I go out of my way to park annoyingly close to people who park poorly in hopes that they will have a hard time getting out... Oops! My bad for parking in the lines. :-/"
In other words:
an anonymous other person's presumed poor behavior/action/choice is TOTAL justification for my intentionally poor choice to behave poorly.
The person who parked badly, near whom you are "justified" in parking more badly. Is it at all possible that that person:
  • parked as best they could, compensating for others who were also parked poorly?
  • was in a legitimate hurry, perhaps because of illness/injury/work requirements?
  • was simply having a bad day?
Either of the vehicles in the above photo are worth $25,000+. "in hopes that they will have a hard time getting out." Does that mean, in hopes that they will scratch, scrape, and possibly rip the fuck out of your relatively expensive car, while trying to do no more than back out of a parking space? If so, congratulations, ignorant child. You deserve it.
"I keep a list of people I'd mace, given the opportunity."
     Those photographed are, clockwise from top, Ben Roethlisberger, George Huguely, and Chris Brown. What do these three men have in common?
  • Chris Brown: "In 2009, he pleaded guilty to felony assault of singer and then-girlfriend Rihanna. He was sentenced to five years probation and six months of community service." (See his Wikipedia page for more.)
  • George Huguely: A University of Virginia Lacrosse player charged with murdering his former girlfriend, after having abused her while they were in a relationship. (See the Wikipedia page about her murder and The Huffington Post article about the ongoing trial for more.)
  • Ben Roethlisberger: Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback. From the Wikipedia page about him-- "Off the field, Roethlisberger has been involved in high-profile incidents, including a nearly fatal motorcycle accident in 2006 and sexual assault allegations in Lake Tahoe in 2008 and in Milledgeville, Georgia, in 2010. Neither allegation resulted in charges being filed; however, the latter act resulted in Roethlisberger being suspended for six games (reduced to four) under the NFL's personal conduct policy for the start of the 2010 season."
  1. Pleaded guilty, was sentenced, and is serving sentence.
  2. Was formally charged and is at trial right now.
  3. Accused.
    You would MACE someone who was ACCUSED of a crime?
     Does anyone still understand this? I-N-N-O-C-E-N-T until proven guilty.
     Stupid bitch. May you and the charmer in postcard #1 be locked in an endless cycle of Macing and car-scratching throughout eternity. Y'all deserve each other.

[the title quotation is by Bertrand Russell]

3 comments:

  1. Rough day. I had a similar thought about the parking dude (guess it could be a woman, but I would bet on it being a man): hope you don't mind getting your car trashed. I always try to part far away from people like that BECAUSE they don't seem to be doing real well that day...at least.

    RE the guys being maced: I thought of you as soon as I saw Ben's pic. While I wouldn't actually mace any of them on sight, I wouldn't want anyone I loved having anything to do with any of them. Ever. Especially the women. Then again, I think most of those women would also GTFO of any contact (aside from legal contact if it was worth pursuing) with guys who did what any/all of these men are accused of doing.

    Let's put it this way: Brett, whether he took that picture and sent it to anyone or not, is no longer on my 'adorable' list, just because enough people who know him better than I think that it's possible he MIGHT have done it. That speaks volumes about his character, though those volumes are not necessarily legal tomes. I wouldn't mace him. But I'm glad my kid no longer idolizes him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, I never knew that Wellerisms had a name. We said "'I see,' said the blind man (as he walked into a tree)" all the time when I was a kid. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I presumed the first was a woman because of the "oops" and the smiley. Assumptions, right?

    About Ben, I know that I'll never convince anyone of this, but I hope that someone will at least consider the possibility: what if he is guilty of only one thing--being a big dumb guy. What if the worst thing he's ever done is proposition (saying words to, even vile words to) a woman while under the influence? What if, because he's famous and his salary is news, there's nothing that he can say to make himself appear any less guilty, so he doesn't say anything at all? What if that's the absolute truth?

    I'm a cynic. I think the worst of people all day long. But just because a person's done something that makes him human (a sin, but not a crime), I don't automatically hate him. And I think it's inordinately unfair and shitty to think that others will.

    ReplyDelete