On My Home Planet

I have an opinion about everything, and here it is for the world to see.

Hating on: morons, self-righteous political extremists, the man-and-baby-hating strain of feminism, CraigsList, yuppies, careerists, white liberal guilt, people devoid of any sense of morals or personal responsbility, and other generally clueless and misguided types who continually piss me off.

Friday, September 29, 2006

The Popular... Cancer?!

I'll be the first to admit, I'm registered for some of the Cook for the Cure items at Bed Bath and Beyond. Why not, they're really cute and I like the fact that some of the profits from that overpriced stuff are being donated to cancer research.

What I'm wondering though is why is it only offered in pink? Other gynecological cancers are just as deadly to women and just as underfunded as breast cancer. And there's just as much misinformation and lack of information out there. In fact, thanks to Managed Health Care, your gynecologist isn't necessarily required to *tell* you if you are at a high risk for cervical cancer (AKA abnormal pap smear), the onus is on you to hunt him or her down and ask. Why is there no hip, trendy cause to raise awareness of and find a cure for these cancers? Or any of the myriad other cancers that there are that affect both women and men?

Cancer totally sucks and I'm all for finding a cure. My heart goes out to everyone else who's lost someone they loved, watched a friend suffer through chemo, or gotten that lifealtering diagnosis themselves. There are just far too many of us affected out there. But that said, why the emphasis on just one specific kind? Where and how are the survivors of the other types of cancers and the loved ones of those who lost the battle supposed to rally and find solace? Bravo to the Susan G. Komen crowd for raising the money and awareness that they have - more power to you all! But is contemporary American society really so shallow that we need a cute little gimmick before we're able to take notice of and care about a very dire issue, before we have to deal with it on a personal level?

A great idea would be to design a line of coffeemakers to support some other kind of cancer. My buddy DonTrump at home tells me that coffee is America's biggest source of antioxidants. Sad but beleiveable if it's true. Make them as cute as this Kitchenaid stuff and they would sell like crazy.

I challenge any of you internets to come up with ONE product whose sale benefits any other type of cancer, much less a line of said products, and I will make sure to register for it.

PS - How said is it we have to sell pink blenders and such to take care of our own - none of whom have done a damn thing to deserve their awful fate - while we blow trillions of dollars on a useless, fruitless war?

Thursday, September 28, 2006

I wanna play!

I want to add to the Banned Books List.

Why or how the freak my childhood favorites James and the Giant Peach (adventures of a little boy and his insect friends), How to Eat Fried Worms (boy stands up to bully), A Wrinkle in Time (this Lutheran minister I know sees Christian themes woven throughout, but a cool intergalactic adventure nonetheless), and The Pigman (I could understand My Darling, My Hamburger being on that list, but seriously, you canNOT hate Paul Zindel!) got on the list is beyond me. Many of them won Newberry and Caldecott medals too, so my literary taste can't be that bad. I'm sure The Cat in The Hat, Chronicles of Narnia, Superfudge, the Ramona books, and Pat the Bunny will follow though.

But anyway, my additions are:

Bartleby the Scrivener
Les Miserables
Everything by Shakespeare and Herman Melville
Oedipus Rex
The Old Man and The Sea
Killer Angels
Canterbury Tales and everything else that was left in "Olde English"

See, I found them so boring that they offended me. When I was in high school, I'd rather have gouged my eyes out than read them. I never understood the value of universally-acknowledged shitty books in the classroom.

And even though I'm not even pregnant, I'm afraid that when I do have children, they'll get their hands on one of these books and never want to read or go to school again, thus becoming vidiots who live in my basement masturbating to anime porn and smoking weed till they're 60. Therefore, there is a clear link between Shakespeare, sexual deviancy, and recreational drug use.


Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Nice going, assholes...

This is what happens when you attempt to fight a war on terror directed against your country, somewhere besides your country's soil. Um, I got B's and C's during my brief disaster - I mean, stint - as a Polysci major and I could tell you that.

Lissen up, Tex: Instead of continuing this ridiculous "Hafields and McCoys Face off" on the global arena, why don't you close the damn border (no, not the one with Canada!) that terrorists from around the world leak through, crack down on expired Visas and such, break down the light-years of red tape that keep the government moving like molasses, and actually do your freaking job and take care of your country?

If you've ever spoken to me or read my blog for 30 seconds... you know I am not some hippie peacenik by a long shot. I am all for war if it's going to actually accomplish protecting our country. Well... you all have spent the better past of the past decade making this country less safe through your freaking stupidity.

We could have had John Kerry just hand the country on a platter to Al-Quaeda for a lot cheaper.

Open Letter to Liberals Who Lurk Here

Thanks for stopping by my blog, I always love to "meet" new internets.

Although I'm not really a "political" person, my values/viewpoints/etc tend to be more of the right wing variety. I have certain frequent visitors who have different worldviews from me, but in general are able to be respectful and contribute positively to my posts, even if they think I'm on glue.

However, I am aware that the word "Liberal" denotes "intolerance for anyone who thinks differently from I", so if you are a Liberal, much of what I have to say will probably really piss you off.

But as you have noticed, I have the comments moderation button turned on. That means if you post here trying to attack me personally, ie, suggest I join a certain hate group (hello! Even if I didn't find that shit completely repugnant, the fact remains I'm not a WASP) just because I choose not to live downtown, cuss me out because I think some public figure you adore is a douchebag, or tell me the world would be a better place if I shot myself because I don't like terrorists, or call me a word that even I wouldn't say because I like Israel, etc, etc, I'll be disapproving your comments.

Am I suppressing your freedom of speech? To a degree, but tough shit. Last I checked, the Internet was a lawless and nebulous body that isn't governed by a Constitution. This is MY webpage and I am the master of all I survey here. Love it or leave it.

And if you don't like my color scheme, such that it bothers you enough to mention it on your website - bite me. That or help me design a new template.



Need *YOUR* Book Reviews

Proof I am not ill-read, uneducated, or a dumb blonde perhaps?

I am receiveing feedback from friends and family (loyal On My Home Planet readers) that I would be less po'd and wound tight if I stopped reading so many nonfiction books about how evil this world is for awhile, and subsitituted them with fluffy Chick Lit "crap".*

So I need reccommendations. I usually wait till it's available not only in paperback, but also on half.com and its peers. I am more Red Dress Ink than Harlequin (although in the 90's, they served their purpose, namely, irritating my mom. But back then, a perm served me well too...) I like Valerie Frankel, VC Andrews (the real one, not her ghostwriter), Sarah Mlynowski, Rebecca Agiewich, Claire Zulkey type stuff.

*Except for Dr. Brainiac, who has made me promise to give Slander a chance. It's a pity Ann Coulter offended me so much with her cruel comments about 9/11 widows (my first time reading her stuff); and noticeably absent from her list of "liberal rag" papers is The Boston Globe; otherwise, I might have grown to be a fan otherwise.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Size 0 Isn't Always too Skinny!

Those of you who know me in real life (esp those who have been clothes shopping or to the beach with me) can tell you that I'm rocking a tiny potbelly and a dash of cellulite on my thighs. It sucks when a back injury makes your beloved daily run not so much an option anymore at the ripe old age of not-even-old-enough-to-rent-a-car-yet, leaving lameassed powerwalking suggested by your chiropractor as a viable alternative. Consequently, I no longer hit the pavement and/or make it to the gym as much as I should. I was actually considering working out more until the European fashion industry told me that - by virtue of my clothing size - not only am I unquestionably borderline anorexic, but that the mere sight of me could potentially push some adolescent girl over the edge towards developing an eating disorder.

How am I sooo skinny if I have noticeable flab? By the dictates of London and their blanket rules for all of womenkind, of course. Here's how it works: rocking the potbelly, generally eating cholesterol/sugar/bleachedflour-laden foods, exercising maybe once a week and eating veggies about twice a week, I naturally stay at a size 2 (I can wear 14/16 kids in a pinch). What can I say? Genetics have given me a small skeleton, such that no matter how fat or thin I am, I always look "small". And I have met quite a few healthy grown women next to whom I look Amazonian. My dad and almost everybody in his family regularly shovels in enough food to feed a small country in one sitting and still looks like a bunch of pipecleaners knotted together. My metabolism isn't quite that insane, but eff it, I am beautiful and I like me.

From a medical perspective though, I should be eating better and exercising more. My cholesterol number is nearly double that of my body weight in pounds. Genetics probably also gave me a proclivity towards heart disease and osteoporosis. Etc. But if I were to clean up my diet and tone up like logically it sounds like I should do in the better interests of my health, I'd very likely drop a clothing size, which according to these ignoramouses, would plant me firmly in the "anorexic" category. Nevermind that I am nowhere near as skinny as the size-0 Lilly Cole. If I were that bony, I'd probably wear like a size 8 kids'. Amazingly enough, everyone is built differently, thus it's asinine to make blanket rules that a certain clothing size is just across-the-board dangerously thin. Should women who subsist on iceberg lettuce, evian, and nose candy be portrayed as "how all 3 Billion of you ladies are supposed to look"? Absolutely not, and the misogynistic assholes who run the fashion industry need their asses kicked for promoting that. But the EU needs to recognize that not every size 0 got that way via some unnatural and unhealthy means.

Here's the irony in all this though: Bravo to London and Madrid for not wanting young women to see only one narrow (pun intended) standard of beauty. But if you're going to push the fact that everyone's built differently, be enlightened enough to recognize that there are plenty of healthy, well-fed size 0s out there. Emphasize more BMI, a far more objective way to measure fat, rather than just a clothing size. Journalists reporting on this, that goes for you too. Excessively thin models are the problem, not size 0 models. You can be one without being the other. Get it right, and stop using "size 0" and "anorexic" interchangeably, it makes you sound ignorant.

Furthermore, the ugly truth is that it's a deeper seeded issue than fashion models that causes people to have eating disorders. If modern human society for two seconds stopped sending people, especially women, the message that our intrinsic moral value as a person is determined solely how physically pretty others perceive us to be, then maybe young women wouldn't be pushed to go to such extremes to meet these beauty standards. If European legislators are that concerned about eating disorders, they need to treat the actual problem rather than its symptoms. Problem is it takes far more guts and far more work to fix the real problem.

kudos to France for being above this jackassery. The scrawny little genes of one of your native daughters are in part to blame for my tininess anyway.


Welcome to "The Club"

The "Ring on My Finger" club that is. In the eyes of much of society, engagement isn't about "getting ready to get married." Engagement is about "OK, I definitely have to treat this person like a legitimate human being, if I haven't been already."

And no, I can't make a happy "I'm engaged!" post. Sure, I'm happy, but this is my blog and I like to bitch! None of you are here for my positive sunshininess anyway. So bitch I shall...

When I turned 26 a year ago and was -gasp!- unmarried and childless, it gave people cause to be judgemental and act superior. A few people who I had thought I would be tight with till the day I died decided I was a moral failure as a woman, completely toxic, and in one case, too dangerous an influence to be around their child. I stopped getting invited to hang out with certain people, socializing was for "married couples only." What I did and did not choose to do in my spare time was up for public criticism as though it were a moral issue. I was bombarded with the messages that I was still single because I wasn't smart enough, interesting enough, spiritual enough, slutty enough, educated enough, a good enough person, fit enough, pretty enough, on and on ad nauseum. Heard some stupid bullshit preaching about how I'd better not want a family, and why the hell haven't I gotten that graduate degree I know I never want, but society seemed to demand of me as a historically overacheiving, 26-and-unmarried woman? (Holy hell, can we please let that stupid 1500 on the 1995 SATs go already?! I mean, that was so long ago that I hadn't even heard of the Internet! Not to mention, my being intelligent doesn't negate my right to decide what's going to make me happy and pursue those goals!) I was a weak and needy person for wanting to get married, a bad modern-woman for wanting children, etc. My marital status or lack thereof, was far more a product of "lack of options" than an actual conscious choice on my part, and those close to me were aware that I was unhappy about my situation. Beautiful and glamourous though she was, I just never wanted to be the Wilona in the Good Times of my life.

Now I am legitimized. A carat and a half on my left hand is the key for me to be "worthy", who knew? I'd have bought one for myself years ago if I'd known how much nicer it was going to make everybody act towards me. Now that I'm part of the "Ring on My Finger Club", people who turned on me before are slowly crawling back to me wanting to make nice. But what does it say about your character that someone has to be married for you to want to treat them like ahuman being? (Sidenote... I am also encountering those who apparently have been feeling all along, "Well Toomuchcoffeelady has XYZ and I don't, but I'm married and she's not so I'm going to throw my happy personal life in her face!" and are now at a loss for grounds for feeling superior.) People now accept me and my choices for what they are, without trying to tie some negative moral significance to it to cut me down. It's all of a sudden OK for me to have the personal goals that I do - strong marriage, having children and being a damn good mom to them - it's OK for me to define and go after what makes me happy now, I'm getting married! Although I am still the same mortal with the same shortcomingas as before, nobody has criticized me nor suggested that I do something to better myself (which I heard basically daily as one of the Not-engaged-not-married). I am slowly noticing adults (the kind who remember the 70's) seem to be taking things that I have to say more seriously, like having a ring has made me smarter and more perceptive than ever before.

The funny thing is, as much as people would bash the institutions of marriage and motherhood in front of me when I was single, or pitched them to me as something I somehow wasn't good enough to be able to handle had the option been available, they've completely stopped that now. Um, if you have been blissfully happy all along with your (married with children) life, why did you make it sound to me like you were miserable? If you agreed with me that my old "all I have going for me is a resume, fat paycheck, etc" existence was a shallow and piss-poor substitute for what really matters in life, why didn't you tell me so or even try to help me figure a way out of it? Better you had been honest with me and tell me what I have been missing - even if the truth hurts. And it's not like I hadn't already figured that out. That is what you're supposed to do if you care about someone - be honest with them, even if it's just unconstructive criticism, know that calling out the elephant in the room alone sometimes can be enough to help them. When you're not, it makes me wonder what else you see in my life that I don't that you could help me by briging to my attention. Last I checked, we were here to help each other.

I don't know why, but as a society, we seem quite hung up on other people's choices, especially those that have no effect on us and are really none of our business. For whatever reason, the "marrieds vs singles" seems to be such a hot button.

It's not that I'm complaining about the attention and special treatment, but the fact is that the support should have been there for me all along. My moral value as a human being and who I am on the inside have not changed just because I'm engaged; I am no more or less deserving of being treated well than I was pre-engagement. Those in my life should have been accepting me for who I am, what I want out of life no matter how close or far I was from attaining those goals, and where I am in life all along, not just suddenly granting acceptance to me because a man gave me a diamond.

Labels: ,