Ladies and Gentlemen - SCOTUS

Howdy, kiddos! So, while I was down, I missed a fair chunk of stuff. Also, I'm working from my broken laptop today, so y'all on your own for research. Let's talk SCOTUS, shall we?

Recently, SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of The United States, for those playing the home game) ruled not to hear the Prop 8 case on lack of standing grounds, and to over turn a lower court ruling on the same ground. They also struck down DOMA. These two rulings make me happy, naturally enough. I mean, I am gay. But I'm not entirely happy with SCOTUS.

And I'll tell you why. 

First off, Prop 8. Those suing were citizens, because the government of California had basically said, "well, fuck this" when the Northern California District Court struck it down on the grounds that majorities cannot vote to vacate minority rights. These concerned citizens took it up the line, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the same thing. When it came before SCOTUS, they took a sidestep.

First off, two lower courts had already used a clear legal precedent to prevent the removal of minority rights by a majority. A similar ruling on the part of SCOTUS would have been a massive step forward. It wasn't even a hard ruling. Legally speaking, it was absolutely firm. Prop 8 was created to perform an end run on the legally established right of homosexuals to marry in California. It was a clear attempt to vacate a minority right that had been legally established. Instead, they went for a "lack of standing" argument.

Now, while those who were trying to get Prop 8 upheld did not have standing, it was a weasel move. The "lack of standing" argument has been used to make a number of things go away. In one case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. FISA allowed the NSA to perform surveillance without notice, warrant, or reasonable suspicion. Actually, they didn't even have to suspect their target. All those things Snowden leaked? That would be FISA at work.

And who were these plaintiffs? Lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists who communicated with individuals overseas and who would, under FISA, be viable targets for surveillance. After all, they're talking to people overseas. What if they're secretly terrorists!?

FISA placed an undue burden on these people to take extreme precautions ot protect the privacy of their clients and sources. SCOTUS reason for throwing them out of court? Since they couldn't show that they'd been targets of covert surveillance, they had no proof of clear harm. Yes, you read that right. To point out the obvious, the most recent person who demonstrated the ability to prove harm in these circumstances is Edward Snowden, and he's being charged with treason.

And the others who would be able to make a clear argument for direct harm are the actual terrorists the NSA steps up to provide evidence against. And last I checked, we tend to toss such people in deep holes and deprive them of as many rights as we can lay our hands on. Because hey, terrorists.

So yeah. If you can't obtain secure documentation outside legal channels, you can't sue to protect your right to privacy.

Next up: SCOTUS basis for the DOMA ruling, while exciting and long overdue, was made on moral grounds. Legally speaking, there unfortunately aren't grounds establishing homosexuality as a federally protected class. And regardless of how it benefits me, the ruling was still made using weasel language. The closest thing to a clear reason SCOTUS was able to give for their decision was to declare a malicious intent on Congress part. Which, as it can't be proved, means that SCOTUS disagreed with Congress, and made a law go away.

Despite the unjust law, despite the need for federal minority classification of homosexuals to prevent discrimination, I can't get too excited when a branch of the government writes a pseudo-legalistic argument to justify undermining another part of the government on the basis of opinion.

So, on that front, woooo! DOMA's gone! But also, a little unsettling that it's gone because five people decided it should be.

Now, I can almost hear people quoting Dr. King Jr. on the justness of laws, and the ethical call to civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws. And I'm right there, I'm down. Problem is, SCOTUS has been doing some kinda sketchy things here lately.

For instance, they've struck down portions of the Voting Rights Act that protect minorities from specific forms of governmental discrimination. What parts? The parts that require traditionally discriminatory states to get Federal approval before they made changes to the way they run elections. The essential claim is that the data is outmoded, and the protections are no longer necessary.

Problem is, there's a rush to get voter ID laws passed, there's been all kinds of fun little tricks with gerrymandering, there's been multiple attempts to create laws that will not only attack illegal immigrants, but allow for discrimination against legal Hispanic and Latino populations — discrimination is alive and well. I mean, can you imagine people like Sally Kern, Paul Ryan, or Todd Akin having direct access to vote for changes to the election process without anyone checking their work?

Racism is alive and well in government. And the even scarier thing here is that after the Court struck down those portions of the act, Scalia went on the record as saying that the reason SCOTUS needed to strike it down was because Congress kept passing it. So, just to be clear: Congress passed a law to safeguard minorities. Congress, for once in their miserable existence, maintained a law that actually had purpose and a valid reason for existing. And SCOTUS struck it down because Congress wouldn't.

That should freaking scare you.

Next up: a rather nasty ruling against Miranda rights. No, you read that correctly. Against Miranda rights.

Genevevo Salinas, in a 1992 case, was taken in for questioning. He answered some questions that were pertinent to the investigation,  but elected not to answer a specific question relating to whether his shotgun would match the murder weapon. To clarify, this was investigative questioning, and he had not been Mirandized.

In court, the prosecution used his refusal to answer that question as a sign of guilt. Salinas appealed on the grounds that he has the right not to answer questions, and that refusal to answer a question before Miranda had been delivered could not be used against him in court.

SCOTUS disagrees. They ruled, 5-4, that silence before being read your Miranda rights is not protected by Miranda rights. So yeah. If the police come talk to you, and you don't want to talk to them, if they can get you into court they can use that against you.

Now, our legal system is not so corrupt that we have to fear the police. But mistakes happen. At the end of the day, the system is made of people and people are generally horrible beings when they act in large groups. So if there's circumstantial evidence, and you can't get clear of it, the prosecution can now tip the jury in their favor if you don't talk to the cops.

Oh, but no-one innocent would refuse to talk to the cops. Right?

Cops come in, start talking at you. You know you're innocent, they think you're not. And they start pushing buttons. Going over and over the same material, working to trip you up, taking up your time. Eventually, you get sick of it and walk out. The next time they want to talk to you, you tell 'em to go for a walk.

Bam. You have just refused to talk to the police in an investigation in which you are a suspect. Presented without context, you now look guilty as hell.

So, while I'm happy that my rights as a gay man are now on a more level playing field going forward, I have to say that SCOTUS is starting to concern me. Admittedly, they are the check to Congress' balance, and their power is clear and necessary. But when they start half-assing it, making up reasons to justify voting their opinions, avoiding cases that are clear violations of rights because the proof of rights violations is classified, and stepping on Voter Rights because Congress won't, we have a problem.

SCOTUS is arguably the most powerful body in the US today. And abuse of that power should rightly worry all of us, even when they abuse their power to rule in our favor. 

Mr. Rogers, Destroyer of Worlds

There are days I hate my sister. She decided that it's been long enough since I've written something and sent me this. Yes, that is supposedly intelligent, credible newspersons making the argument that Fred Rogers is the downfall of our society for being overly optimistic.

For reference, this guy:

(Source.)

Now, granted, we're talking about Fox. I have never, in my entire life, found a story that Fox has reported that was not openly biased, badly sourced, sensationalist, or plain flat wrong. Ever. In my life. That said...

Seriously? Are we really going to blame Fred Rogers for the entitlement culture? That's like blaming Clifford the Big Red Dog for the skyrocketing pet population.

Let's take a moment to talk about Fred Rogers.

Rogers was a Presbyterian minister. Rogers went into television because he believed it could be a vast educational resource, but that advertising and fast paced "bombardment" drowned out any message. He stood by those principles throughout his life, never once doing a product placement or endorsement that was not specifically for a charitable cause. And when he did endorse a cause, he did it on his own time, not on his show where he had access to millions of children.

Can we say that about our current "role models" for kids? Sports players whose sole claim to fame is how well they can play a game, children's characters that have their likenesses plastered on every product they can license. Singers who write crap music and peddle it at 99 cents a download, and then take a dive into a bottle or needle. 

Fred Rogers had one of the most successful children's shows of all time. And he never, not once, stood up and said, "Mr. Rogers drinks Sprite and so should you, kids!" Hell, the one time someone tried to capitalize on his fame using a parody, Rogers called and asked that it be pulled. Not sued, not threatened. He asked. And they did.

Fred Rogers played one character in the entire history of his time on television. And that was a single appearance on Dr. Quinn. What? Nope, every time you see Rogers on screen, that's Fred Rogers. There was no off switch, there was no "character." He came on TV and was himself, end of story. Don't believe me? 

This is Rogers accepting an Lifetime Achievement Award. Skip to 1:16 to get to the actual speech.

That's right. He asks people to take a moment of silence with him and think of their loved ones, those who've supported them. Then he thanks his people, and leaves. No fuss, no muss, just a simple and straight-forward message that espouses everything he's ever said. And then he's done. 

Rogers received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor we have. In 2002, 34 years after he began broadcasting Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. Yeah, 4-5 generations have grown up with it, the show's been out of original episodes for a year, and he receives a medal from the President for his work. That certainly seems like the kind of thing that wouldn't have happened if he'd been destroying minds and sowing narcissism, no?

So if not Rogers, then what did cause this entitlement culture?

Well, let's see: kids being taught by coaches, teachers being graded on pass-fail rather than comprehensive learning, parents who use televisions/games/peer groups in place of actual parenting, the self-esteem culture of the 90's (which makes Fred look like Oscar the Grouch,) the ever continuing efforts to ensure that what gets taught in schools is by-and-large nothing like life skills...there's hundreds of factors. 

Beyond all that: Rogers was a moralistic educator. Every episode had some kind of general knowledge bit, every episode had a bit in the Neighborhood of Make-believe where kids learned some little Aesop about sharing, kindness, virtue, vice, friendship, teamwork...it was sermons with hand puppets on the value of being good to others and good to yourself. 

The point where that goes from, "gee what a nice guy" to "burn the commie!" is apparently when he told kids they were special. When he told them they were fine, just as they are. Sure, I can see how a thirty second song could absolutely drown out the rest of the message. Especially that part where he reminds all his little viewers about the wonders of tolerance, neighborliness, and goodwill towards their fellow man. Especially the parts where he extolled the joys of living, of seeing wonder every day in the common and little things. 

You know what though? Being a little gay kid and having this nice old guy say that you're ok as you are? That helped. Not much, but it was still nice to know this guy who made a living playing with puppets had faith in the human race, and believed we could all get along.

But hey, obviously, we should see Rogers' efforts for what they were: a dastardly plan to undermine the next generation, to bring about the collapse of 'merica.

After all, it's easier to re-imagine a childhood educator who believed only in education for children, and tolerance and joy towards one's fellow man as this guy:

(Source.)

Than it is to take responsibility for all the ways we screw kids up. I mean really, it can't be the fault of the person who popped that kid out, who was supposed to teach and love and guide them. Not when there's this guy preaching tolerance for an hour a week on TV.

Sum Iratus On Hiatus

Hello all. I will temporarily be moving to a different blog with different subject matter for reasons I explain on said blog.

It can be found in my faved blogs over there on the sidebar, or here: Phukitol.

Apologies, and hopefully I'll be back soon.

Congraduations

Ahh, graduation. A time to celebrate the achievement of surviving college and obtaining a degree. A time of regret for all that will be left behind, tempered by excitement at the future spreading out before the graduate. A time of of honorable tradition and ceremony. 

And, of course, a time to gouge the crap out of all those poor suckers just one last time. Case in point, one of those hoary old traditions: the graduation cap and gown. 

Now, I finished my degree in december, but the college only does one commencement a year. So, in a couple of days, I'll be called upon the shake the college president's hand and accept a flat leather folder containing a piece of paper informing the world that I've sunk three years of my life into getting half of a useful journalism degree. Although, "useful" and "journalism degree" go together about as well as "honest" and "politician."

So, naturally enough, I have to honor tradition (because they won't let you in if you don't) and head to the student store for the regalia of a graduate. For the low, low price of $37.93, I am now the less than proud owner of two of the least functional and most unflattering garments ever created. Also, a tassel. 

Amazingly, still more useful than Congress. (Source.)

First off, let me disabuse you all of a misnomer: the fashion abomination above is usually referred to as a "gown." For reference:

(Source.)

That's a gown. What we are forced to wear to graduation is, in fact, a robe. And not an awesome Sith Lord/Jedi/Ringwraith robe. No, this is the Sith robe of shaming, the robe that has had the mandatory Cowl o' Genre Appropriate Shadowing removed. This is the robe Jedi force Sith prisoners to wear, in the hopes that they will fear the sheer humiliation of being connected with that robe, and refuse to use their dark powers so no one will realize a Sith Lord is wearing that ridiculous sack.

And the worst part of spending money on this thing is, you have purchased a supremely useless garment for the cost of a pair of designer jeans, or cheap shoes, or even a decent dinner out — but you will only wear it once or twice, and categorically refuse to allow it near your body ever again after that. Because it's fugly, and you only bought it or had it bought for you because you had to in order to walk on that stage and get handed a piece of paper. 

Seriously, I will wear ugly clothes if there's a reason for them. Almost no-one looks good in a parka, for instance. But this damn thing is purposeless. It has no pockets, is so flimsy that it can't protect you from cold, but sturdy enough to have you gasping for air if it's warm outside. The material is usually too rough for sleeping. And besides, unless it was your absolute last resort and the alternative was to walk about buck naked, would you really even consider wearing a freaking robe outside in broad daylight?

Some of you would say yes, and for you, I can only imagine you're seeing the grad outfit's closest cousin: 

(Source.)

It's a bathrobe. But! 

Note the pockets. Note the warm, thick layers of fuzzy comfort. Note the built in garrote should anyone dare mock your magnificent leisure attire. It's a multi purpose garment, dang it. The grad outfit is just a shapeless sack. You put it on, you wear it, you take it off and burn it to ashes in protest of its existence. That's it, that's all it can do. But hey, that's ok. Because it's not the only dumb thing you'll be wearing at the party.

Did I mention there's a hat?

(Source.)

Yep! In addition to the honor and privilege of wearing the shower curtain you mistook for your bathrobe to a momentous ceremony that is, in part, to honor you, you also get the enviable joy of fastening a mousepad to your skull with the attached not-really-elastic cap. As in a "one size fits most depending on how you define 'fits'" cap. 

Oh, and the mousepad has the ponytail of an emo rag doll tied on to show everyone that you've graduated for the five seconds before you throw the thing straight up and hope it escapes the Earth's gravitational pull and gets sucked into orbit.

(Source.)

You know what? Tests, stress, debt, and fears about life after college aside...this may be the most compelling reason students drink so much. Because they know that after all the hell they put themselves through...they still have to wear these ridiculous outfits. In public. Surrounded by cameras, which are being wielded by the same people who show off those photos of their kids eating mud naked at the age of three. 

Why? Why would those who've been telling us for between two and ten years that they want to see us succeed force us to wear these awful things?

See, here's my theory. I think it's a secret test by the faculty to see how badly you want that degree. 

Sure, you've written essays over subjects that make your brain hemorrhage with boredom to get that degree. 

Sure, you've survived more flavors of math than you'll ever need to get that degree. 

And yes, you've sacrificed sleep, bypassed opportunities for fun, strained all your non-college relationships, and gained dozens of levels in badass and/or ass-kissing to get that degree. 

But.

Are you willing, after all that, to don a robe that you wouldn't give your worst enemy to die in, use a stretched out sock to hold an oversized bar coaster to your head, top the whole thing with miniature mop head, and stand up in front of everyone you know to get that degree?

Are you!?

Look on the bright side, though. For most of us, this is something we can put behind us with a half a dozen beers and a strong resolve to never speak of it again. But there are those of us students who will have nightmares of this day for the rest of their lives. Remember:

Fashion majors have to graduate too. 

Exhaustion Two Step

For the record, the exhaustion two step consists of aimless shuffling. Almost zombie-like.

If you're not within physical speaking distance of my person, or haven't called me on the phone lately, I've got good news and bad news:

The good news is, I got a job! It is, unfortunately, a minimum wage customer service job. But it's full time and will work around the continuing education I need to justify the time I've spent in college so far. So the "constantly broke" situation will soon ease up.

The bad news is that, being a mostly ethical person, I'm in the process of finishing out my two weeks at my current job. While starting part-time at the new job. And by part time, I mean that I'm working full shifts at the new job whenever I'm not working full shifts at the old job. The upshot of which is that I haven't had a proper day off in seven days straight.

What does this mean and why am I telling you?

Well, my brain is so shut down that I've been trying to write something meaningful for the last few hours, and nothing's kicking out. Hell, I've spent more time editing blatant typos out of this post than I have writing it.

So: I'm working up a humor piece for Wednesday.

Then I have a few days off to recuperate and enjoy the company of my sister, a commitment ceremony with my man, a little tie with my family, and the local Gay Pride celebration.

Ranting will resume next Monday.

Theo-crap-acy

Good morning, sports fans! First, my apologies for the vitriol last Wednesday. I was, as noted, depressed. So to all my readers, but especially those who do promote my stuff: I'm sorry. I'm going to try and keep a couple of reserve posts as backups from now on so I don't blog when I'm seriously down. 

Onwards, then! 

I present to you now, for your consideration, the following:

This was posted on Facebook by an old friend, one whom I've actually had serious discussions about LGBT issues and the state of the world with. And, up until this popped up on my feed, I had thought we were in a "live and let live" detente. So I naturally asked for clarification, albeit laconically. 

Her response is as follows:

God cannot tempt us and puts no evil inclinations into our hearts. All of our desires and drives He built into us so our lives might reflect His glory and goodness. But our fallen nature allows Satan the chance to try and twist and defigure what God has given us. He distorts our natural yearnings into temptations. To call same-sex sexual attractions a natural orientation is one of today’s most prevalent heresies. 

Why not extend the same protection to all sins? What of those oriented towards sloth, gluttony, anger...? Why should any act be defined as a sin? Where does this heresy end? 

And how confusing for our children! The message we are giving them is clear: Ignore God’s law and trust only in your own desires. There is no sin or sinful nature. Do as you please. It sounds very similar to a serpent’s whispered words in a far off garden, yes?

We can tie up the courts with these matters. We can pass laws to protect an individual’s right to a sinful life. We can even attempt to redefine marriage to include relationships outside of the true sacramental right. But we cannot fool God. And in the end, each and every one of us is going to have to answer Him for the part we played in letting this heresy take root.

This is going to take two separate responses, as the image and the text are from two different sources and heave two slightly different messages. On the image, then:

Well, thanks! It's nice to know I'm broken. How do we fix it, then? Oh, that's right. It's not a fixable issue.

In fact, the best one can do is choose whether or not to act on one's sexual orientation. And, as the above report notes, trying to "fix" homosexuality simply doesn't work. All the therapy in the world won't make a gay man or woman straight; it can, however, teach them to accept that they are, and then help them cope with their decisions on how to proceed. 

Choosing to abide by any religious ideal, and choosing to not act on your orientation, is fine. Hell, if you're that devoted to your beliefs, it's laudable. But implying that ten percent of the population is broken in such a way that they cannot be fixed is, as I've said before, inhumane and evil. 

Why? Well, there's therapy for everything we can fix. There's medical treatment facilities for the things we can't. So if there's no therapy, and one is definitively broken if one is gay...will we be rounding up ten percent of the population and locking them away in treatment facilities? 

Oh wait...that sounds like a rights abuse...

Hmmm...well, at least there's legislation against that sort of thing, right? Just like all those nice laws that used to prevent us from dealing with other imperfect people, like blacks, Jews, Asians, and so on. 

Oh, but they can't choose not to be what they are! Uhh...well, remember that study I linked up there? The one that says neither can gay people? 

But hey, we can choose not to act like we're gay! Just like those blacks, and Jews, and Asians can choose not to act like they're—what do you mean it's racist and demeaning to impose our cultural perceptions on minorities? 

But God says it's ok! 

"God" has also historically condoned slavery, white supremacy, religious despotism, genocide, and killing infants. And just so we're clear, anyone that wants to whine about the Old Testament-y goodness can have this: 

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fall — Luke 16:17

So I'm going to have to point out that following "God" does not make you a good person, or even correct person. It makes you a religious person. And if a deity insists that to follow its precepts, you must work for the detriment of your fellow humans, then I believe that's a horrible religion and I recommend you find a new one. 

But hey, anyone can believe anything so long as they don't force me to live their religion with or for them, right? Because this is a country of liberties, a country where we have the right to live and worship howsoever we wish. 

Which leads us into the response to the text portion of this. For those that don't want to scroll up, here we are again:

God cannot tempt us and puts no evil inclinations into our hearts. All of our desires and drives He built into us so our lives might reflect His glory and goodness. But our fallen nature allows Satan the chance to try and twist and defigure what God has given us. He distorts our natural yearnings into temptations. To call same-sex sexual attractions a natural orientation is one of today’s most prevalent heresies. 

Why not extend the same protection to all sins? What of those oriented towards sloth, gluttony, anger...? Why should any act be defined as a sin? Where does this heresy end? 

And how confusing for our children! The message we are giving them is clear: Ignore God’s law and trust only in your own desires. There is no sin or sinful nature. Do as you please. It sounds very similar to a serpent’s whispered words in a far off garden, yes?

We can tie up the courts with these matters. We can pass laws to protect an individual’s right to a sinful life. We can even attempt to redefine marriage to include relationships outside of the true sacramental right. But we cannot fool God. And in the end, each and every one of us is going to have to answer Him for the part we played in letting this heresy take root.

So, let's kick this off by defining the most popular word up there: heresy.

Now, my good friends over at Merriam-Webster define heresy two ways: one is any dissent from a religious organization's accepted view, especially dissent towards the Roman Catholic Church by a baptized Catholic; and second, as dissent from a prevailing theory, opinion, or custom. Well, damn. I guess that means anything that isn't acceptable to a church is heresy. Anything. 

For the record, by the way, I am a heretic by the most narrow definition of the word. I am a baptized Catholic who has repudiated the Church and works against the portions of its dogma that are inherently harmful to humanity. And that's not an "in my opinion" moment. That's a "hey look, they're causing psychological and in some cases physical harm" moment.

Moving on: the problem with declaring heresy in the religious sense, is that it's technically heretical to advertise a burger special on a Friday in Lent. The problem with declaring it secularly is that the Civil Rights movement (not to beat that horse into the ground) was socially heretical.

So claiming heresy, and the fact that something is heretical, is a valid reason to work against it is not good enough. If it was, we'd be living in caves and killing each other with rocks over who has the best berries and which women have the strongest teeth and bones structures.

But hey: that's cool. You have a faith system, and it's yours, and you like it and want to share. That's fine. You can worship as you please, live as you please, raise your children as you please. What you may not do is tell me how to worship, live, and raise my kids.

Just as most people wouldn't allow the institution of Sharia law as the essential tenets of the American legal system, I can't allow the establishment a Christian Theocratic state. And they are the exact same thing, because they would have the exact same results: pain and suffering, religious and moral cleansing, and an end to the "free" nation that many who wish for such a state claim to love.

Why don't we extend the same protection to other "sins"? Well, because stealing isn't inherent as a rule. And as there isn't usually anything inherent to a person that makes them steal, it  is not inhuman to declare the they must control their theft habit. And when there is such an inherent cause, we extend treatment and help. The same goes for gluttony, sloth, and anger.

And that treatment and help model, I'd like to remind you, doesn't work and is impossible to ethically administer for homosexuality.

Furthermore, it's only confusing for children being raised with precepts that specifically hold homosexuality to be a sin. But that's fine, we'll just legislate to ensure that children are free from anything that—

Um, guys? We are all aware that Jehovah's Witnesses can't give or receive blood, yes? So, if we're going to ensure that children learn their God's law is paramount, does that mean the rest of us have to stop having blood transfusions as well?

Oh, never mind. We need to respect the Amish religion enough to not confuse their children, so we won't have modern medicine anyway.

Hmm? Oh, right, we can't expect everyone to live by Amish principles. Ohhhhh...

(Source)

The problem is the conflation of "there is no sin" with "there is no wrong." What a faith declares to be sinful is wrong to its practitioners, not wrong inherently. Making this particular argument implies that because people act in a way that is not consistent with a certain faith, the human race as a whole will accept wrong behavior.

Finally, I'll close with these questions:

How does repressing homosexuals work for the greater glory of God?

How does forcibly evangelizing through legal manipulation in direct opposition to the precepts of liberty this nation operates on reflect His goodness?

And how is insisting that thousands of people you have never and will never meet live in a way that is socially and culturally acceptable to you the only moral thing to do when it is your religion being used as the model, but heinous and evil when it is someone else's religion or beliefs?

Massive Depression

Today will be short and sweet, due to my being vastly depressed that no one seems willing to pay me to do anything whatsoever, much less pay me to write. And by depressed, I do in fact mean resurgence of the clinical depression, yes.

Last week, I wrote a porn story. It features obscure fetishes that 90% of the population would be horrified to learn even exist. Within one week of hitting the content hosting website I wrote it for, that story has more total page-views than this entire blog in its entire lifespan.

So many of you have come up to me and said, "You have to keep blogging, I love what you do!" And yet, I have a tidal-pool audience. Despite my best efforts to get what I do out there, no-one's helping. You love it enough to seek me out, to raise it as a point when I stop blogging. But you haven't got two seconds to share it on FB, to mention to a friend that "oh, I read this thing online."

Fuck.

Every.

One.

Of.

You.

Is that over harsh? Isn't it my job to promote myself?

When was the last time you found a book or author that you'd never heard of through promotional crap? Don't you normally hear about good books, good authors, new reading material from your friends?

And while we're at it, if you have thirty seconds to spam my page with twenty inspirational messages about the powers of Jesus, or fifty kittens, or how much of a bitch you are, or eCards or whatever your poison of choice is, why the hell haven't you got time to repost a blog you like?

One blog. Fifty kittens. And I'd like to point out that for good or ill, social commentary is unfortunately more relevant to your life than kittens, godsdamnit.

But you know what? Fuck it. Have a kitten.

(Source.)

Because that's what gets shared, that's what you want the world to see of you, yes? Sex, crude humor, memes, and kittens.