Change Keeps Changing

First and foremost, Happy Thanksgiving. To those outside of the US, this is one of the great holidays, because we eat Turkey and food and pie. Pretty much, America gains weight and pushes the landscape deeper into the ocean.

Anyway, as I move from my crappy, empty, undecorated apartment in Vernon Rockville Connecticut, which may be deemed the least interesting place in the US, I think of many aspects of my shift. The people I am leaving behind, the memories I have made, the experiences I have had, they were all cool. But the fact is Vernon Rockville and Me don’t get along. So, really there is no sense in prolonging the inevitable.

I am very “open-minded” when it comes to change. And I agree with whoever when they said change is difficult. I think whatever Whoever was referring to, he and/or she didn’t have military dependents, and the like, in mind. To us, change is not difficult. In fact, change is easy. Things that are hard include but are not limited to finding one lover for the rest of your life, untie-ing a knot in your shoe laces, and getting “red wine” out of a white carpet (ask #Dexter). I mean really tough.

I would say that not only is moving fun and enjoyable, but it is medicinal and improves confidence, like green tea with honey. For me, it allowed a rejuvenating notion to de-clutter and over-simplify my life. If you live in a primary color (aka red, green, and blue) world like me, you tend to view things in black and white (see what I did there. I made mention of the same concept with two different color schemes. No, it doesn’t make sense. Yes, it was only meant to confuse. I know am a jerk. A weirdo as well.) In any case, I organize by one rule: it is trash unless I see myself using it in the next month. So yes, shorts and flip flops are gone. Tank tops I will keep. And the Christmas tree barely made the cut. But I’m not so sure about next year.

Please find the follow reasons for why I am an advocate for change:

1. Hoarding.Yes, we have all seen those shows. Families sleeping on top of trash because they have issues letting go. It is an extreme case of avoiding change but a scary thought nonetheless.
2. Stockholm Syndrome. This is what I was developing in Connecticut. Pretty much, CT held me captive for so long that, towards the end of my stay, I felt obligated to defend it. This can also be referred to as traumatic bonding. Solution: detach yourself.
3. Filibuster.AKA Congressional Gridlock. Aka some jerk who puts his/her own interests before their government and impedes congressional decisions. Again, another extreme case of stagnancy but something we should consider.
4. Stoop Kid. 80s babies and 90s children have all seen that episode of #HeyArnold about the orphan who has a parental connection with his front porch. Well, even though he eventually leaves, he still stuck around. He overcame his fear and then . . . stayed on the stoop. Note to self, avoid this kid.
5. Zombies. I am sure you are all familiar with the popularized science fiction creatures or AMC's #WalkingDead. In sci-fi reality, Zombies/Biters are people who are not able to change. They lie in a dormant state, somewhere between alive and dead, with an idle mental state and concerned only with eating people. If they could #EatPrayLove . . . they would evolve. But they can’t so we must kill them . . .  again!

The above examples may be deemed extreme and illogical, but we aren’t here to judge my logic. My point is to explain how change is necessary and good.

Annnddddd to totally contradict myself, change may be great and all BUT it is also circular. In truth, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Example, let’s take this whole changing demographic dilemma of America. Recently, Republicans have been deciding if they should amend the views of their party that exclude any non-white, non-male individuals. This adaptation will reflect the they are no longer the majority and keep the party alive in the next decade (well #NoShitSherlock). Well, according to history, the first Thanksgiving was celebrated because us then Red-Indian, Brown-skinned Americans (majority) were happy to have met such friendly Gun-toting, God-fearing Europeans (minority). Smoked some peace pipe, taught them how to farm, and then threw a party. Then came the rape and murder and other Thanksgiving traditions, which for some reason we haven’t keep in the traditional cycle. Now that I think about it, is that why we call it Black Friday? Cause the Europeans came in the middle of the night bearing gifts for the Native Americans. Anyway, I digress.

Through time, Americans became a nation of Dark-skinned minority and Fair-skinned majority. However, the US is returning to a Mocha-skinned majority with a Vanilla bean minority (obviously still eating leftovers). It’s kind of creepy how the world works but yeah!

In summary, change is as constant as time. And we know time pulls a 360 every 12 hours (or 24 hours in military time). Seasons come, go, and return, and go, and then come back, etc. So yes, I am bound to end up back in Connecticut, probably sooner then later. But until then, I will enjoy the newness that is Northern Virginia. Novvaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

The Reversal of Self Denial

The following is pretty much everything I know about psychology. Be warned, it’s elementary, My Dear Watson.

So I learned a new word today, mercurial #TheColbertReport. Quick synopsis, it is a synonym for fickle. It means something that is ever changing. And from that quick Dictionary.com definition, I thought the following random thoughts:

-   The “Don’t Go Changing” song, sung by Shrek of course

- “Be the change you want to see” quote from I Don’t Know

-  The library scene from Bloomington #LesbianDrama #DontJudgeMe

So, I decided to blog about Bloomington and what I learned from this movie. (FYI: To all those who live outside of the Rainbow Coalition, Bloomington is possibly the greatest free gem found on Hulu. It’s Brokeback Mountain, except with lesbians.)

Quick Rundown: A female psychology professor falls in love with one of her female students. However, in this one scene the directors (who literally emphasized the idea 3 times) explain this concept that blew my mind, the Reversal of Self-Denial. This is what the lesbian prof tells her academic lover:

If you deny yourself something for long enough, for whatever self-imposed reason, the moment that you’re faced with any real external imposition, you are going to voluntarily want to do the thing you were trying so hard not to do.

This is the theory, in a much clearer explanation:

- You try to deny yourself something, you succeed!

- Something else denies you of that same thing, you fail!

And for the slow ones:

Only YOU can deny yourself something, but nothing else can.

At first, it’s kind of a weird idea, a lot like reverse psychology, but for some reason it stuck with me. I think this applies to more people than not. Let’s use “success” as an example.

So according to these Fox5News organizations, minorities (Blacks, Latinos, and the like) have this self-imposed fear of success. I would like to retort that that there are people of ANY ethnicity, the life-challenged if you will, who seek to deny themselves good opportunities by being self-destructive. However, when an outside force, aka a Hater, actually attempts to prevent them from being successful, suddenly the life-challenged will have all the ambition in the world to be successful. Their driving force, you might ask? To prove their “Hater” wrong. Although, before said Hater spoke, the biggest hater was their self. #Deep

Usually, I just call this ironic. But the lez-ban movie calls it the reversal of self-denial. Whatever. Potato tomato let’s make a soup!

I thought about this for a while, wondering how and/or why this reversal of self-denial happens. Why do people create restrictions for themselves? It’s strange how, unchallenged, we create our own barriers? But when we are pushed to create barriers, we strive to cause friction. Is that it? Do we simply live in Opposite world, where every day is opposite day? And our main goal is to argue with outside forces? Is conflict soothing? Must we be so different? So stubborn? So much like crabs in a barrel.

Quick Review: Crabs in a barrel is a reference used for Black people. It is the idea that the Black race is like crabs in a barrel. Whenever one crab seeks to climb out of the bucket, the other crabs pull it down. Hence, crab fishers have no need to constrain the crabs with barrel tops. The crabs will simply hold each other down. And I don’t mean hold you down in the loving and protective sense, I mean hold you as in refrain you.

The one thing I learned in Mr. Jean’s Music class in Gorman Crossing Elementary School is to not have excuses. They are the tools of incompetence to build monuments of nothingness. And those who specialize in the use of them seldom excel at anything, other than creating excuses. Thank you Mr. Jean!

Rich People Don't Suck

I would like to start this off by saying Robin Hood is probably the biggest ass hole in childhood literature! And no I don’t mean the movie with the Men in Tights (although the main character in that movie was a pretentious jerk whose bravery was as fake as his heterosexual agenda of being alone and drunk in the woods with a brigade of men. Other than that, you can bet every time Men In Tights comes on Cinemax, I am in there like swimwear). That movie is HILARIOUS! #ImJustSaying

However, back to Robin Hood. This story perpetuates the idea that the rich, who worked hard for their money, have the voluntary or involuntarily obligation to donate it to the less fortunate. Essentially, Robin Hood and society are pro-lifing the wealthy to give their money to the poor. Pardon me but this is just as ridiculous as making a woman have a baby that she does not want. Again, I vote pro-choice.

Secondly, it perpetuates the idea that the poor are completely helpless. They are forever stuck in that unfortunate, disadvantaged state and can only accept handouts. I think this is an unfair assumption of poor people. The last disadvantaged person I met had literally flung himself on my car just to create a reason for him to clean my windshields. Talk about a gimmick! You Betta Work!!

In review, there is an obvious communist agenda in this story. The author, who ironically is not named, seeks to eliminate class distinctions and use Robin Hood as the dictator who decides when working folks have made too much money. And if they resist the urge to literally give away their money, some thief is going to take it from them. Despite the fact that they may be socially responsible in other ways (aka donating clothes, rehabilitating the injured, reading to the blind, whatever), that isn’t the same as cold, hard cash. And they should be punished!

I mean damn. Usually, I am not one to defend the wealthy but this is the Republican in me speaking “that is not right!” Not to be hypocritical but we all, at one point in our lives, envied a rich person for having more than us. But that envy should not drive us to steal from them. That’s 75% insane (and 57% being the reverse of 75% is just a coincidence . . . to those who are paying attention). Note: We, as a country, need to drop our emphasis on materialism and focus on the things in life that matter. Or, if not, try and be more rational.

This brings us into the economics lesson of the day, or my version of Supply and Demand 101:

The basics: The law of demand states that the higher the price of a good, the less people demand that good, and the less there are of that good. (Price ↑, Demand ↓, Supply ↓)
In reverse, as demand for the good rises, a greater supply of the good must rise, and the cost of that good is driven down. (Price ↓, Demand ↑, Supply ↑)

The example: Right now, I am doing well. But I can’t afford a battery-powered car. The price is too high and the manufacturers don’t have a reason to produce more because the demand is not there. (Price ↑, Demand ↓, Supply ↓) But if more rich people bought it, the demand would increase. Then, the manufacturers would have to make more. And obtaining money from their profits, eventually the price would go down. (Price ↓, Demand ↑, Supply ↑).  #BasicShit.

So remember, rich people can sometimes suck. They have more money than us, throw extravagant parties, know attractive people, snort better drugs, and so forth and so on. But WE need THEM to do the things we envy them for. If it wasn’t for them spending their disposable income, then we wouldn’t be able to afford anything. So no! We don’t need to Robin Hood their stuff, eventually we will be able to afford it ourselves. . . Although free ninety nine is tempting.

Plus, who actually wants to be rich? The Producer Formerly Known as Puffy, or The PF Kap, once said “Mo Money, Mo Problems.” If not having money is your only problem, consider yourself lucky. Rich people have like 99 Problems that make them do things like go on Prozac, jump out windows, and kill their spouses (You ever seen Snapped on Lifetime? #TrueStory).

When I reflect on my life, me, myself, personally, the time I was most poor was the most fun. I was in college, broke as a joke, living off of Ramen and whatever I could get for free (Thank You Lecture Series). Yet, I partied every weekend, had amazing times with amazing friends, and learned so much about life. Then I got a job that paid me a shit ton. And now, I am bored out of my mind.

But in truth, when you got money, you don’t really need friends. #RichPeopleProblems. Ehhh, it’s whatever. I’m gonna go get drunk for the fifth time this week and party like a Lonely Rockstar. Deuces!

Politicians in Skirts and Flip Flops

This year’s election campaign has been brutal. I mean truly negative. And I shouldn’t voice my opinion, because I would hate to sway a few undecided voters, but BOTH candidates lack the IT factor (I mean “it” as in the pronoun representing the indescribable trait that makes someone special. Not like “it” as in the information technology acronym or Dave Pelzer in A Child Called It).

Truth be told, who you vote for won’t have a HUGE impact on your life, per say. Essentially, the president just heads a bunch of committees that make big decisions about the overarching infrastructure of our country as a whole. So, most of the changes he/she makes will go unnoticed for years. #SpoilerAlert. (Slight digression but I am bringing it back)

All in all, the negativity of this year’s election has trickled down to even the state level. Up here in Connecticut, Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy are going at it like Itchy and Scratchy. And most people are giving in to the cynicism. I mean, honestly, the average Joe looks at these candidates as if they are trying to decipher who is the assassin with the contractual mission to kill the American dream (either by selling us to China or raging another unconstitutional war). But the problem is not the candidates; the problem is us.

We, as a country, are getting so wrapped up in the name-calling, the wise-cracks, the back pats, the tie colors, and every other possible erroneous topic. None of these things are actual presidential requirements!! For example, when did the attentiveness of the candidate’s listening face become the deciding factor for the leader of the free world? Our focus has strayed from what they are saying in these campaigns, debates, and commercials to how they move, their stances, gestures, and mispronunciations.

This isn’t The Voice, American Idol, the X Factor, The Next: Fame is At Your Door, Dancing With The Stars, America’s Best Dance Crew, America’s Got Talent, The Sing Off, The Duet, or whatever other crappy competition where you vote for your favorite “act.” This is the Presidential Election! By deciding if the holder of the most powerful position in the world is someone we can sit down and chat with over a pint, we neglect the issues. And really, that is an injustice to ourselves.

So here is my solution: Blind Voting! We vote on issues and not on the actual President. A crazy thought right? But bear with me. What if, on the ballot, we could choose our stance on an issue, and then have those decisions tell us which candidate to pick? In this case, we won't choose the person based on party (Democrat or Republican), Race (Chocolate or Vanilla), Religion (Mormon or Christian), or whatever else. Kinda brings an element of surprise to voting, don't it? #CakeCakeCake

Reason 1:

This bi-partisan crap is driving away the issues and bringing focus on “who” we are electing and not “what” they stand for. Yes the two-party system was created so that the Average person could align themselves with one of the two major political philosophies, those of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. It was Jefferson himself who said “men are naturally divided into two parties.” But we all know that these parties have changed significantly in the past, oh, 200 years. Nowadays, the parties are intertwined so much with Religion and Money, the state and federal government power struggle is irrelevant. So I propose we change it up a bit. Let’s vote on issues, and not on people.

Reason 2:

The average American iscapable of thought, despite our obsession with publicizing ignorance (6 Seasons of Jersey Shore). If you disregard our lazy dumbness and our dumb laziness, we are functional enough to pull it together for local elections. I mean, if we can vote for Proposition 15 and decide redistricting for our schools, we can voice our opinions for issues like abortion, education, and war. And no, I don’t mean each person in the country will vote on each and every move of the US. That shit cray. I mean vote for your opinion on issues, rather than the person who will enact those opinions. And whosoever aligns with your opinions gets your vote.

It’s just like Fantasy Football. Instead of picking teams (parties) to follow, you pick players (issues) based on their statistics (your thoughts). #YesImAGeniusWithoutWorkingForApple

So yeah that’s my highly improbable idea, blindly voting for the person who I think represents my views. I mean, it will probably not come into fruition. I'm just being silly, as usual. Me and my fantasy world, thinking the US public has opinions. And then, thinking the candidates will stick to a platform. No more flip flopping opinions (Romney) and skirting around issues (Obama).  Oh, silly me with my high apple pie in the sky hopes.