The thread very quickly turned into a highly insulting anti-American fest, including more than one member using the term "septic" to describe Americans. It's rhyming slang, as in Yank rhymes with tank, and on to septic tank. Nice, isn't it? Americans are sewage. (Now tell me that's not insulting.)

They also went on about George W. Bush and how Americans support the war in Iraq and started in on American television and McDonald's and even - believe it or not - peanut butter and jelly (jam) sandwiches, of all things! I mean, this bunch of morons (well, sorry, but they are) were taking personal affront to something the FDA did, something that most Americans wouldn't even know had happened, was happening, or, face it, what the hell Vegemite even is or why anyone would want to eat it. They were making some incredibly stupid and astoundingly ignorant comments on subjects about which they clearly knew NOTHING.

Anyway, that's the background. And this is what I wrote (very slightly edited), though I didn't actually post it there (seemed pretty pointless, really). I did want to preserve it though, so here it is...

However, I object strenuously to being called a "septic". Would the people who use that phrase call black people by the N word? Would they refer to women with the C word? It's insulting, simple as that. It's not "good natured", it's offensive, and it's meant to offend. That's the sort of mentality that was going on in that thread. (I'm guessing they'd only do it if they thought they wouldn't get caught out, which says even more about their character.)

And by the way, the fact that most Americans (and Europeans, and Asians, and South Americans, and Africans...) don't ever develop a taste for Vegemite is not, in fact, an insult to the character or patriotism of Australia. Vegemite is an acquired taste. Very few people who don't grow up eating it ever manage to like it. Vegemite and whether someone likes it or not should not define one's social and cultural identity. If you really feel the need to define yourself by a mass produced food item, you should sit down and have a serious thought about that...

As for George W. Bush, MOST Americans did NOT vote for him, and two-thirds of Americans do not support the war in Iraq. That means that 200million Americans are against the war (and disapprove of Bush, have you even seen his dismal approval ratings lately?!). That's ten times the number of people in Australia! (And it was Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, who, despite overwhelming numbers of Australians being against the war in Iraq, got Australia involved in the whole mess!)

The American television shows that Australians like to complain about are brought to Australia by AUSTRALIAN television networks, and Australians spend billions of dollars in places like KFC and McDonald's. If Aussies didn't watch the shows and didn't eat the food or buy the goods or whatever, then the companies would stop marketing
it here. It seems absurd to me to blame the U.S. when Australians are the ones consuming the stuff. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you eat at McDonald's or watch "Friends" or some other insipid import, are they?

American culture may well like to export itself to the world, but guess what? The rest of the world is buying....

Like I said, I'm not normally sensitive to this stuff. I figure if you're dumb enough to think that 300million people are all exactly alike, you deserve to be ignored, but that thread really seriously angered me, more for the absolute ignorance than anything else.

I can name a LOT of completely legitimate complaints about American culture and society. I have plenty of issues with a lot of things American, and that's a fact. I mean, come on, I voluntarily and happily moved away from there, yanno?

But you know what? The fact that there are, indeed, big, annoying, troubling issues with American culture doesn't excuse calling Americans "septics" (can you be just a LITTLE BIT more insulting?!) and making idiotic statements about a culture and people you obviously don't know anything about.

I have NO CLUE why too much folate is supposed to be a bad thing (the reason that the U.S. has stopped allowing the importation of Vegemite), but that doesn't make 300million people no better than sewage.

To be clear, there are some certain people that I like and admire and respect (sometimes all three of those at once!). But in general, I find people to be irritating and annoying, and most of them have the mentality of sheep. Sheeple.

There are some people who simply cannot be reasoned with. No matter how many points of logic and evidence you put in front of them, they "know" it's wrong, and you're wrong. You may as well argue with a wall. The thing about these people that I find most frustrating is that they seem to manage to generate a little band of supporters who will rally around them and support them in their astounding ignorance, mostly because the supporters are just as ignorant. They'll whine about how it's "their right to express their opinion", but for some reason, it's not the right of anyone else to have a counter opinion...

These people also tend to attack the person, rather than the argument. You point out that some fact or observation is incorrect, and they call you names or make various other accusations and assumptions about your character. These kind of people also seem to be extremely threatened by anyone who appears to be "smarter" than they are (i.e., who knows more about some given topic). They totally overlook the fact that there's an easy cure for not knowing a lot about a particular subject, and that's to learn more about it, yourself. No, no, too much work, too scary to have to learn things. Much easier just to call someone who does know more about it names and run away and hide behind your little band of supporters who will soothe your poor widdle hurt feelings resulting from someone who actually knows what they're talking about pointing out that you made a mistake.

Then you have people who expect the world to be magic. They think that all they have to do is wish for something and it will magically happen, without much or any effort on their part. Put up a website selling widgets, or list your widgets anywhere on the web, and magically, customers will appear waving money and demanding to buy from you. And if that doesn't happen, it's certainly not the fault of the "business person" who had no clue what they were doing or not doing, it's the fault of the listing venue or the web host or the Prime Minister or China or the United States or who knows what else.

Here's a hint, folks. Knowledge and prosperity often go hand in hand, and neither one happens by accident. Both require work and effort. Nobody is born knowing everything or, for that matter, much of anything at all. It's all acquired. And while some people are born into wealth, they're not necessarily prosperous as a result. History is rife with stories of people who were born with enormous financial and social advantages and who squandered it all and died in poverty.

Knowledge is power, and prosperity comes from applying the right kinds of knoweldge, mixed with a combination of perserverence (i.e., stubbornness) and hard work.

So why on earth do people resent knowlege when it's delivered to them on a silver platter? What is it about someone who offers to share their knowledge that's such a threat? Is it because it just reminds certain people how ignorant they are? Or are they actually afraid of learning something else?

Whatever it is, I don't get it. And not only do I not get it, I find it irritating in the extreme. As I've said before and no doubt will say again, stupid people piss me off.

I have a theory on this. See, I used to work in the hospitality industry (i.e., I was a waitress at more than one place), and I also worked in retail (sales clerk, then floral designer working with... wait for it.... BRIDES). I got plenty of rude or ridiculously picky or downright abusive customers.

My theory is that the abusers are people who have no self-esteem and bigtime anger issues, and they feel that any person working in a service industry is theirs to abuse. You know, that "customer is always right" crap that people try use to justify even the most vile of behaviors. I've actually heard of people SAYING "It's your job to take my abuse," or words to that effect (and I have even heard of it being said to flight attendant, who is, of course, responsible for making sure you stay ALIVE in an emergency...).

I could give a long and possibly entertaining account of the many occasions on which I've had to deal with people like that, but there's no point, really. Every single one of them was either incredibly insecure (OMG, the ribbon on the custom cake top doesn't precisely match the swatch from the bridesmaid's dress, the wedding will be a complete failure, CHANGE IT RIGHT NOW and how DARE you make a very close but imperfect match for a swatch I didn't even bring when I placed the order!) or pretty clearly angry and taking it out on me (such as the mother of the heavily pregnant fourteen year old who was there to buy "It's a Boy" balloons and expected me know the precise order number for every one of the 200+ balloons in stock).

I'm always polite to people in any kind of customer service or hospitality job, because in fact I know that they are not paid to take abuse, they just end up getting it as an unhappy side effect of the job they are paid to do.

Okay, I admit, I'm not always polite to tech support, but mostly because I was a support tech and I can tell shitty support when I hear it, and it pisses me off that "Cheryl" (like, oh yeah, that's her real name, of course) in Bombay knows less about my computer and my internet connection than I do, and yet gets paid to go down a checklist and give me stupid advice. But bad tech support provided by people who aren't even in the country is another rant for another day...

To which I might say...

Why, yes, yes it is. I have an entire collection of them, and they're all mine. I don't necessarily think they're better than other people's opinions (although many of them are quite well-considered), and I've been known to change them when sufficient evidence persuades me to do so, but, basically, my opinions are mine, and I voice them as such.

From time to time, when I have an unformed opinion because I lack the scientific, technical, or other knowledge to form one, I will accept that the opinions of experts may be valid, and I may even repeat or cite those expert opinions, but I never claim those opinions as my own.

When I was younger and much more unsure of myself and much less able to form opinions (at least, unable to form opinions with much substance), I did, indeed, frequently take other people's opinions and claim they were my own, but now that I've lived a reasonably long time and had lots and lots of life experience both good and bad, I find that forming my own opinions is much more comfortable and satisfying, and is preferable to adopting the opinions of others (although, at times my opinions may agree in whole or in part with those of others, through coincidence, shared life experiences, or other means).

Yes, it is my opinion. And your point is?

Basically, every human being has to live with the short and longterm consequences of every decision they make. What they eat, how much they exercise, whether they pursue an education or not, whether or not to run that yellow light that's about to turn red, whether or not to buy things, whether or not to dive off a pier into possibly shallow water, and on and on and on. Some decisions are minor and have minor consequences. Some decisions appear to be minor and have huge consequences...

Is it "fair" that a stupid mistake can result in a lifetime of misery? No. But that's LIFE. Life isn't fair. We have to live with the consequences of our decisions, good and bad, casual and serious. That's just the way it is.

And for some reason, this simple, basic, rather obvious fact seems to elude millions of people.

After a breakdown, hospitalization, a fair bit of therapy, and a great deal of soul searching, I decided to never, EVER let fear rule me or my life again, and to never let it make my decisions.

I've been victimized in many ways. I may be yet again, who knows? I could step outside to get the mail and be run over by a drunk driver. I could be in an elevator when the cable snaps. I could be stalked and multilated. All of that could happen, and I know it (because a lot of shit has already happened to me; I'm well aware of the possibilities).

That doesn't mean I'm going to curtail my life to suit unseen and unknown assailants or tragedies. Fear is not my master.

Also because I am aware of the dangers that exist in the world, I don't leave my car running when I'm not in it, I wear a seatbelt, I lock the doors to my house, I don't smoke, I obey traffic laws, etc. I'm not incautious, nor am I a particularly big risk taker (at least, not for the sake of taking risks).

But I don't sit around worrying that because I used to smoke heavily some years ago, I "might" get sick now (it could happen), and I don't avoid getting the mail because I "might" get run over by a drunk, and I don't change the way I live because something "might" happen.

My daughter is watching Finding Nemo a few meters from where I'm sitting, and I'm reminded of this exchange:

Marlin: But how do you know something bad isn't going to happen?
Dory: I don't.

You murder it (or someone else murders it on your behalf), and you take it into an unnatural, indoor environment that's probably far too hot. You keep the tree more or less alive by artificial means for a time, but all the while it's slowly dying anyway, and then, you humiliate it by dressing it up like a cheap tart. And then, to add insult to injury, many people place their tree by a window, where it can look out upon the world it has lost as it dies, being mocked by other trees who can see it standing there all covered with tinsel and cheap glass trinkets.

When it's all over, the tree doesn't even usually get a decent tree burial, but goes out with the garbage.

You people should be ASHAMED of yourselves! TREE HATERS, all of you!

Oh, and if you have an artifical tree, I hereby withdraw all negative accusations, and wish you a happy Fake Fir Humilation Ritual. Bah. Humbug.

I am different. In what way, I can't say. I just have that quality about me that sets me apart from the masses for whatever reason. Maybe someday I'll understand it, but probably I never will. It's just something some people have. I'm an eccentric (in the true sense of the word, "Departing from a recognized, conventional, or established norm or pattern," and not meaning the euphemism which equates eccentricity with insanity).

My mother was, is, and always shall be a conformist of the first order. If people can be born different, they can also be born the same, born to follow the flock. My mother is a sheep, easily led, not all that clever most of the time, and if she ever does wander away from the flock too far, someone (my father, the media, organized religion of one sort or another, neighbors, society in general, etc.) will be sure to push her back into the flock.

Personally, I don't think very much of sheeple. I don't like them. I find them stupid and boring. I resent them somewhat, as well, for their ability to just bleat along with the crowd and blindly ignore anything outside their little world of pre-conditioned thoughts and ideas; life would probably be a lot easier if I were one of them, but that's another rant for another day.

And I've known for a long time that the sheeple don't like eccentrics. Well, some of them watch us with sort of stunned and horrified fascination, but mostly we're punished for our failure to conform. We're punished for not being "one of them" (me, bitter? you betcha!). We're frightening. We're confusing. We exist and think and move in ways and places that the sheep don't, can't, and never want to go, or even know about. Nothing will piss you off more than someone or something that makes you think about stuff you'd rather avoid, you know what I mean?

So why has it taken me thirty-nine years to figure out that my mother was afraid of me, resented me, was confused and maybe a little awed by me, and that she didn't like it?

My mother's whole world is built on "how things are done" and then I came in and thought, said, and did things totally differently and it completely upset her little apple cart. Naturally, this was not to be allowed, and she did everything in her power to try to force me to conform. For years I did try to do that, actually, although inwardly, secretly, in rooms in my heart and soul and mind around which I built dissociative walls, I remained true to myself. I remained an eccentric, and I would not be forced to conform or to change my own orbit to suit her or anyone else.

My daughter, Zoë, was "born different". She was breech, for a start, so she came into the world bass ackward. She's also got a couple of developmental delays (specifically in the areas of verbal communication, both understanding and expression). She's a lot like me in a lot of ways, my Zoë (although I don't have any language disabilities). She's smart and charming and affectionate and eccentric, and she won't be made to conform, disability or not.

The thing is, I see Zoë's "differentness" as beautiful and special. I certainly believe she needs some help in learning to communicate verbally and possibly in a couple other areas, but overall, I think she's a wonderful kid with tremendous potential.

Viva la difference.

The lawsuit, according to the report I just heard on television, apparently argues that the parents of these children are not educated or lack the time to properly supervise their children's nutrition.

So that's McDonald's fault? I heard this four-hundred-pound kid's mother say she had "no idea" that his eating at McDonald's every day, sometimes several times per day, was bad for him.

Did this woman spend her life under a frickin rock somewhere? How can any American with a television or who has ever seen a newspaper not know that McDonald's every day, several times a day, is bad for you? And where the hell was she when her son was two hundred, three hundred pounds? Surely he didn't go from normal, healthy weight to morbidly obese just overnight. Didn't she notice he was getting fatter and fatter and fatter, and wonder why?

And totally aside from that, since when is it the responsibility of a corporation to look after someone's children because the parents lack the education and the time to do it themselves? What kind of stupid reasoning is that? What the hell has happened to make people think that anyone, everyone, is at fault, except for themselves?

I do think that McDonald's probably targets children a little too much, and that the children's meals they sell are awfully high in fat, but that's a different issue. The point here is that no matter how cute and appealing the advertising is, it's still your own choice (or that of your parents) to put the food into your mouth.

Hey, I'm fat... Do you think I could sue someone for it? How about Hershey's and Cadbury's? After all, they didn't tell me that if I sat around and ate chocolate all the time and didn't exercise enough I'd get fat...

But no, wait. I've been fat since I was a kid, and we mostly ate at home. Maybe I can sue my parents for filling me up with whole milk and high fat foods all the time and insisting that I eat all of the food they served, despite the fact that the portions were far too big for a kid!

No, wait. They lacked the education to know that this was an unhealty diet, so... I've got it! I'll sue the American dairy industry for not warning my mother that all that high-fat milk was bad for me! Yeah, that's it!

Woohoo, I'm gonna be a millionaire, baby! Because, you see, it couldn't possibly be my own fault that despite my early poor training I've never really taken the time to deliberately adopt healthy eating and exercise habits...

I care if a child is being hurt by parental or other adults' ignorance and stupidity, because that's a very, very personal issue for me. And I care when someone's ignorance or stupidity affects me, directly or indirectly.

Blow yourself and your car up looking in the gas tank with a match if you want, and I don't really care. Blow yourself and your car up along with, say, MY car, and then I care. Believe the world is flat and start a society to agree with you, hey, I couldn't care less. Teach this erroneous crap to your children and punish them if they say they don't believe it, I care. Act like the sterotypical ignorant American who thinks no one in the world has it as good as those living in the U. S. of A., and I don't give a damn. Do it in an international forum or another country and give ME a bad name merely for the fact that I'm American, too, well, then I've got an issue with you.

I could go on all day. I feel this way about religion, politics, pretty much everything. Be as stupid, as illogical, as culturally ignorant, as misinformed, as arrogant, as obnoxious as you like. It's no skin off my nose.

Yes. It's a terribly cynical position to take. I am a cynic, through and through. No matter how upbeat or happy I might be at times, I basically just want to be left alone and I'm willing to leave others alone, mostly because I don't LIKE people very much (as I always say, I like individual persons, but I do NOT like people). But pretty much, I'm happy to leave you to wallow in your ignorance or bigotry or whatever.

Well... unless you make me have to basically apologize for being American (like I had a choice in the matter!) or assure people that although I'm Christian I really won't preach at them, make harsh judgements about them, burn them at the stake, or throw Bibles in their face, or make me justify my unintentional association with you or fix your mistakes or clean up your mess. THAT pisses me off.

Realizing this is actually quite liberating. I've said many times that I hate stupid people (note: I'm not taking potshots at the mentally challenged, but rather making a comment on those who don't use the intelligence they do have and who don't bother to find out anything other than what they know and yet base everything in the world on their narrow and limited life experience and knowledge). It's almost pathological, actually, my intense dislike of the morons of the world who just do their stupid utmost to make my life and a lot of other people's lives more difficult.

It's good to understand, though, that it's NOT the stupid people I hate. I actually don't care at all if people are stupid. I'm not on this earth to educate the world, for heaven's sake (although I do provide lots of free information on all kinds of topics because I like to share with people who do want to learn stuff). No. The liberating thing here is the understanding that I only really hate the effect other people's stupidity has on me and others.

Maybe I'm not quite as evil as some stupid people have said I am...

Recent public discussion about the Southwestern Airlines policy of charging fat passengers for two seats sparked a discussion thread in a place... well... let's just say the people who frequent this particular place are usually not the brightest crayons in the box.

Anyway, the topic turned into a big insult-fest to fat people and one of the brilliant participants made a comment that assumed that fat people never get touched or (heaven forbid) have sex.

Boy, have I got news for them...

I'm not going to go into gory details here, folks, but I just wanted to say that I've always been fat (except for a very brief period in my late teens when I was working and never eating and I dropped to a size 14, although this is still considered "fat" by some people), and I've never, never, EVER lacked for male companionship (or female, were I that way inclined; I've certainly had offers). My body size was never a hinderence to people finding me sexually attractive. Okay, so I'm not to everyone's taste. That's fine, because everyone is not to MY taste...

I just wonder why on earth some people are so blazingly stupid that they think that their taste (i.e., a Barbie doll or digitally altered centerfold chick) is necessarily everyone's taste, and that no one could possibly find attractive someone who happens to reside in a body that is currently unfashionable (and the trends and tastes in "beauty" change from era to era and always have, make no mistake about it). The size of one's hips does not always (or even usually) determine the quality or quantity of one's romantic partners.

And on a related topic, why is it considered socially acceptable to make obnoxious statements about fat people? I mean, if you take some of the crap people say about fat folks and replaced "fat person" with "Asian" or with "Indian" or something similar, you'd be making totally socially unacceptable racial slurs.

Say "Italians are disgusting and anyone who wants to have sex with an Italian is obviously desperate and pathetic," and you're going to be socially denounced. But say, "Fat people are disgusting and anyone who wants to have sex with a fat person is obviously desperate and pathetic," and that's okay. It's a matter of "personal taste" or something.

Well, that sucks.

That's all.

The world is full of small businesses and services of one form or another who do work for hire. Many of these services and companies are excellent and highly professional and extremely competent.

Many, however, are not. I've had the unpleasant experience of working with companies which are staffed by incompetents, and believe me, it's no picnic. The results of doing business with unprofessional companies can range from mildly annoying to downright disasterous.

I've had to deal with moving companies that didn't ship my goods as promised (due to their error, for which I was supposed to pay extra before they'd ship my stuff!). I've purchased goods which cost enough to assume some quality in the workmanship but which fell apart, failed to function, or otherwise turned out to be junk in a very short period of time. I've had to go into client sites and clean up the mess left by other so-called web designers who simply had no idea how to write good code. The list goes on. Some of the things were minor. Some were very major, indeed, and could have cost me my life and/or limb.

The first thing that really bothers me about this is that I just happen to think that businesses have a responsibility to provide customers with a certain level of professional quality. If I hire a carpenter to make cabinets for my kitchen, I expect the doors to fit properly and the edges to be finished. If I hire a tailor to make me a dress, I expect the seams to be edged and pressed correctly and that the garment is going to fit. If I hire an internet service provider, I expect to be able to get online when I want and for them to fulfill their technical end of the bargain, just as they expect me to pay my bill and abide by the terms of service agreement.

The thing about quality service is that in order to do it right, you first have to know right from wrong. You need to know all the technical details of your field. If you're a photographer, you need to know how to use a camera correctly, how to pose people, how to deal with varying light, when to use a flash, all sorts of stuff. The same is true of any field, from bakeries to floral designers to computer hardware technicians. All professional fields have professional knowledge which must be learned and properly and consistently applied.

The thing is, though, some people seem to think that having some sort of equipment, tool, or software makes them a professional, and it's just not true. I own a sewing machine and I use it, but I'm hardly a tailor. Trying to sell my services to someone and claiming to know the technical details of making quality garments would be unethical at best and fraud at worst. I also know how to cook, but I'm not a chef and wouldn't try to get people to pay me for cooking for them. I can do a lot of things reasonably well, in fact, but I don't claim expertise enough that I feel I can actually sell my services in most fields.

For some reason, though, and this is specific to my own professional interests, some people think that if they have FrontPage or Dreamweaver, it means they're "web designers". They think that if they can point and click on an NT server, they're "system administrators" (I actually heard one particular idiot say once "I don't see what the big deal about system administration is. It's all point and click as far as I can tell."). They have little or no idea about the complexities and technical issues of the profession of web design or network administration, and yet they come out and offer their services for sale.

The problem with this is that sometimes consumers are taken in and end up getting shoddy products or bad service. It also contributes toward making life hard for others on the net. For example, badly formatted name service or network routing tables can mess up routing and name service for hundreds of other people. An open relay mail server can be abused by unscrupulous people to commit email fraud and waste all manner of bandwidth, causing some administrators to set up filtering systems on their own mail servers and thus increasing everyone's workload, the workload of the machines in question, and the stress on an already crowded internet with limited bandwidth.

There's also a large degree of arrogance involved with someone who knows next to nothing about the real workings of a particular career and yet comes forward with claims of professional expertise. I find that irritating and occasionally insulting.

I agree with Henry Ford about quality and I believe in paying for quality services. I hire professional photographers, I pay for meals in restaurants, I pay tailors to make alterations for me, and I respect their skills and abilities. I believe that spending the money for real professional work is a good investment.

By the same token, I happen to really resent it when people present themselves as experts and take my money and provide me with poor quality products or poor service. I do understand the notion of caveat emptor (buyer beware), and I try to research things before I make a big investment, but some areas are just so foreign to me and so out of my range of knowledge and expertise that I pretty much have to just trust that the business is professional because they say they are and they look good on paper and present a professional image. If and when they prove to be fly-by-night or unprofessional, I am understandably angered.

I'm also angered by people in my own field who operate on a less-than-professional level. They muck up the waters for everyone, make my life harder with their incompetence (see the aforementioned improperly formatted name service or routing tables as just one example), and generally give a bad name to web development. People like this are the ones who were responsible for the whole "Dotcom Revolution" which turned into the "Dotcom Wasteland". People like this are the ones whose incompetence and lack of knowledge allow spammers to bombard people on the net. People like this are the ones who rip off clients out of sheer ignorance and just plain incompetence, and then leave people like me to clean up the mess and try to convince the general public that not all web developers are incompetent jerks.

If I sound like some sort of technocrat (something of which I am occasionally accused), I apologize. I really don't mean to sound "superior" or "holier than thou" about this. The fact is, I am a hardcore technophile and I've been doing net related stuff for a long time, and I've put in hours of sweat, effort, time, and money. I take my professional responsibilities seriously. I just wish that everyone else would take their professions seriously and that they would come to appreciate what Ford had to say about quality and apply that sentiment to their own dealings with consumers and their own colleagues, and pay just a little more attention to what they do when no one's looking.

And as it happens, I am saved (now, anyway) from the particular injustice I'm about to write about. You see, while I do choose to stay home specifically to care for my family, I own my own business and work from home, so that makes me okay. I'm an internet technologist (woohoo) and web professional (double woohoo). I'm not just one of those icky "stay at home" women who don't seem to understand that they, too, could be a rat in the rat race, if they'd only set their mind to it.

To be perfectly honest, if I wasn't a web designer or some other work-at-home professional, I still wouldn't go out and get a job. I believe with my whole heart that raising children into decent human beings is vitally important, not only to the child, but to society at large (which is not to say I'm knocking working parents; this is my personal take on it, that's all).

Readers might be surprised at the amount of disrespect the job of raising one's own children gets. Tell someone you're a professional nanny and that's probably okay, but tell them you care for your own children and don't leave home every day to work in some office somewhere and suddenly you're mentally feeble, socially inferior, and some sort of reactionary throwback to the bad old days when women weren't allowed out of the house even if they wanted to go out and get a job.

Well, you know what? "Liberation" means "freedom". It means that women should have a choice, a real choice, as to what they want to do with their own lives. If a woman wants to work, she shouldn't be prevented from doing that by society or her friends or her husband. If she wants to stay home with her children, the same thing ought to apply. It's all about choice, about deciding what to do with your own life.

I remember all too well the 70s SuperWoman™, who could bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget you're a man. What a complete load of utter crap. No one could pay me enough to run myself ragged trying to be Ms. Businesswoman all day, Ms. Homemaker all evening, and Ms. Sexpot all night. Not only is it an unrealistic goal, it'll drive you crazy pretty quickly if you try it. Pressuring women who choose not to try to balance family with career into doing both for the sake of some weird idea that if you're "liberated" you'll want to stress yourself to death is just narrow-minded and idealized.

Lest you think I have a problem with career women, nope. I don't. I don't have a problem with working women who have children. I don't have a problem with hiring quality child care services if you want and/or need them (face it, not all women have the choice of not working).

What I have a problem with is that small and vocal minority of people out there who will immediately assume that a stay-at-home mother is some sort of ignorant, repressed, uneducated, or unliberated woman who just can't hack it in the real world.

Liberation is about freedom. Radical feminists like to rant on about freedom to choose and so on, and then when a woman chooses something they don't personally agree with or which they wouldn't choose for themselves, suddenly she's an object of scorn.

Hah. I have come a long way, baby. I've come far enough to know that I don't have to work outside my home in order to be free. In fact, I don't have to do anything just because of other people's expectations.

I was recently made aware of The Webby Awards when a site Andrew frequents (Kuro5hin, which is mostly a geek community) was nominated for an award. Apparently, the Webby Awards get a lot of media attention (although not so much that I'd ever paid attention, apparently) and they're given out by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences (IADAS).

So who the hell are IADAS? I had a look. They're a bunch of people from traditional media (lots from the motion picture industry, for example) who self-appointed themselves with the name International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences. Their membership includes people like David Bowie, Gillian Anderson, Francis Ford Coppola, and a bunch of other well-respected actors, directors, writers, etc.

This really pisses me off, and I'll tell you why (well, this is a rant site, so you had to figure it was coming).

Since when is Gillian Anderson a good judge of quality web design? Can she debug JavaScript? Does she even know the difference between JavaScript and Java? Does Francis Ford Coppola know what sort of design is cross-browser compatible? Does David Bowie understand the concept of "liquid" web design? Do any of these people know anything about the nuts and bolts of web development, really? Sure, they're fine actors, directors, musicians, writers, etc. But why the hell do they think they have the right to set themselves up as authorities and judges of a medium they don't work in? Web designers don't form an "international academy" to judge motion pictures or short stories or music, so why the hell should these people think they have the right to do the same with the web medium?

A few of the members are real geeks and designers, but their numbers are pitifully few, considering that this self-appointed academy is giving awards in a field most of them don't really understand well. The Academy does graciously note that, "In the future, The Academy may open its membership to Internet professionals." Oh, well, thank you, oh, great and wise "cybergurus" (I took that phrase off their own website, and I'm not making it up). Thank you so much for condescending low enough to consider that your exhaulted organization might deign to allow the presence of people who actually understand and work in the medium you've set yourself up to judge. How gracious of you, oh great arbiters of web excellence and purveyors of this most illustrious and fabulous award.

Recognition by one's peers is a great and encouraging thing. These people (with a few notable exceptions, but only a few) are not the peers of anyone who really makes the internet work. When and if the self-titled International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences can demonstrate that the majority of their members and judges actually know the technical and artistic considerations of the medium they're they're judging, then perhaps the award will be worth something. Until then, it's just a bunch of media hype and self-appointed "cybergurus", as far as most web professionals are concerned.

I don't try to act, make records, direct films, model, or otherwise dabble in media about which I know very little or for which I'm not trained or suited. I wish these wankers in Hollywood and elsewhere would kindly do the same.

Now, lest you think that I just hate awards, I don't. I think they're fine when they're awarded by people in the field. I've got no real problem with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (or whatever the proper title is) giving awards in that field. It's what they do. The Special Effects nominees are judged by special effects experts. The award for Best Director is judged by directors. Actors judge acting. I think that's fair enough (although I do wonder about an industry that gives awards to itself).

And I don't have anything against David Bowie or Francis Ford Coppola or Gillian Anderson or anyone else on the list of members (well, other than Tiffany Shlain, who is the founder and apparently the "cyberguru" who is the resident "technology expert" on Good Morning America, which of course qualifies her to found an international organization to judge websites). I think Gillian Anderson is a fine actress. I think David Bowie is a wonderful musician, and a great performer. Francis Ford Coppola is a brilliant director. But what do they know about web development that would qualify them to give out an award of this nature?

Oh, one more member I'd like to mention. Jonathon Rust, Director, Internet Business Group, Sydney 2000 Olympics. Why is this significant? Well, there was a huge controversy and a lawsuit against the directors of the Sydney Olympics because the official website was inaccessible to the blind. When the court ordered them to fix it, they said it would take "a year" and cost millions of dollars (which, by the way, is utterly and patently ridiculous), and it was never done. They deliberately and knowingly carried on with an inaccessible website despite a court order and laws which specify that Australian websites of certain types (educational, public service, etc.) must be accessible to the blind. But Jonathon Rust is on the board of a self-appointed "International Academy" that judges good websites...

Actually, come to think of it, I don't really have an issue with the award, per se. I have an issue with these wankers calling themselves the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences and pretending their award is in any way significant other than generating a lot of media attention, only because so many of the members have a high media profile.

I think I've ranted enough. I'm running out of steam, at least for the time being, and how much bandwidth do I really want to devote to people who are not my peers but have set themselves up to judge my work and the work of my colleagues (many of whom know more about the internet and web design than any media "cyberguru" has ever dreamed of knowing). I'm seriously thinking that the web needs an anti-webbie award site....

I'm seriously annoyed at the moment. I'm not going to go into the details or specifics, but I really want to say that I am bloody sick and tired of people on some sort of crusade trying to force the rest of us to swallow their beliefs. They over-react or otherwise go off on some rampage of moral outrage and anyone who fails to go along with it or thinks it's a bit ridiculous is suddenly "the enemy" who advocates who-knows-what evils in society.

Why, if we don't do something about [whatever], there will be terrible consequences! Children running amok with chain saws! Increase in crime of all sorts! The world suddenly ending in a big ball of flames, hair, and moral indignation! The end of the world is nigh! Sign this petition immediately or there will be great weeping and gnashing of teeth! And put this bumper sticker on your car so people know you really, really mean it!

It doesn't matter what sparked this posting, because, frankly, this kind of narrow, reactionary thinking exists in all areas and in all forms. I've seen it with various religions, philosophies, causes, work ethics. I've seen it in regard to every subject imaginable and always in florid, overly dramatic rhetoric which generally tends to have several well-known logical fallacies present within its "facts" (there is a reason these are called fallacies, you know, but I digress).

You know, to people like that I just want to say, "Will you just get over yourself already?" Take a step back from your own perspective and your own world for a minute. The Greek word "idiot" has its root in the word for "one's own" or "personal" (also related to "idiom"). Don't be an idiot. Take a breath and try to get a grip on an idea outside of your own existance.

Of course, I generally don't say things like that, because it's almost certainly going to be unproductive and a waste of my time, and it's almost certainly hurtful in the bargain (despite being passionate and sometimes bitchy, I'm not actually a cruel person). I have enough frustration and friction in my daily life that I don't need to take on more by arguing with someone on a moral crusade, no matter how ridiculous I think their crusade is. I may well agree with their sentiment (or I may not), I may well think they've got some good points (or not), I may well be interested in the same goals they are (or not), but no matter what, I'm going to get annoyed and then tune right out when someone starts up with the logical fallacies and ridiculous assumptions about what "might" happen if we don't do [whatever] immediately.

The worst part of all this is that I used to be very like this at times. I'd get triggered and off I'd go on a crusade about something, all fire and fury and very little substance. I did it because I was basically not very realistic about myself or the world and not in very good control of myself, and I was so afraid of what "might" happen that I couldn't stop to consider what would almost certainly happen, which was just about always far less dramatic, far less frightening, and far less extreme than what I imagined.

I don't know why other people do it. I just know that it's annoying. It was annoying when I did it, it's annoying when other people do it, and it's just damned annoying in general.

And did I mention that I'm annoyed?

I've been on the net long enough to remember when Usenet was worth reading. I remember when the vast majority of email addresses ended with .edu rather than .com. I remember what it was like before the masses discovered "The Information Superhighway" and proceeded to invade it in a curious, clueless, overwhelming hoarde. I remember what the net was like before the World Wide Web was a phenomenon, when the only graphical web browser available was NCSA Mosaic and HTML wasn't even capable of offering centered text and browsers could view only one graphic type and it was a .gif file. I remember when Yahoo was just an index that was part of the personal web page of some guy at Stanford University.

In the years I've spent as a citizen of the internet, I've naturally known a lot of other people via this medium. Some were passing acquaintances. Some became long-term friends. One became my husband, despite the fact that we lived on opposite sides of the planet. So I should note that I'm somewhat biased when it comes to the notion of relationships that start out on the net. Of course I believe that they can be very real and very enduring, and am quite aware that they don't always amount to a hill of beans.

One of the things I've encountered that annoys me is the notion that since it's "just the net" it must not be "real". Because you're not physically in the room with someone, you can't possibly have a "real" relationship with them. You're not "really" friends or you're not "really" in love or whatever. Well, I have to tell you, I personally know several couples who met on the net and who went on to have a successful and satisfying real-life relationship, and a lot more people who met on the net and went on to form long-lasting friendships, all in the "real" world.

The first thing to consider here is what constitutes "real". If it's only physical proximity, I'd call that pretty shallow. If friendship or romantic relationships are based merely on physical attraction or physical closeness, what kind of relationship is that? One that will necessarily stand the test of time?

Some people maintain that people on the net could represent themselves as other than what they are. This is certainly very true. I know a man who was in the habit of logging on to talkers and chat programs as a woman and completely misrepresenting himself in the most basic of ways. Yup, that happens, and it's a sleazy trick to pull, for sure.

However, misrepresentation happens all the time in "real" life, too. Maybe it's hard to disguise your gender or something else like your race or your eyeglasses or crooked teeth, but it's quite easy to lie about your family, your education, your age, your job, your financial situation, your marital status, and so forth. Some people are so charming and such skilled liars that they can persuade you to believe all manner of lies, to the point of becoming con artists. There's no guarantee that seeing someone in the flesh means that what they represent themselves to be is legitimate.

One of the things I've heard is, "Oh, I wouldn't want to meet someone I knew from the net. They could turn out to be an axe murderer or something!" Yeah, they could. So could that guy sitting next to you in the library. So could the chick behind the counter at your favorite coffee shop. Axe murderers don't exactly go around advertising the fact, you know what I mean? Doesn't matter if it's on the net or elsewhere. (And it certainly seems that many serial murderers seem to have neighbors who report that, "He was such a nice, quiet man. I'd never have thought he could do something like this!")

On the other hand, you have people who use "it's just the net" as an excuse for all manner of hurtful or socially inappropriate behavior. They treat people they meet with amazing scorn. Lie to them, make promises of love and possibly marriage, lie about who they are and what they're doing, you name it. It's possible to be incredibly nasty to people via the net, just as with any medium. However, when it's done on the net and the person being mistreated complains to the perpetrator, the excuse is that "it's just the net" and they dismiss their cruelty by noting that they're "not really like this in real life".

Well, it's not always "just the net". In fact, it's almost never "just the net". The internet is a medium for communication, and there are real, living human beings behind the web pages, behind the articles on a bulletin board, behind the nick on IRC. What it all boils down to is that the internet is nothing more or less than a way for people to communicate, do business, interact, and otherwise have discourse with other people. It's not the computers that are talking to each other in chat rooms, and it's not the graphics programs that are making the online art, and it's not the web page generators that are creating the millions and millions of pages that make up the world wide web.

So if you're one of those people who think that anyone you haven't met in "real" life isn't real, think again. Of course they might be lying to you and misrepresenting themselves, but so might your accountant be quietly siphoning off your money into a hidden Swiss bank account. They're still real people, even if they're liars or con artists or jerks.

And if you're one of the jerks, one of the people who goes online to a chat room and makes trouble, who goes to an infertility bulletin board and flames people for seeking treatment and wanting babies, who goes to a gay chat room and makes anti-gay hate statements, who logs on to a talker and plays head games with people or pretends to be the opposite gender or some equally nasty online social misbehavior, you're still a jerk, regardless of your chosen medium of expression. Someone who uses the net to harass, manipulate, and hurt people is no better than someone who harasses, manipulates, and hurts people in "real" life.

YOU still a jerk, even if it is "just the net".

Man: Haven't I seen you someplace before?
Woman: Yes, that's why I don't go there anymore.

Man: Is this seat empty?
Woman: Yes, and this one will be if you sit down.

Man: Your place or mine?
Woman: Both. You go to yours, and I'll go to mine.

Man: So, what do you do for a living?
Woman: I'm a female impersonator.

Man: Hey baby, what's your sign?
Woman: Do not enter.

Man: How do you like your eggs in the morning?
Woman: Unfertilized.

Man: Your body is like a temple.
Woman: Sorry, there are no services today.

Man: I would go to the end of the world for you.
Woman: But would you stay there?

Man: If I could see you naked, I'd die happy.
Woman: If I saw you naked, I'd probably die laughing.

What I'm talking about is the way some people seem to think that the entire world should exist solely and completely for the benefit of their children's sensibilities.

I've felt like this for a long time, but what sparked this particular rant is I was idly looking around at web pages (i.e., a "boredom surf") and came across a webring which shall remain nameless. The webring claims to be for, by, and about women who are strong in their emotions, thoughts, and opinions. This made me perk up a little (if there's one thing I certainly am, it's emotional and opinionated). So I went and had a look, and found that one of the requirements for joining the ring is that pages submitted must be "child safe in all areas".

*blink*

Excuse me, but.... why?

First of all, why would children be allowed to cruise a webring of this nature without supervision, if what they read is a concern to their parents? If you're really worried about what your kids read on the web (and you probably should be), why haven't you installed filtering software yet? Or, even better, why aren't you hanging around nearby keeping an eye on what, precisely, your kids are reading? And if your children are at school looking at the web, why hasn't the school put in proper filtering software?

Who am I to decide what is "safe" for someone else's children, anyway? Perhaps you feel that reading about certain kinds of spiritual expression is inappropriate for your child, but is it inappropriate for all children? What about the telling of myths and fairy tales and legends? Some parents feel this is inappropriate. And how about things like apartheid, communism, fantasy role playing games, all of which certain parents would think are "unsafe" for their children to be reading?

As for the webring that annoyed me so much, the fact is that I am an opinionated woman with strong ideas and strong emotions, and furthermore, I am an adult. Why should I have to be concerned that if I speak my mind in a way that an opinionated woman might care to do I might be upsetting some eight-year-old by speaking my mind?

This isn't just limited to the web, though. It extends to all kinds of things. People get all bent out of shape over movies and television shows which are not "child safe", despite the fact that the movie or television show never claimed to be. Apparently the mere existence of shows like South Park is enough to infuriate people who find the show "inappropriate" for children. Well, guess what? South Park is inappropriate for children, and they never claimed to be otherwise. Why is that so hard to understand? Don't let your kids watch it if you don't approve of it for their viewing, but is it really necessary to complain that it's available at all, even for adults (and yes, I admit that I love South Park, and saw the South Park movie twice in the theatre, as well).

The world is not always a nice place. It's not all happy kitties and little fluffy bunny wabbits. The world has in it things like foul language and violence, and deep oceans full of sharks, along with illnesses that can kill you and earthquakes and tornadoes all kinds of terrible things. Sometimes, adults might be interested in reading about or viewing material which has to do with deep oceans full of sharks or foul language. It's one of the benefits of being an adult. You can watch what you want and read what you want.

The fact is, there are things which are within your control (electrical sockets, bottles of poison, sharp knives in the kitchen, filtering systems for your web browser, car seats, etc.) and things which are out of your control (hurricanes, books written by other people, opinions of other people, and rights of other people to have opinions and write books, etc.). By all means, do your utmost to control the things you can. Teach your children about the world, teach them right and wrong, and teach them to be responsible human beings. But maybe, just theoretically, there are limits as to how much of the world can be or even should be made "child safe". Perhaps your eight-year-old shouldn't be reading this right now, and if they are, perhaps you should look into why your child is reading material you may find inappropriate, rather than trying to force me to change what I think, feel, and say in order to keep your child from reading something you find "offensive".

Radical thought, I know.

What we were doing there this particular weekend was not watching the wedding parties (a hobby of ours), but having breakfast at Fast Eddie's. We took a seat near the window and as we enjoyed our meals we noticed a strange phenomenon (even stranger than brides who look like big merangues and bridesmaids done up like cheap tarts in red satin).

There was a flock of sheep in the street outside.

Well, okay, they were actually pubescent human beings, but they were certainly sheep. They were dressed all alike. The uniform for girls was black, generally a blazer and short skirt, with platform shoes or boots, and sometimes that peculiar chest covering which Aussies call a "boob tube" and Americans used to call a "tube top". The boys wore dark trousers or jeans, white t-shirts or black shirts, and black shoes.

They all had the exact same hair. The girls had long hair (shoulder-length or longer) parted in the middle and hanging straight on both side of their faces. The boys had hair which was either parted in the middle and gel'd straight down on either side (talk about a damned stupid hairstyle!) or sort of twisted up into little rock-hard gel'd spikes all over their heads (repeat: talk about a damned stupid hairstyle).

They were all the same age, give or take two years, all about fifteen.

The hung out in small groups, talking and giggling (the girls) and smoking (mostly the boys).

There were hundreds of them.

Apparently the Metro, a nightclub near Fast Eddie's, has a "youth" club in the afternoons sometimes, and these little clubbers-to-be were gathering for the festivities at the Metro. Nevermind that the doors wouldn't open for an hour, they had to be there or be square. Or whatever the current hip phrase is.

Eventually, a rather large group of the little sheep started moving up the street for some reason. Smaller groups of the sheep watched and looked slightly confused (probably wondering what was at the other end of the street), but then joined the bigger flock and trotted along, giggling and smoking and chatting.

My husband and I were, by this time, chuckling rudely and making "baaaahhh" noises to each other as we watched the group of cookie-cutter youths ambling along with their companions.

When we finished our meal and left the restaurant, we went across the street and glanced back at the Metro. What I saw is what absolutely convinced me that these pubescent humans were really sheep in teenaged clubber clothing.

I once read a book about sheep, and that you could contain them with a "fence" made of ropes and sticks, because the animals are so stupid they don't realize they can knock the fence right down. This sort of "temporary paddock" was (possibly is; I admit I'm no expert on raising sheep) fairly common when moving a large flock from one pasture to another.

Outside the Metro that day was a temporary "holding pen" made of those velvet rope things you see in banks and theatres. Inside the temporary paddock stood a flock of the sheeple, milling around very quietly and waiting to be let into the Metro.

I actually laughed out loud.

Perhaps I should have wept.

My first ploy, which lasted for a number of years, was to attempt to conform. This was very much a failure. It's basically impossible for a polyhedral peg to fit into a predefined and uniformly drilled round hole. So try as I might to bang myself into the "acceptable" state of existence, I couldn't, and it was apparent to all the nice, shiny cute little round pegs that I was a "wannabe".

So I went the opposite direction. At around the age of fourteen, I became a rebel. Or maybe I should say A Rebel™. I deliberately swam upstream, intentionally bucking every convention I could think of. I wore odd jewelry which got me quite a reputation ("hula hoop earrings" was one phrase I recall). I got my ears pierced in strange ways in an era where dual piercings were unusual (in fact, my piercings are quite normal by modern standards, but back then, it was weird). I wore odd clothes, like jeans with holes in them (they came into fashion a few years after that and I stopped wearing them). I just went out of my way to annoy, shock, and irritate the primarily working class and middle class people around me. I took up smoking, never got the hang of drinking, experimented with drugs, skipped school, and took a lover. Yes, at the age of fourteen.

In fact, I wasn't all that revolutionary. I was following a well-established pattern and had a lot in common with all the other "rebels". I was different, just like them. And truth be told, I wasn't all that radical. I mean, I never had purple hair or a mohawk or anything really shocking. I was just a rebellious kid looking for trouble.

Yes, I was still an outcast. Yes, I was still drawing a lot of negative comments and being picked on, but I felt as if I were in control (at least more in control) because I was now doing something to draw criticism. I got to the point where I sort of took pride in being able to rile the "mundanes" by having the amazing audacity to be different.

Then came a point where I tried to conform again. I had gotten married, and my then-husband wasn't the sort of man who went in for displays of rebellion. I don't mean to imply that he was a tryrant, because he wasn't. But he was very conservative, very easily embarassed by "public displays" and very much inclined to have things be usual, ordinary, and normal.

Without going into details, suffice it to say that I endeavored to become a nice, working/middle class wife who went to Tupperware™ parties and shopped at the mall.

Eventually, due to complex circumstances which I won't bother to explain, I found myself deeply depressed and extremely miserable. Part of the reason, I believe now, was that I was trying to be something I was not.

What I am is intellectual, creative, passionate, and different. I am not like everyone else. I am an eccentric, and have always been so. I am not a sheep, I cannot bleat in time to the socially acceptable music and trot along with the rest of the flock, blindly following and being damned happy to do so.

Sometimes, I envy people who are sheep, people who can just happily buy what the television tells them to buy, who wear the clothes that are modelled for them in magazines, who get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, and go to bed, and do this their entire lives, with occasional holidays where they wear silly tourist clothes and take a lot of pictures and tell all their friends what a nice time they had.

I envy them sometimes, because think how easy life must be when you just go with the flock! All decisions are easily made by consulting one's peers (what they do, you do). Conflict is resolved by simply conforming to what's expected of you. You don't have to endure the social pressure that comes with being different, you can just do what They do and know that it's the right thing to do because if it weren't, would They be doing it? Moral choices are clearly defined by a religion or philosophy (pick one, the more bland and mainstream the better), financial choices are clearly defined by consumerism, home decorating and personal attire are defined by magazines and designers. How much simpler can life be?

But the truth is I don't really envy that. There are times when I'm weary and tired of being inherently different, and when I just wish someone else would make up my mind for me and show me the way to health, prosperity, and a trimmer, more youthful figure. But I know for sure that They don't have the answers. I know that what They want to pass off as good is often mediocre or downright shoddy. I know that I am not one of Them, and I can never be. And I don't really want to be, when it gets right down to it.

The world seems to hate people who are different. I don't know why. Perhaps They are reminded how ordinary They are, or perhaps They get too confused by someone who isn't going the same way as the rest of the flock (Oh dear, what to do? Someone's going a different way!). Perhaps there's such safety in conformity that anything outside of it is viewed as a threat. Perhaps I'll never understand, since I'm not one of Them.

I have come to terms with my non-conformity. I have learned how to be different and be comfortable with it, and making difficult decisions is okay (I don't always like it, but I can do it). I've learned how to define my own spirituality and look beyond the boundaries of what's "accepted" and "normal" to find that which I embrace as truth. I dress how I please, I love whom I love, and I live where and how I want to live. Sometimes my life coincides with accepted norms, and these days I'm generally fairly good in social settings. Sometimes, though, my life and my choices are in direct conflict to what They find usual and acceptable. And I don't care any more one way or the other.

I really dislike stories like Hans Christian Anderson's The Ugly Duckling. Not all ugly ducklings turn into swans. Some of us turn into ugly ducks. We need to learn to accept it, and to find that being an ugly duck isn't really necessarily all that bad, because going with the flock isn't always the best or most satisfying way to go, even if it does seem like the easiest.

It's like living on the outside of society and seeing what a crock of shit it is, but then approaching it again with a sense of humor. I mean, when you're able to see society as this sort of funky, funny illusion, it makes it easier to deal with it because there is no rhyme or reason to the way it works. - RuPaul, on fringe culture (Genre, March '99)

Q: How can you tell if a man is sexually excited?
A: He's breathing.

Q: Why do women rub their eyes when they wake up?
A: Because they don't have balls.

Q: How do you save a man from drowning?
A: Take your foot off his head.

Q: How many men does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One; men will screw anything.

Q: How many men does it take to change a roll of toilet paper?
A: No one knows. It's never happened.

Q: What's a man's idea of safe sex?
A: A padded headboard.

Q: Why would a man walk around with his fly open?
A: Just in case he has to count to 11.

Q: Why did God put men on earth?
A: Because a vibrator can't mow the lawn.

Q: Why did the man cross the road?
A: He heard the chicken was a slut.

Q: Why does it take one million sperm to fertilize one egg?
A: They won't stop to ask directions.

Q: Why are blonde jokes so short?
A: So men can remember them.

Q: How can you tell if a man's happy?
A: Who cares.

Trends annoy me. Well, it depends on the trend, of course. Ultratrendiness is irritatating and just sheeplike. Period. But general trends like the way colors come and go in current fashion, hair styles that come and go, things like piercing one's nose, etc., well, that's just the way society changes, and I can live with that. I'm conscious of trend changes and I no longer have Farrah hair, nor do I have a curly perm or a bi-level haircut (you know, a mullet) or a short cut with a tail, all trends which I observed at one time or another. I look around, I see what's going on, I adapt. I don't look like one of those women who hasn't figured out that the look they had in high school (ten or twenty years ago) is no longer hip and they look like morons now with that trendy 80s teased and mussed and sprayed glamrock big hair (the early MTV veejay look, you know the one I mean).

Everything goes in trends, of course. There's a reason that most Americans my age think that "Edith" and "Mildred" are "old lady" names. Those names were very popular and trendy at one time, and lots of little girls got them, and now all those little girls with trendy parents are old ladies. Someday, nursing homes will be filled with Courtneys, Joshuas, Jasons, Jessicas, Jennifers, (what's with the J names lately, anyway?), Michaels (not that the world hasn't always been full of Michaels, but the name was very, very popular in recent generations), and Robyns.

This is the way of the world. You can't escape it, but geez, do you really have to be captive to it? Jung (the 19th century psychologist and contemporary of Freud) theorized that there was a "collective unconscious" to which all people were subject, sort of a "mass mind" on a level we weren't consciously aware of. I think that may be not far off, but I attribute it to the general human tendency to just go with the flock. All my friends have permed hair. I need permed hair. We are Trend of Borg, you will be assimilated....

And what was with the "Information Superhighway" crap a few years back? First, the net was the ultimate source of all information and we were in the "information age". Then, suddenly, the net was the playground of pedophiles who recruited innocent children by pictures on their parents' homepages and the U.S. Congress, in their ultimate arrogance and ignorance, tried to outlaw things like saying "penis" on a web page. Well, penis, penis, penis, and balls for good measure.

My point (other than the fact that I like to say "penis") is that people are generally mindless. They know nothing and don't bother to learn, and let the mass media think for them. They call up technical support and try to get the techs to think for them (I worked as a support tech for quite some time, and while most folks just need a bit of information or guidance or have some questions, there are some major morons out there on the Information Superhighway™, boys and girls).

Another thing that pissed me off (yeah, I was in in a bitchy mood when I wrote this, as I just gotten off my job as a support technician and I talked to a number of total idiots that day) was the whole Y2K thing. Yeah, there were a few little glitches and a few problems here and there. Yes, older computers with very old bios configurations didn't work right. Some operating systems simply were not Y2K compliant.

However, I really got annoyed with the alarmist trend that said that the whole world was going to suddenly just END in a big puff of burning electronics and singed hair. (And hah! Looks like I was right!)

The Christian millenialists bugged me the most, I think. First of all, people, the calendar we use was invented by human beings. Christ almost certainly wasn't even born in the year zero, and there wasn't even a year zero anyway. The current calendar we use is not the first we've used since the beginning of the Christian era, you know. We invented it! And we didn't even get it right. I mean, come on, 30 days, 28 (or 29) days, 31 days, make up your mind.

What makes you think that God is constrained to do things according to a calendar invented by human beings? And think about it, why on earth would he choose a date so incredibly obvious? What's so bloody special about the year 2000 anyway, other than it has a lot of zeroes in it?

Also note that our system of counting in base ten (so we can have all those zeroes) is also invented and while it's the most common, you can also count in binary (based on twos) and trinary (threes) and so on all the way up to base infinity, although no one ever really needs to count that high unless they're calculating the national debt.

I could probably rant about trends and fads for ages. Don't even get me started on weddings. I used to work with weddings. I was a floral designer and I worked in the floral/wedding supply department of a big craft store. The colors for weddings are trendy, the styles are trendy, you can almost always tell the year someone was married by the style of the bride's outfit and the color scheme (hmmm... band of pearls on your forehead, must be early eighties, big pouf of tulle on your veil, must be the middle eighties, Queen Anne neckline, must be the late seventies, oh, gosh, a black, white, and red color scheme how original, you got married in the mid-eighties, and gee, sleeveless with princess seams, nineties... ad nauseum).

The same is true of web design (although with a lot of sites you can hardly call it design, maybe more like bandwitdth clutter). Frames. Yeah, I use them on a couple of my sites, but golly, I know how to make it so people aren't trapped in them forever and ever and how to use them for navigation tools, not Just Because I Know How to Do Frames. Haven't you ever wondered why there are sites designated proudly as Frame Free? It's because so many trendy people use frames stupidly!

I feel the same about JavaScript (I use it sparingly but but I do use it for some things), Java applets (I don't use them at all, as the majority of them are slow loading and stupid and overused, and if I see that stupid damned lake applet one more time and have to wait forever for it to download just so I can see yet another bad picture with a ripply bottom half, I'll scream... or maybe just bitch about it on a web page), animated graphics, Flash intros, whatever the newest bells and whistles are. It takes no skill at all to just throw as many kewl rad dancing baloney craplets onto a web page as humanly possible. I have news for you. That's not clever, it's not cutting edge. It's just mindless.

I don't think I'd better start on the whole lesbian chic thing and all the girls who suddenly think they're bisexual.... (Just so it's absolutely clear, I am not anti-gay, and I not only know but also like and even love persons who are bisexual or homosexual. I just happen to hate the "ain't I cool cuz I go both ways" trend, and so does at least one of my bisexual friends.)

You know, as I was writing this I was chatting with my sweetheart and sharing snippets of this fine bitchy rant with him and I noted that this could well get me flamed. Then again, I'm complaining about mindless sheep who blindly follow whatever's currently in style without thought or reflection, and if some moron writes to me to say, "Hey, look, I still have a mullet and it's damned cool" I can just laugh and say "Yeah, I'll bet you're so hip you can't see over your own pelvis" (many thanks to the wonderful Douglas Adams for that clever line, as spoken by one Zaphod Beeblebrox).

So. Do I think that all trends are horrible? Certainly not. Change is the one constant thing in this world, and I happen to like change. I observe trends. For my thirty-fourth birthday I got my ear pierced in a rather trendy location (up high, in the curve of the ear, yes, cartilage, and yes, it got wildly infected for a while). I have a thumb ring. I own my own personal domain and I have a weblog (how trendy is that?), and writing rants like this and putting them online as if someone's going to read them is pretty trendy too.

See, it's not the trends that bother me. It's trendiness. It's not going with the flow and adapting to the changing times, it's mindlessly going along with whatever all the other sheep are doing, bleating as directed, trotting along merrily at the same pace and in same direction as everyone else and thinking this makes you cool. If you're going to follow a trend, do it knowingly, do it deliberately, and not because you're too unoriginal and/or lazy to think of anything else to do or you're afraid you might not fit in with all your trendy little friends if you don't look like you were all made with the same damned cookie cutter.

And by the way, I hear that being bitchy, strong, and bitter is also currently really trendy...

I sort of glossed over the fact that I'm bitter and sometimes morbid (particularly my sense of humor, which can be very dark, indeed). I glossed over the fact that I could be a raging psychobitch with the astounding ability to alienate or piss off everyone she came into contact with. Maybe I didn't fully appreciate these qualities, and they have improved greatly over the years (amazing what a complete breakdown will do for a person, eh?). Maybe, too, I was using the medium of the world wide web to make people think something that I knew in my heart wasn't entirely correct.

I'm done with that now.

I am what I am, and that's all what I am, or so said Popeye, and I agree with him (although I'd probably use better grammar). I am multi-faceted, I am sometimes bitchy, I can be something of a diva. I'm also deeply compassionate, notably generous, occasionally thoughtful, generally passionate, and certainly intelligent. I'm a lot of things, all at once. I'm very full and well rounded (which is not just a nice way of saying I'm Rubenesque, which, of course I am). I'm very real.

So what.

Yeah, that's why I'm writing this, in fact. So what. Why do I do this? Why do I feel so strongly about flinging open the closet doors of my life and showing the skeletons to the world? Why do I feel the need to publically acknowledge a breakdown, a history of emotional instability (now greatly improved, thankyou), a tendency to be arrogant (I admit it, and struggle with it), and so on? What is it that drives me to publish this stuff?

First, I think I can say for sure that part of the reason I deliberately turn my life into an open book is because of my history in an abusive home. It was made very clear to me that I was never to speak of what went on in our house to anyone outside the family. "Don't air your dirty laundry in public," I was told. And for years I kept to that like the well-trained codependent that I was.

Eventually I found that I couldn't contain my pain and my rage and my outrage any more, and I had to find ways to exorcise it. Many of the ways I used were dysfunctional and even damaging, but publishing my experiences and thoughts was not only healing, it ended up being helpful to others (I know this from the email I've gotten over the years regarding my abuse recovery pages).

Another thing I found was that writing in a public forum actually helped me to define and discover myself. I got to see who I was, reflected in my own writings and through the eyes of others and their reaction to my words. That was both humbling and empowering.

I also find that people like to read what I write. I'm not entirely sure why, and I mean that. But the years of public life (as it were) have assured me that I do write well, and that what I write is worth reading, at least to some. I'm not claiming to be a great poet or some sort of Pulitzer Prize material. I'm just saying that I know that some or even many people like to read my ramblings.

The pen, they say, is mightier than the sword, and I think that's true. And the virtual soapbox may well be mightier than the pen....

That aside, I'm wondering if I publish simply to be read. Partly, I think that's true. I spent a lot of my years on this planet feeling like no one heard me at all (and to some extent it was true; neglect was a big part of my childhood). Feeling like someone's listening (even if no one is) offers some sort of comfort. A message in a bottle, as it were. Here I am, hear me, please!

I don't do this because I'm an egotist. I'm not that egotistical, despite what some people think. I had no self-esteem for years, and thought myself completely worthless. There was a time when I took some sort of pleasure from being "known" and from being liked by total strangers, but I eventually got over that when I realized that if they really knew me, they might not be so willing to want to be my friend.... No, I don't think ego is an issue. I don't really even expect that the majority of people out there in cyberland wouldever want to read this stuff.

I also rather think I have something of value to impart, at least sometimes. I have good insights, gained from years of sweat and difficulty, and I'm willing to share them. Sure, sometimes I just want to bitch and rant, but sometimes I think there's real value in what I have to say. I don't think this is especially egotistical.

A while ago, I made the conscious, deliberate decision to live my life in the open, without any ghosts to come back to haunt me, without any skeletons in my closets to rattle around and disturb me. I decided that if I published my thoughts, my life, my very self, then the ghosts and skeletons would be nearly powerless. If everyone already knows (or can easily find out) that I was once treated for bipolar disorder, no one can come back later and use it as a weapon against me. No one can spring some nasty surprise on me. No one can claim, ever, that I misrepresented myself.

My life is an open book for a lot of reasons. To help others, to offer insights, to entertain (and I can be entertaining when I feel like it), to serve (yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking, but I really do donate time and energy and so forth, and I really do public and volunteer service, so stop it), to amuse myself, to define myself, and to protect myself with a big, bright, glaring light called TRUTH.

I am who I am.

That's what God said to Moses, when Moses asked "What's your name?" (Exodus 3:14) and later Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58).

Well, theological debate aside (and this is not where I try to preach or give a Bible lesson, for that you should visit Shoshanna if you're into that or want to know more about my views on Christianity), I feel pretty much like that. Not to compare myself to God Almighty, but you know, I am who I am, too.

And that's why I do this. Because I am. And because I can.