vasaris: (Default)
It was a ridiculous reaction, but seriously?

"Whales, seagulls and seals, you'll see it all..."

Okay, whales and seals, I get -- they're maybe worth a whale watching trip that I spend $$$ for... but seagulls?

*iz baffled*

I suppose if one was airing that radio commercial inland that'd make sense, but, dude, most of the people listening to this station live within 10 to 15 miles of the coast and seagulls carry no mystery or wonder. They're vicious pigeons of the sea, honestly.
vasaris: (Default)
Dear carrier:

Providing proof that you faxed your entry to someone else -- while demanding to know why I haven't finished already -- is an excellent way to make me giggle.

Thanks for the laughs!

--me

Huh.

Jun. 26th, 2012 10:47 pm
vasaris: (Default)
Today I'm involved in a discussion about sperm donation (yes, I know, how does this kind of thing even come up? Answer [livejournal.com profile] cf_abby_tribute) and one of the things that has come up is the quest of some adoptees and kids of genetic donors to find out more about their genetic donors/families/what-have-you.

It's interesting for a variety of reasons, but the thing that keeps getting me is this idea that a person has the right to know about their genetic relatives and I find myself both sympathetic and baffled by this.

In the case of both genetic donation and blind adoption, the person(s) who gave their genetic material to produce a child have specified that they don't want contact. They give up all rights and responsibilites to the child.

I find it hard to accept the idea that the wishes of the child trump the privacy demanded by the genetic donors. Inasmuch as I can sympathise with the desire for knowledge (after all, I know almost nothing about my father or his family beyond knowing I have much older half siblings and there's mabye some Native American blood in me from my paternal bloodline as well as my maternal... I'd like to know a bit more both about my ancestry and about the people in it) I cannot find it in myself to say the desire of a person to know information they don't need trumps another person's right to privacy.

There's a few reasons for this:
1. There are a lot of reasons to give a child up for adoption. A lot of them are very unpleasant and to no benefit for the child to know. More than that, they are often to no benefit for the person(s) giving the child up to dwell on.

2. Depending on what the person seeking their genetic relatives defines as 'knowing', it's something as small as disruptive to as big as excruciatingly painful for everyone involved. Despite all the 'happily reunited' stories, it's not uncommon for a seeking child to be rejected outright, or to find that they don't like/cannot stand the parent they've sought for. They can be a source of tension that literally destroys the life of the parent they've looked for if the parent either hasn't spoken of their donation/adoption because of reasons in (1).

3. If the right to know trumps the right to privacy, then why should people give children up for adoption or give genetic donations? Thinking through the results of that, I get some nasty answers, when you take it to the extremes: suicide, infanticide, murder. Higher rates of abortion (which, no, I don't count as murder.) More children kept by people who don't want them, and the attendant rise in child abuse and spousal/partner abuse. People (admittedly with money) denied the opportunity to have children because they're not being given up for adoption and because no-one is jacking off in cups. Black Market Babies for the Lose!

I don't know. I mean, I'm not all knowing, all wise, or all seeing, but it seems to me that demanding the identity, the 'knowledge' of genetic donors is just... wrong. I can agree that it's not wholly fair to the children adopted out or so conceived, but life's not fair. Even when you 'know' your genetic family, you're not guaranteed full knowledge of your family history, and I know any number of people who would've been better off if they'd never known their parents.
vasaris: (Default)
What does "per bond-no query" even mean?

I'm thinking that the words bond and query have been transposed, but mostly I'm wondering if Mr. BondJamesBond just has no questions for us today...
vasaris: (Default)
Bored with your date? Try yoga!

Seriously? Not feeling the chemistry? Go bowling! No, seriously, YOGA

It seems to me that you'd get better results admitting that you like setting things on fire, or something.

So, clearly, catchphrase of the day: If your current activity isn't working for you, try yoga.

Sucky Customer? Put your feet behind your head.
Impossible government agency? Twist yourself into a pretzel! (Or more of one, as the case may be. Yes, I'm looking at you, FDA.)

Yoga, the cure for what ails your current activities!
vasaris: (Default)
(Okay, heavily paraphrased. Portions of this conversation may have been hallucinated.)

Shell-san: *heaving sigh* "Okay then. That fucking clusterfuck of a fucking fuck is done!"

Me: That's a whole lot of fucking going on. I hope the clusterfuck brought lube.

Shell-san: No. Fuck.

Me: Damn. That's gotta chafe. Never hold a clusterfuck without lube.

Shell-san: ...

Me: ...

Shell-san: ...I can't believe you just said that.

Me: Me, either.
vasaris: (Default)
AKA, things one never quite expects to see at work. )
vasaris: (Default)


Sadly, a crappy picture, but the little bugger didn't really want to sit still and be admired. Peacocks, not exactly a daily occurrence. O.O

He just came walking up along the sidewalk and off into the parking lot. Shell-san and I were most... distracted by this. And if Shell-san hadn't been going home, we would never have known that he was there.

Perhaps it's a sign. Perhaps of the arrival of the peacockalypse?
vasaris: (Default)
Shell-san: This is going to Herpes Natural Foods.
Me: OMG, what? It's going where?
Shell-san: Herbies Natural Foods...?
Me: *helpless giggles* So not what I heard you say.
Shell-san: Do I want to know?
Me: I dunno, do you want to buy consumables from Herpes Natural Foods?
Shell-san: ...well, herpes is 100% natural.
Me: ...*ack* *cough* *cough* *giggle*
vasaris: (Default)
One of the eternal questions in international trade is 'Are the buyer and seller of these goods related to one another?'

It's a good question -- it helps determine whether or not you can use the primary method of determining the value of a good... the transaction value.

But sometimes it's results in the darnedest things.

Today I saw a note that solemnly informed me that the Royal Canadian Mint is not related to a variety of U. S. companies.

It made me laugh as saying that the Royal Canadian Mint is not related to, say, Dunkin' Donuts, is rather like saying the U. S. Department of the Treasury isn't related to Tim Horton's. Um. Duh?
vasaris: (Default)
This is an amazing clusterbl**p.

Synopsis: A woman is pressured by her husband and in-laws to be a surrogate for her sister-in-law and her sister-in-law's husband. Now six months pregnant, she's highly distressed by the fact that her sister-in-law is now living outside the country with a lover, her sister-in-law's husband has filed for divorce and wants 'nothing to do with the family' (including the child-to-be), and the sister-in-law is refusing to discuss the situation.

There are so many things wrong with this, it's... necessary to share because brain explosions are gentler when multiple people are providing shrapnel and gray matter. Or something.

Remember, ladies, if you agree to be a surrogate, talk to a damn lawyer before you begin gestating lest the sky fall and you be caught in a WTF-trainwreck of doom.
vasaris: (Default)
Am I the only person who encounters weirdly slow web-based training tools?

I mean, I get the ones where they use slow-ish power-point type loads on words and phrases to accomodate for reading speed. But I keep getting the oddest ones where, as far as I can tell, they're just slow for no reason at all. Three year olds could sound-and-reason-out complex sentence structures in the time that they have a given page idle around with random (and completely unnecessary) graphic stuff.

I just think there's something wrong when I have time to get up and fill a glass of water while waiting for a page to load all of it's bells and whistles so I can spend a minute or less reading the contents. There's something just not right with this.

(Note, I'm typing this while I wait for one of these lovely pages to load. Hooray for learning about Air Freight when I work at a truck crossing?)
vasaris: (Default)
It's funny, because I don't believe for a moment that I have wasted any part of my life -- despite the fact that convention would say an unattached, childless woman of my age is intrinsically missing something. I have loved the people I have loved (this means you, [livejournal.com profile] dajagr, [livejournal.com profile] jon_leonard, and all of those from college (the Chrises, the Eric's (and Erik), Randy, and even Ruth, in her way), and you, [livejournal.com profile] chobits00_freya, and our dedicated group (with its paradoxical outliers because Ken is a *bleeping* vortex of geek we all orbit around with vaguely intersecting ellipses), and you, all of you whom I've never met in person but with whom I keep up quietly with, even if I don't comment.

With the exception of personal losses, which -- as expected -- have begun to age to bittersweet melancholy, I have little to grieve over. I have a good job that I enjoy even when I'm threatening to set people on fire with the power of my mind. It's possible that I enjoy it because of the sheer WTF-factor and fire starting tendencies. Threatening to light people, places, things, and ideas on fire is something I both enjoy and squarely blame my education for. No one can spend that much time around engineers without a fine appreciation of blowing sh*t the f*ck up. I am neither dissatisfied nor upset with my single state, and am generally content.

And yet, and yet, and yet.

Overpowering and unexpected grief hits me, and I don't really know why. It can be so overwhelming that Her Serene Imperial Highness, the Grand and Glorious Fuzzy Butt, Bella Purrabella of the Evil Purring Stare that Hints at Demon Posession will sit with me and bat at my hands with her head and paws as if to say "There's nothing to be sad about when I'm here to be molested (and why aren't you molesting me?)"

And I cannot find an answer for myself. It's time of year (I still miss you, Mom, even if I rarely think of Dad's absence) and sometimes just the faintest trickle of memory. Sometimes, it's realizing that for all the "I love you"'s I've spoken I'm not sure I've said them to everyone who deserves them.

So... I do love you guys, even if I don't address you often, or remember to comment -- even if you don't. Even in this limited format, without real contact, you have meaning to me.
vasaris: (Default)
Or, as it goes:

Me: *waves*
Shell-san: Coworker #1
B-san: Coworker #2, in another office

Me: OMG, B-SAN IS SEXY AND HOT
Shell-san: ...what?
Me: B-san scanned everything I would need for this! I ♥ B-san! I don't care what he looks like, he's sexy and hot.
Shell-san: I'm totally telling him you said that. Although, he is cute in a geeky-boy kind of way.
Me: [sternly] He used his brain. By definition, sexy and hot.
Shell-san: *laughs maniacally*
vasaris: (Default)
LOLUSA

Trufax account code.

I are in the US, so... LOL!
vasaris: (Default)
Dear Rail Carrier:

Mr. Einstein's definition of insanity was repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I guess that means you're crazy because you're continually amazed by the idea that your entries aren't done even though you don't send them to us.

Try the not-crazy way, and alert us to your entries in a timely manner. You might be surprised by the fact that we do them when we know about them.

-- Vasaris, the baffled Panda-Dragon

What is with the krazykakes tonight?
vasaris: (buy a clue)
I kind of want to marry State Senator Nina Turner of Ohio. I believe we totally should ensure that the fragile state of male reproductive health should have as many vigorous and prying inquiries made into it as so many State representatives and senators would like to have regulating us poor, weak-minded, foolish-for-thinking-our-bodies-belong-to-us women.

I also want to apologize to all moderate, reasonable, fiscal-conservative, non-asshole Republicans for the fact that this giant bag of offal believes that s/h/it is on your side. I mean, you've got a wide variety of flaming assweasels asserting that every last one of you are bigoted, racist, misogynistic, gay-bi-transgender-queer-despising -- oh, let's be realistic and call it human hatinging in the name of God, mostly, since they come across as 'We hate everyone who is not a member of our specific God-worship, because if it's not our way you're wrong and going to Hell', so, y'know, everyone who isn't them -- jerkface meaniebutts, but I'm fairly certain that's not all Republicans. And this is me, still failing to understand why anyone worships a God that apparently hates everyone in the name of Love. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't mean what these people think it means. *boggle* For that matter, why anyone would assume that God would want people who use him/her as an excuse to hate everyone around them is also pretty baffling, to be honest.

I mean, Liberals have more than their share of assweasels, but What-The-Everloving-Crap is that bumper sticker? Other than grossly offensive, jaw dropping, and likely to turn people's brains off with outrage (or force them offline with an error on their boot disc, because I mostly just wandered around with an 'I... can't parse that' but it took a while to get my mind functional again, what with having to load Windows into safe mode and resetting to a previous save point, and hoping that my backups hadn't been corrupted.)

So... I'm sorry that not only do the shit-flinging jerks make your side look stupid, it's making your side look like it's made entirely of terrifyingly ignorant and bigoted assholes. Seriously, after the Limbaugh thing, it becomes just that much more difficult to take the Right very seriously, because I'm not-so-secretly thinking -- 'Why should I give a damn what a bunch of flamingly ignorant, wildly bigoted, humanity-hating jerks want for any reason?'

If someone is specifically after greater polarization in American Politics, that was surely the way to go.

...Osama bin Laden, is that your spectral laughter I hear?

(And now for a whole new method of terrorism that would certainly work a treat. Why bomb buildings if you can exacerbate the existing tensions enough to cause a country to collapse? o.0;)

*boggles*

Mar. 15th, 2012 09:07 pm
vasaris: (Default)
One of the greatest fears in the business I am in is the loss of files.

Physical files.

That isn't to say that it wouldn't be getting up close and personal with King Kong's Gonads if the digital stuff were to go the way of the dodo, but Customs is very clear on the 'THOU SHALT HAVE REAL PAPER FILES OF EVERYTHING FOR FIVE YEARS (3 in some cases and, like, 90 days for packing lists) UNLESS YOU HAVE TEH SUUUPERSPECIAL PERMISSIONS AND SH*T, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN A WORLD WHERE WE USE LESS PAPER.'

No, we don't get it either. But they're Customs and the Absolute Wrathful God, a being of such strictness that we pray to our intercessors (OH, HAIL THE GRAND AND GLORIOUS YODAS, WE ♥ YOU!) to in the hopes of avoiding smitings. Smitings are baaaaaad.

Anyway, I've been trying to find a file. It's been missing and taunting me with it's absence -- you know, brief phone calls, the occasional text, post-its stuck to my car windows with mocking smilies, that sort of thing. So today, as it's been whispers slow I was determined to figure out where the squirrley little jerk was hiding. I mean, really, post it's on my window? That file totally needs a lesson -- next time it needs to get Alan Rickman to call me and read me the phone book. Heck, I'd settle for Awesome Voice Dude from Sunshine-colored Carrier and a McDonald's menu.

Well, maybe not McDonald's.

*sighs wistfully*

Right. I was talking about my missing file. I searched, telling M-san that I was really confused by the texts and phone calls and post its and she said "Do you mean file X? I've been getting taunting emails. Seriously, where could it be?"

I kept looking, and when I found it, I discovered that Bosslady had put it in disguise! She'd painted it with gobs of dark eyeliner and black lipstick and coached it to look like a Goth hiding in a dark corner. And she'd done this for no discernable reason whatsoever. It was very disturbing, because, dude -- The Awesome and All-Powerful Customs (blessed be it's Saints, the small, big-eared green puppets) -- really frowns on runaway files, raining smites and high-speed bowling balls on those who cannot keep track of their many and profiligate cellulose children.

So, remember folks -- dousing a file in black ink, changing it's name and calling it Shirley is just the road to smiting. Or, at the very least, a note on your desk that says... "Ummmm, WTF?"
vasaris: (Default)
Assholes, please.

Believe it or not -- for all that I'm not impressed by a fair number of the female Republican contingent -- neither I, nor most liberals I know, are actually happy about them being the subject of gender-, sex-, or sexual activity-based slurs. Weirdly, if such are brought to my attention, I object to them.

You know what I find odd? Conservatives complaining that Liberals are allowed to make nasty comments about their female contingent when they don't have the same right.

Thing is: Liberals don't have the same right. What I want to know is, where is the Conservative backlash about such incidents? And don't give me the 'OMG LIBERAL MEDIA' garbage. Locally (and nationally) there are plenty of outlets that would carry the message 'You don't have the right to do that.' There are organizations that would fight on your side (the ACLU is about American civil liberties, and among these is the right to be free of slander). Where is Rush Limbaugh, using the power of his millions of listeners, striking back with 'You can't use that language -- stick to the issues not the stereotypes and gendered name-calling'? Where is the groudswell of outrage on the intarwebs?

I'll tell you where: In the camp that thinks that it's okay to use those words for women, especially women with the potential for power or influence. The really obnoxious aspects male privledge are not confined to Conservative males -- there's heaps of them on the Liberal side, too. A person can believe in social welfare and still have the primitive response that 'women with power are dangerous', believe in equal rights but still have a visceral reaction to the threat of what he considers his rights, and frankly -- no one likes sharing.

The Christian Right which has taken over so much of the Republican Party has no real room for female politicians in their "Conservative Christian" doctrine. They are women who are required to simultaneously be the exemplar of "traditional familiy values" -- including but not limited to bowing to the will of the males in their lives and being content with 'a woman's role' -- while living lives that could not exist without the sexual revolution and the women's movement. And so -- if there is name calling -- the outrage is muted, because a large sector of the Right Wing agrees on a visceral level. The women of the Left aren't a threat to "traditional family values" the way that the women of the Right are.

Women on the Left can be dismissed as women who don't know their place, as women who do what they do because they are in some way moral degenerates, as belonging to some strata of society that's just trying to gain some kind of unwarranted focus (ugly, fat, gay, spinster, or whatever). But women on the Right -- they exemplify the same usurpations of male privledge, and the Right cannot tear them down in the same way... so the Right does not scream as loudly in outrage when some Liberal asshole uses inappropriate language to tear at them. Their women have to endure the mudslinging and the Right gets to say 'You're hypocrites' when the Left complains about Right Wing behavior.

Which, while true, is meant as a distraction from real issues instead of opening a dialogue about how the mud and blood and grime that is allowed to be used against women (I mean, c'mon, you call a politician a 'real bastard' it can be as much a compliment as a denigration. "Slut" has no redeeming features whatsoever.) But we can't have that conversation because it is antithetical to the "Traditional Family Values" Right wing, because if they campaign against the use of such language, they have to admit that it's wrong, that it is wrong to bring sexuality or gender into the political arena, that their Moral Agenda would be crippled by saying 'These things have no place in the governing of our nation.'

And if gender and sexuality have no place in the debate, we'd have to discuss the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental policy and all the things that go with them. Instead of promising "I'll fix all them problems" and handwaving the method (which, yes, the Left is pretty damn bad about, too) everything about governance would be exposed to the open air.

But it's easier to provoke screaming matches about gay marriage, birth control, and abortion. It's easier to say 'You're such hypocrites' instead of saying 'You know, you're right -- and we should screamed louder when our own were attacked this way'. The first is dismissive of the real problem, and the second actually calls the Left on their damned shenanigans. So the very real social issue of how women are treated in society goes on untreated because it becomes a convenient tool and weapon.

So, to every jackass who dismisses what was said to Ms. Fluke with 'You're a bunch of hypocrites', it's nice to know that your problem with the screaming is not that what Mr. Limbaugh said was inappropriate -- it's that he was called on it. All that says about you and similar members of the Right is that you're part of the larger problem of denigrating and deriding women who have the utter gall to have opinions, to express opinions, to gain political and social power outside of your narrowly defined rules, to be confident in themselves and their beliefs without a man to dictate such for them. I'm sure that you -- and the Liberal assholes who do, in fact, share your foxhole in the war against women -- are very happy catching your own women in the "friendly fire."

You suck.
vasaris: (Default)
WTF, Limbaugh.

Okay, I realize that not everyone who I'm friended with is a liberal (I'd call myself a more or less liberal moderate), and I realize that not everyone agrees on things like abortion and birth control, but I can, and will, always take issue with the attitude that because a woman is on birth control pills, it's because she's having sex with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crosses her path.

This attitude ignores the very obvious:
1. Married women use birth control.
2. Women in committed relationships use birth control.
3. Single women who are not promiscuous use birth control.
4. Single women who are do as well, but they're hardly the dominant measure of women in the world.
5. Women with a wide variety of issues with their reproductive systems use birth control to even out their hormone levels and make their lives easier.
6. Women use birth control simply to manage when they *do* have periods.
7. Women use birth control because, let's face it, if you're raped it's far better that you've preemptively taken precautions. Having one less thing to worry about when dealing with a violation doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

Comments about 'I'll buy enough asprin for all the women at Georgetown to hold between their knees' is just disgusting. It is not the sole responsibility of a woman to prevent sexual activity from happening. Leaving out the part that on average, a woman is smaller and physically weaker than a man, and thus more vulnerable to threat of rape -- where is the offer to tie all the boy's flys closed? Hmmm? Oh, that's right, if a man has sex with a woman, it's her fault. If he has sex with a man, it's his fault -- and he's an unholy degenerate for it. But the issue of homosexuality is a bit beyond the scope of this rant.

Why is a single woman on birth control a slut and/or a whore because she's preemptively taking birth control? Why is she at fault if sex occurs? Sure, she can keep her legs shut -- but surely men can keep it in their pants.

Taken in context -- that Ms. Fluke was testifying about a woman who had been denied insurance coverage for medication to treat uterine cancer, which just happens to also be birth control pills -- the whole thing is even more horrifying. She's to be called a slut and a public whore because... she wants insurance coverage for a medication that is prescribed for a wide array issues with the female reproductive system.

And then, of course, there are the other issues -- like insurance will cover Viagra which has (according to Wikipedia) about two uses aside from treating erectile dysfunction. There is little other purpose to Viagra but the having of sex, but a man is not a slut for using it. He's not a whore. He's allowed to have all the drugged up sex he wants, and not be judged for it.

Male privlege, let me show you it.

But historically, insurance has not paid for birth control. It's a moral judgement, not a medical one. The moral (not medical) judgment is that birth control pills exist for sex only and women shouldn't be allowed to have that. Yet, men can have Viagra, which also is also about having sex, but that's okay.

*shakes head*

Insurance will often pay for IVF. It will pay prenatal care. It will pay for birth, and for as many children as a person cares to have. Yet, one of the arguments that I have seen regarding insurance paying for birth control is one of 'Why should I pay higher premiums for you to have sex and not have children.'/'Why should I pay higher premiums for your lifestyle choice?' I really have to counter with 'Why should I pay higher insurance premiums for you to very expensively not have sex in order to have children? Why should they reflect you/your partner's pregnancy (regardless of how it came about)? And then pay higher premiums because the pregnancy and the children will be covered?' After all, having children is also a lifestyle choice. And, honestly, the people with children cost me (as a non-childed single individual with real property) a hell of a lot more in taxes, higher premiums, and all, than the childless woman who is religiously taking her birth control pills and having sex with every man she comes across (well, provided that she's also using a barrier method, because the pill? Isn't really the thing that enables promiscuity... that's condoms).

So, seriously, 'why should I pay for your lifestyle?' -- bite me. When I am excused from every tax levy for schools, when my insurance premiums don't take into account IVF, Viagra, and your kids, only then are you allowed to argue that you don't need to pay for 'other people's lifestyles. (Note: I don't have a problem with my property taxes paying for schools, nor -- with the exception of IVF, because I have issues with IVF in general -- do I care about overall insurance premiums reflecting services I never intend to use, but I will *not* accept an argument about 'paying for other people's lifestyles' from people who are subsidized by society and do not acknowledge it.)

It's a bizarre argument and not one that sways me much.

Especially as, given the even more divisive issue of abortion, ready access to birth control is the single most rational place for pro- and anti- abortion to meet.

Calling women sluts, shaming them for daring to have sex (or seek pleasure with their partners), denying them access to a medication that can be lifesaving for a moral judgement that is not levied on men, raging against their right to access to said medication for hypocritical reasons -- none of this moves me.

I understand that many people are passionate about the subject; I understand that they believe -- as deeply and fully as I do -- in things that I find illogical, fallacious, and often morally reprehensible; I know that not all people will agree with me, nor do I believe that all people should.

But the difference is: I don't wage war on men to deny them access to Viagra because, dude, it's just sex. I do not wage war on the childless and infertile to deny them access to IVF because dude, adopt or maybe God is trying to tell you something. I do not wage war against childed people, trying to refuse them acess to my tax monies (for education or social services) because, wow, did you even consider if you could afford that mouth before creating it?

I let these people have their lives without trying to cause them harm. I do not (or possibly cannot) understand how people like Mr. Limbaugh can wage war on women for the trivial reason of sex, especially when birth control pills are so often used for reasons other than birth control.

ETA: For the purposes of this rant, 'birth control' = 'hormonal birth control, generally in the form of pills', although I doubt that Limbaugh and those like him would react any differently to any form of birth control being covered by insurance... except abstinence. *considers how one even attempts to cover absinence in health insurance*

March 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910111213 1415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 04:15 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios