That is, which institution sets the political agenda to which most other institutions cater?

What can I say? My inner geek got the best of me. As I sit before my laptop, my house filled with boxes after moving into my new home a day or so ago, I only now have realized that there were far too many John Kerry threads, and my atrocious thread only added fuel to the ongoing fire.

I am humbly sorry to all whom it offended.

John Kerry and Treebeard are, certainly, not alike. In fact, there are a few glaring differences between the two:

- First, John Kerry is a tall, lanky human being. On the contrary, Treebeard is a tall, lanky member of the Ent clan of the Fangorn Forest, encased around the River Entwash.

- John Kerry is a wounded Vietnam Veteran and a recipient of the Purple Heart after bravely enduring gunfire while captaining a Swift Boat. Treebeard, on the other hand, awakened the Huorns who decimated an entire army of orcs during the Battle of Helms Deep.

- John Kerry has an intelligent, well-traveled wife. Treebeard, unfortunately, lost his wife along with the other Ent Wives after they crossed the River Anduin in search of better fruit pastures during the First Age of Middle Earth.

- John Kerry is known as a nuanced speaker who parses his thoughts carefully. Treebeard, on the other hand, spoke Entish, and anything spoken in Entish is only worth spoken when one takes the time to speak it.

- And certainly, they look nothing alike:


This is John Kerry


This is Treebeard


Again, my humblest apologies to everyone I offended. I will be more careful in my comparisons next time.

Sincerely,

~Writer the Geeklette~

I'm going to rant about categories for a moment, although I think it's silly to have to justify writing about what everyone practices daily. Categories surround us: young, old, wealthy, poor, black, white, Republican, Democrat, and everything in between. I think it's the test of one's sense of security to know that while labels exist, more likely than not the label doesn't fully adhere to all people within that category. A secure person, I believe, feels comfortable with understanding that labels are only meant to classify, not to characterize one personally. (Nosce te ipsum KNOW THYSELF!)

Generational categories present a new challenge. During the 1960's, the counter-culturalists leaned on the phrase of "never trusting anyone over 30," and if there isn't a greater generational war-cry from the Twentieth Century, then I have yet to be enlightened. The Baby Boomers who designed the counter-cultural movement fought against institutional constraints to personal habits - youthful habits that they, in their teens and twenties, wanted to explore without cultural restraint: personal expression through dress, music, and (at times) drug use. They wanted that journey of self-discovery without reprisal from Mom and Dad, and forging that path they did, through protest and song.

Counter-culturalists also fought against war and for civil rights - a branch of their youthful journey that introduced positive changes to American society. While not unique in American history, the sheer size of the young generation in the 1960's caused greater waves than normal. It was hard to ignore the large, vocal Baby Boomer youth.

As Boomers aged, started businesses and families, they naturally started trusting people over 30. However, they quickly traded their youthful adage for the more protective "never trust anyone UNDER 30." The now late George Carlin, a specialist in deconstructing uncomfortable truths, summed it up best:

"These people were given everything. Everything was handed to them. And they took it all, took it all: sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. And they stayed loaded for 20 years and had a free ride. But now they're staring down the barrel of middle-age burnout and they don't like it. They don't like. So they turn self-righteous and they want to make things hard on younger people.

They tell them abstain from sex, say no to drugs. As for the rock'n'roll, they sold that for television commercials a long time ago so they could buy pasta machines and Stair Masters and soybean futures. Soybean futures!"

So who were the youth being told to "just say no" to everything the Boomers indulged in twenty years prior? Generation X. The smaller, less coddled cohort born in the 1960's and 1970's came of age just as Boomers started driving Volvo's adorned with "Baby on Board" stickers. The most aborted generation (Roe v. Wade became law in 1973), the generation of "The Exorcist," "Damian," and "Rosemary's Baby" - the "afterthoughts" following the rash of births twenty years prior - didn't garner the same "welcome to the world" wonderment of their older peers. Nor did they feel that the world was a welcoming place giving the sudden rise of AIDS, corporate layoffs, and political corruption.

The death of innocence began on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, and never seemed to resurrect itself during the lives of Generation X'ers. Vietnam, Nixon, 1970's stagflation, layoffs, Reagan's homage to the Soviet Union as "the evil empire," the Iran-Contra scandal, the 1987 stockmarket crash, more layoffs, finally culminating into the only bright spot of Generation X's youth: the dot com boom which ended in its inevitable bust at the turn of the Millennium.

To say Generation X'ers are jaded is an understatement. They've never felt that this world was theirs, and they've never felt they've had a place in it. Their collective historical experiences developed a survivalist mindset that shuns basic institutional identities. Political protest not only seemed futile but superfluous, when the goal for the twenty-something Generation X'er was merely to survive: to maintain work and to pay one's rent. The pretense of taking on identities was an exercise in banality.

At work, Generation X didn't care about climbing the corporate ladder as much as finding meaning in their daily life. Titles fell way to production, and for this reason, Generation X is likely one of the most entrepreneurial generations in American history. However work never supplanted a good personal life, and they demanded that workplaces offer them a greater work-life balance, which they still hold onto today. Would it mean that they won't get that promotion? Yes, but who cares? "Just stay out of my way, and I'll get my work done," says the Gen X worker. "Don't bother me with too many meetings, meaningless corporate slogans, and organizational BS. I'm here to work, not buy into what you're selling." Workplaces grew more casual. More companies offered flexible work schedules and time off for family events. And Gen X'ers kept working while Boomers kept climbing, acquiring more capital and raising their children. Gen X'ers are now catching up as Boomers retire, but their retirement savings are now in desperate need for attention.

Barack Obama, born in 1961, was too young to remember Kennedy's assassination in 1963. He was only a child during the Vietnam War and was a preteen as Nixon resigned. He never knew the Halcyon days of post-war America. He never experienced Elvis personally or danced at Woodstock. Barack Obama is himself a Gen X'er - a product of that jaded era who clucks sardonically at the latest exposure of institutional BS. Someone who doesn't see much point in playing the standard identity politics that so defined 1960's counter-culture youth. In his book "Dreams from My Father," he reflects on his skepticism during college as he protested South African apartheid, wondering if the protest was merely another example of the "psycho-drama of the Baby Boomer era," that posits institutionals on one side and anti-institutionals on the other.

Generation X'ers seek to ignore that dichotomy, finding it useless. A person's actions mean much more than a person's party, and to Barack Obama, solving a problem will require EVERYONE, both Republicans and Democrats. Much of this mentality fuels the underpinning message of his campaign for "change." A change in strategy, of problem-solving over partisanship, and most importantly, a change of the generation in charge.

My humble appeal in this missive is to Baby Boomers: Please give Generation X its due. Barack Obama is not a Baby Boomer. If we are going to herald the day of a "new generation of leadership," at least hand the mantle over to that new generation, as uncomfortable as one might be with giving the "slackers" of the 1980's and 1990's such a title. He will not approach running the country in the manner in which you're used to; he won't act like a partisan. In fact, he's not going to give a damn about towing the party line. He simply sees problems that need solving and will act to solve them. That is the product of a Generation X'ers historical experience, and it is important and necessary to righting what's wrong with this nation.

Barack Obama will likely be our first Generation X president. And it's about time we start fixing the messes of the Twentieth Century with a Twenty-First Century attitude, fist-bumps and all.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees this: We're telling each other that the sexism or racism that we see in this primary is a figment of each others' imaginations, while claiming that the sexism or the racism we each identify is incontrovertible. In essence, we're arguing over whether women or African-Americans have it worse in this nation. However, we've exchanged so much rhetoric over this that I think that we're no longer dealing rawly with sexism or racism; I think we're dealing with power politics. In Democratic politics specifically, an -ism carries a certain kind of weight. Of power. When one accuses another person of sexism or racism, with that comes the Scarlet Letter, whether that be an "S" or an "R." That places the person accused in a politically damaged situation over which he or she must now reason why the charge is false. If he or she cannot debunk the accusation, the accuser gains the moral high ground, and in liberal circles, that's gold.

So are we arguing about "Who has it worse?" or are we arguing over "Who has the power?" Sexism and racism abound in this primary. They were inevitable given its historical nature. So the goal for some is to make sure that one -ism takes precedence over the other -ism in our political discourse, because from that we acquire political capital. The capital to say, "We deserve it more" and "they deserve it less" on moral grounds. I think much of this is natural, so I don't think I can make a value judgment about this behavior, but I do see it daily in our discussions and arguments. I do wish, however, that we'd identify it for what it is: power politics.

As if we must yet again rehash another herald back to the 1960's, our faces slapped down yet again in the mud of Woodstock, Timothy Leary and the moon landing. Haven't we had enough of yet another trip down Boomer lane to yet again explain a current phenomenon?

Obama is Obama, and if Obama represents change, then CHANGE we must embrace. Of a newcomer to the political scene who will bring with him his own brand of politics begotten from his own historical perspective. Let's stop this nonsense of having to reach back to yet another archetype of the 1960's in order to explain him, because it's farcical. Consider this: JFK WASN'T JFK. He was in office for no more than two and a half years before his assassination, and we never got a full whiff of what Camelot meant to America. We only witnessed the halcyon days of his early presidency, and ever since we've crafted this romanticized homage to what JFK felt like. And even that was arguably mixed: the Bay of Pigs disaster followed by the more deftly handled Cuban Missile Crisis. Adultery with Marilyn Monroe followed by the Moon project. Was he truly great, or truly a great image? We'll never know.

If we really want change we need to divorce ourselves of this need to paint him like someone else. He needs to stand on his own - on his own principles - and deliver for us what he claims he will. Change. The dawn of a new generation of leadership. Not an aberration of the past.

Let Obama be Obama.

So... it looks like we may have a victor here. It's not finalized, as Clinton is letting this go until the last vote is cast, but her very narrow win in Indiana indicated to me that finally the "front runner" momentum has caught up with Obama, so Clinton no longer will be able to win contests.

That said, I've learned much more about the American people than I have about the candidates this election season. One of the thoughts I've had repeatedly is that I think we've replaced irrational fear with irrational exuberance, which is understandable but no more healthy a condition than after the Terror Attacks. It's understandable given that we've endured eight years of malaise under an emotionally abusive government. I remember well the first few days following the 2004 Presidential election. I was shocked and felt helpless to yet more chain-jerking by the Bush White House. They manipulate in order to solidify power, and many of us had enough by then. America's added insult of being denied a change in leadership in 2004 only guaranteed the political calls for "change" and the feel-good rhetoric of "hope" that we see today.

The answer to an excessive power grab by a state's leaders is populism. It's a natural swing from the conservative movement started in 1980 when Reagan took the White House. During this swing, we've faced business deregulation, the watering down of collective bargaining and labor power, a dramatic widening in the gap separating the wealthiest and the poorest, meager to virtually non-existent environmental protections, the erosion of the middle class, the liquidation of government services, layoffs as the business solution instead of belt-tightening and CEO accountability, the weakening of women's rights, and the replacement of merit with ego as the means of acquiring power in business and politics. Style has trumped substance.

For Democrats angry with Bill Clinton's "Republican" presidency, this is the reason for their discontent. Even a Democrat elected during this era, such as Bill Clinton, would espouse more conservative values, making these political swings less attributive to the party in power than to the mood of the public. As we climb out of this cesspool into what may likely be an era brought by a swing to the left, I do not believe that this swing will be successful unless the developments of the conservative era aren't directly addressed, mainly issues of labor and corporate layoffs. The changes must not be cursory but fundamental adjustments in how we understand the relationships between businesses and workers.

Somewhere, somehow, many in America came to democratize capitalism during the conservative era, believing that acquiring capital is a right. It is not. Capitalism is something earned, not acquired, and how quickly we have replaced the concept of "good business" with "selfish interests" and protectionism. During the last liberal era, from the days of FDR to the days Jimmy Carter, taxes on the wealthy ranged anywhere from 50 to 80%. The belief then was to maintain as narrow gap as possible between the wealthiest and poorest Americans in order to strengthen spending power in the lower classes and, believe it or not, protect the success of our capitalist lifestyle. For this reason, a strong middle class arose and sustained itself until the deregulatory era raised its ugly head.

For the incoming Democratic presidency (I am one to believe John McCain has no shot whatsoever), we must pour substance into the rhetoric of "change." If indeed we wish to see true change in how our government does business, then the new Democratic administration must - in the most profound way - improve the life of the American worker. Without doing so, this concept of change will crumble, and the Democratic Party's power with it. After flying high on idealistic concepts we must come back down to earth and get to work. Work for the worker is no effort wasted.

~Writer~

To say that she, as the First Lady, just sat around the White House decorating and attending luncheons is despicable.

If Senator Clinton does not gain the nomination, I think in a year or more we are going to look back at the gender politics surrounding her campaign with a very regretful eye, especially when measuring that against the racial politics surrounding Obama's campaign. Are we ready for a black president? YES. Are we ready for a female president? NO.

This entire primary has been a nauseating crash course on identity politics - identity politics that have fomented homophony to the point where I don't think we can even identify true examples of racism and sexism in this race anymore.

And women? After feeling my stomach churn when watching promos for NBC's "Lipstick Jungle," a few thoughts came to mind about modern concepts of feminism. During Hillary Clinton's 20's and 30's, feminism meant achieving an equal standing with men in the public sphere. It meant that womens' ideas should be respected on the same level as mens' ideas. However, men do not respond to womens' minds as much as they respond to womens' sexualities, and over the last few decades young women entering the workforce began to equate power in the workplace with their own sexual power: something a few sociologists have labeled "lipstick feminism." "Sex and the City," "Desperate Housewives," and the like all explore these themes. It's like Dynasty redone for the corporate world. A woman gets ahead not only by being smart, but also by turning her managers' heads... but never put out. Nope. You're only supposed to use men. After all, they're using you too, right? (Damn those men. Who needs 'em?)

So does sexism surrounding Clinton's campaign derive from men? Hardly. I think it derives from women. Hillary Clinton isn't sexy enough, it seems. She's not willing to hunch over and show a little skin while discussing health care reform. She's a dyspeptic relic. If only she sported a pair of Manolo's, and rolled her eyes a bit more at her philandering husband, would she ever win over the modern feminist. But for now, we'll just wad up this brilliant and capable woman and toss her in the trash. After all, Obama's much better looking, isn't he?

I think we're ludicrous. I think the way we talk to one another is ludicrous. There's no exchange of ideas - only a gigantic pissing contest and each day we are subject to the smell of everyone else's ammonia. The Enlightenment has totally failed. People cannot govern themselves, and the more we flap our lips about relative trivialities (oh - wouldn't it be great if the Sudanese could ruminate over whether a candidate may have fabricated a memory instead of, say, whether they will be able to EAT TOMORROW!!!) the more I believe we ought to hang it up and dredge up some watered down descendant of King George and reestablish the monarchy. There. Now our collective bullshit can reduce to a factor of one. A monarchy. A blessed, tyrannical, yet discursively whole monarchy.

After all of this talk about a "movement" ("Yup, it's a movement all right," I tend to utter to myself) I wonder if we even understand what the fuck the term means. Yet with a monarchy we'll be able to politicize old-school. A kick in the pants to reacquaint ourselves with what "overthrowing 'The Man'" (or, oh heavens, 'The Woman') really means. A truly incorrigible asshole-in-charge for us to collectively hate. And hate we will as our running about with signs that read "Change" and "Help Make History" would actually have some type of profound meaning.

So go ahead, toss your spitballs and ammonia-soiled invectives my way. Maybe this whole thing worked "way back when," but now all I see are too many people who think they're all too fucking important.

So there! Poo!


~Writer the Truly Cantankerous~

He carries such a strong image. Such strong charisma. However, I notice his momentary leaks of pettiness. For one, that snide remark about Hillary Clinton being "nice enough" at the New Hampshire debate a couple of weeks ago. And this handshake issue that, although I know that Claire McCaskill was asking him a question, did seem petty in nature. I say this because if I were standing in his shoes, and my opponent were approaching me, my instinct would be to hold off on McCaskill so I could shake her hand. After all, she was right next to him.

Also, Obama's attacks today carry within them a need to not just win, but to destroy. His body language in every debate conveys someone who simply does not like her. I don't know how Hillary feels about Barack - maybe she doesn't like him, either - but there appears to be a mean-spiritedness hiding beneath his glossy exterior.

I also considered that Obama is only 46 years-old and that he is, in fact, a junior senator from Illinois (I know he was in state politics before that, too). Hillary is also a junior senator from New York, but she also has about 15 years more wisdom than Barack in the area of politics and public policy. If I were 46, only in the first term of my senatorial career, I would think a bit before taking on the challenge of acquiring the highest office in the land. Not that it's never been tried before, but it takes a sort of uber-confidence to truly believe that you are a) the right person to become president, and b) able to successfully compete for the presidency being relatively young and not having held a governorship or some higher form of office.

I can't put my finger on it - but something's not right here. Don't get me wrong, I think any of the Democratic candidates will do well in the office, but I feel that, every day, I'm seeing a bit more of Obama's soul emerge. I don't think he's all bad, but he's certainly not the glossy image he portrays himself as. The petty behavior does bother me. I don't like it. His and Hillary's platforms are so similar, that I can't help but study the person himself. And every day I question this phenomenon. It doesn't seem real, and I am wary.


Just some thoughts.

~Writer, the Undecided, but now leaning toward Clinton~

BTW: I wanted to add, because I understand the nature of GDP, that a few of you will toss out rude insults. Trust me, the more insults I read, the more firm in my beliefs I will be. It does you nor your candidates any good.

WASHINGTON, DC (Writers) - After several weeks of dissecting news articles and performing thorough internet research, researchers at the Democratic Progress Institute have concluded that pure evil has intruded into the Democratic Primary and an exorcism is needed.

"I'm astounded by the results," Dr. Horace Schwing, head researcher at the DPI, said. "It appears that Democrats consider every candidate in their party's nomination process to be purely evil."

Schwing and his fellow researchers analyzed the statements of several hundred active Democrats over a six month period from both major periodicals and liberal news sites. They took tallies of various labels from the purely negative "eats babies" to the much milder "yanks on dog chains." They then weighted the tallies and applied them to a 10-point "evilness scale."

None of the candidates rated lower than a 9.9 out of a possible 10.

"'Racist,''Sexist,''Homophobe' - they all rate high," said Schwing. "Then there the more severe labels, such as 'the Son or Daughter of Satan,' and 'Kitten Slayer.' All of them are also disturbingly high."

Schwing suggests that the Democratic Party immediately contact the Catholic Parish in Denver to set-up an exorcism for this August's Democratic Party Convention in the city.

"We're working on it. We're working on it," DNC Chairman Howard Dean said. "It's going to take a little bit of extra cash, a lot of candles, and a few priests, but we're working on it. We can't formalize the nomination process without getting rid of the evil mojo."

Father Chico Toca of the Denver Diocese believes the evil formed after two gusts of hot air circulated somewhere above South Carolina. "I've never seen anything like it in my 27 years in the priesthood. It's the Perfect Storm of Eeeevvil."

None of the top three Democratic candidates could be reached for comment. Chairman Dean hopes to have the exorcism proceedings ready for the third day of the convention.

"We recommend all delegates arrive with a crucifix that day," he said. "If you don't have one we'll hand them out at the door. Everyone needs to be prepared."

- 30 -

And it's because no one knows how to talk to one another anymore. It's like banging two bricks against my head each time I read a thread. The patterns of insults, rants, name-calling, and other puerile exchanges have grown predictable and stale. I'm left thirsty for a bit of intellectual stimulation. It's like watching WWF wrestling, waiting for a meaningful, unscripted contest. After Hulk Hogan pins Rowdy Roddy Piper to the ground for the umpteenth time, that little voice in my head screams, "Learn how to TALK to one another, for God's sake! You bore me. Find a new tactic, would ya?"

If GD/GDP were visual, I imagine a pictorial exchange of curled tongues protruding from lips, butt shots (my humblest apologies to GoPsUx), and the periodic snarky titty. Yes, you guessed it, it's a Twenty-First Century Benny Hill for the Internet. We continue this pattern of droll behavior as if people never change. As if we'll always find our discourse stuck between Romper Room and Pee Wee's Playhouse instead of attempting something, oh, a bit more enlightened.

So... is this it, folks? Is this all we can offer each other? I cry for a little stimulus. Spare a little, Mister, please!

I can't even find the fire-burning passion for a good flame war anymore. It's just so fucking boring. When I see a bit of smoke, I can only roll my eyes. "Here we go. Insult number one," I think. It's simply meaningless. As if water will dilute oil somehow, the argument never reaches transcendence, and I start searching for my copy of Kant. We're all people, after all, and I embrace the difference of opinion. After a few rounds of snippage, I find myself hugging the lactivists, Olive Garden aficionados, the guys that like foreskins, and other tiger pit opponents. Why, I ask, why?

So, hey, look, GD and GDP, I'm not learning anything from you, all right? I'm bored. Like, pluckmyhairoutonebyone bored. Just a little enlightened speech, would you mind, please? I think it will do all of us a bit of good.


~Writer, Dousing Herself with Gasoline as you read this~

To: DemocraticUnderground.com

From: The Media.

Date: Monday, January 14, 2008

RE: RECENT AGENDA SETTING MEETING


Our meeting yesterday evening at Gallagher's in New York City went well. Katie Couric couldn't take the smoke, but we all had a nice chat while sawing into succulent round steak, washing it down with a lovely Cabernet that Chris Matthews suggested.

We were all present, and when I say "we" I mean The Media. All of us. We gather together weekly at either Black Rock, 30 Rock, or at the rock twenty paces into Central Park from 59th Street, and plan the themes of the week. Like how many minutes are we going to afford Britney Spears' latest drama, and should we cover that with a liberal or a conservative skew? I assure you, our weekly planning meetings make our jobs much easier. Why waste time reporting when we can gather our collective brilliance and devise a game plan for you, the impressionable American news users?

But it's political season, so we decided on a change in venue. "Steaks!" suggested Maureen Dowd, so up the road we walked, discussing on our route how to suppress discussion of John Edwards. And there we were: a gaggle of "media people," filing into the restaurant. We spilled out of the door, our energetic caucus chattering on.

"Let's make Obama the race candidate!" shouted Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press.

"Brilliant!" a few BBC radio journalists answered.

Little Kelly O'Donnell of NBC managed to toss out a great suggestion: "Hillary's been skewered too many times - I think it's time we reveal her softer side!" We shouted our approval.

It's really quite fascinating how this works. We gather. We discuss. We decide. But I never see political blogs and news sites. No buzzflash or GOPUSA or rawstory. They never want to join us, and it's rather vexing. Here we are setting the political agenda for the nation, while they are actually covering news WITH a political agenda! We miss the good old days when politics meant commentary. When Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather meant that everyone gathered together and listened to the same story. Now it's every person out for him or herself. There are 300 million people in this nation. Perhaps... one day... we'll have 300 million custom-tailored news sources, and everyone will be happy. THEN what would we do?

American people aren't very tough nuts to crack. We always manage to reach the conservatives, and many of those who have conveniently categorized themselves as "independents." But the liberals? They're the hardest nuts of all! They always seem to "get it." There's little we can do in the way of pulling the wool over their eyes. They don't only have access to the truth - heck - they OWN the truth!

But I want to assure you that we have your best interests in mind - indeed! So be ready for some new news angles - a new flavor for your morning coffee as you read the paper. Those steaks filled our bellies and the wine cheered our palate.

If you only - only - knew what we have in store for you.


Best,

The Media. Yes, everyone.

Gentle Readers*,

Do not ponder much on my grandiloquence, but I must contend that I - WRITER - believe that the shortcomings of humans are beset by the lexicographically challenged and the petulant behaviors of the many dilettantes housed within this prosaic little online community. From this, glean nothing more than what the vulgarity of human yokelishness means to you - you tyros of the written word, you puckish, enervated posters who do nothing more than type platitudes about your banal lives.

And it is you - YOU! - who I detest. I, the misanthropic WRITER who waits patiently for the moment she can excoriate the plebes for being such, well, plebes!

So continue your soporific lives. I will only scoff at thee. For I am WRITER, and my verisimilitude cannot be questioned.

Signed,

WRITER THE MAGNIFICENT








* Written WITHOUT the use of a thesaurus... except for the word "yokelishness." I made that one up.

Do the media, comprised of many mediums, work in unison in order to promote a particular viewpoint?

If yes, please explain how all members of the media decide on the viewpoints that they wish to air.

If no, then please explain why they don't.

If other, please explain your alternative reasoning.


~Writer~

So I'm seated before the therapist today crying my eyes out over issues that are my own, never ceasing to believe that I truly do not have much reason to feel the pain I feel, because I am white and attractive and smart and can eat and have a roof over my head, believing still that the world contains little sympathy for someone who feels the way I feel in my current circumstances, that the only way I can gain such sympathy is if I were to drink heavily or do drugs or be the typical "case" one would find in a psychology 101 book, watching people excoriate attractive celebrities who have problems as if those celebrities checked in their humanity before they walked in front of a camera, watching others who make destructive decisions in their lives earn an arm around their shoulder and a type of fan worship, while I sit alone, very alone, wondering if anyone can relate to me, the attractive white thing with no real treatable problem but only the hidden scars I wear within me, hidden by years of aggressive pursuits of self-efficacy, of minor successes and of running away from psychological abuse that has told me that I am never worthy of love, affection, or joy, the great trap of misperception, and my conscious understanding that the only way I can overcome those scars is to mask them and move on, as if I never earned them, as person after person sees only the Pollyanna but never the person, and so now I sit here writing all of this in a public bulletin board site, knowing like hell that it will neither do me nor anyone reading this any good as no one would fucking understand, and at this point it is so useless to get into the details, but regardless I just feel pain pain pain and anger that I cannot have a simple discussion over what ails me because all of the scars are old yet hurtful, and any professional sees the outer package and all I have survived and fails to address the fact that deep down I hurt so fucking much and goddamn it I would like my feelings to matter, too!

And that is my rant. Fuck on, brothers and sisters!

~Writer~