Did a Football Player Really Check/Tackle Trump? NO. Here’s Why.

Flying about the internets is an animated GIF of what appears to be a big football player in football gear “check” (ram into someone and knock them over) Donald Trump after exiting a tour bus, so that he falls backwards onto the bus.

Actually, it is an edited clip from a commercial for Terry Tate, which you can find below in full. Terry Tate is a character from a series of short comedy commercials called, “Terry Tate: Office Linebacker” created by Rawson Marshall Thurber. The first commercial was shown during the 2003 Superbowl, and several others were produced thereafter. The character was brought out of ‘retirement’ to make a commercial to encourage voting in the 2016 US election, shown below in its entirety (or linked directly here).

TW: The dialogue of the actual commercial below includes Trumps infamous “grab them” audio.

Did 4-Star Gen Petraeus Resign Over Classified Emails? NO. Here’s Why.

Making the rounds in my circles is a seeming disconnect between how Hillary Clinton’s classified-email scandal goes unchecked, while Four-star general of the United States David Petraeus is forced to resign due to leaking classified details in email:


(direct link)

Compare and Contrast

This is General Petraeus. Take a moment and consider his outstanding array of honors, medals & accomplishments. His crime? A classified email that was supposedly leaked. Result? He was prosecuted and forced to RESIGN.

Now consider Hillary Clinton. A Secretary of State with her own illegal private server, 30,000 + emails, (erased) with numerous CLASSIFIED Top Secret & beyond! Result? Yet to be determined. After all she’s a Democrat & just happens to be running for President of the United States..

Firstly, Patreus retired from the US military in 2011 as a 4-star General. The controversy that this meme attempts to reference is actually after that retirement, when Petraeus was the CIA director, and is actually concerning an extramarital affair Petraeus had with the writer of his biography, to whom he leaked a classified detail (and subsequently plead to 1 count of misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, without a plea deal). The affair itself is the reason Petraeus resigned from the CIA director position, not the mishandling of the information. Email was involved in the affair, but no source I can find suggests the classified information was transmitted via email — but rather, the racy nature of the correspondence was the issue.

A consideration of being demoted of his retirement-rank was passed along to authorities, but were ignored, and no such demotion or loss of awards/honors thereof were made.

Student Debt Solution: Govt EDU Bank Bonds, At-Cost to Student

In a Facebook discussion about student debt forgiveness, I wondered if, instead of the US government just forgiving debt of student loans, and instead of the students just getting out of paying their loans, and instead of banks getting absurd profits from students, what if the government issued a special kind of education bond, payable to the bank at the end of the borrowed-sum repayment?

1. Student applies for ‘education bond’ to pay for college and with enrollment proof/etc.

2. Bank pays the money required for college to the college, and files the borrowed-amount sum to the government.

3. Student pays bank only the borrowed-sum amount, no interest, gradually to actual borrowed total.

4. Student files with government that borrowed total is completely paid. Student and bank could perhaps get tax incentive for being in a education-bond contract.

5. Bank receives government request for acknowledgement that loan is paid.

6. Bank agrees, and government gives bank the bond amount’s interest (interest only, not borrowed sum) contingent that loan requirements are ended.

Funding for the interest-only payment from government to bank could come from programs like state lotteries, or continuation of the student tax incentives from Step 4 by the student paying back the government via itemized deductions.

Colleges could be taxed or penalized for not offering/accepting the bonds, or given tax-incentives for fundraising for the program via fraternity/sorority volunteering (with a nationwide competition for fundraising for the program) that could draw huge publicity to the college.

Could help create a new educational sector of banking jobs that focus only on these bonds, as safer investment opportunity for investors.

Other brainstorming ideas, or variations? Please add in the comments below (no registration required) =)

Eugenia Cooney: Does She Need Help? No. She Has Enough Help.

I am a fan of Eugenia Cooney, and I don’t think she needs any advice to seek medical treatment — she has no shortage of it; why add more?

Everyone and their cousin, who got their medical degrees from a crackerjack box, have advised Eugenia to seek medical treatment for everything under the sun, usually anorexia. Every instagram post she makes nowadays is often loaded down with “eat a hamburger” or “get treatment” kinds of advice.

She has plenty of people, who have a license to practice instagram medicine, telling her she needs help. What she does not need, for certain, is another such person to chime in with such advice.

At this point, as best as can be told, she’s fine. She states repeatedly on YouNow that she’s fine, and as far as I’m concerned, she fine. In fact, here is a ten-minute audio supercut I made of one of her YouNow broadcasts, in which she answers questions concerning her health. If you don’t think she’s fine, what are you going to do? Oh surely, she’ll listen to you. Because it’s your advice everyone’s been waiting on. How many people does it take, repeating the same tired, unoriginal, mantra to seek help, before someone seeks it — when there is not even a problem?

Here’s the breakdown of my position:
1. If there’s something really wrong, she doesn’t owe it to us to tell us, because your own health is your business and nobody else’s. There’s a reason medical records are sealed documents that require signature authorization to access — it’s private. If she wants to keep anything private, she’s not covering it up, because it’s supposed to be covered up. It’s none of our business. The uncovering of it is what is not supposed to happen — by law!

2. To say that she needs help, to me, is to assume that she does not have an untreatable condition. On the off-chance that she may have a terminal illness for which there is no help, and for which her appearance is normal within that context, reminding her to seek help could actually continually remind her of the help she could not actually get. If it’s genetic, then there’s not really much that could be done. Take for example another YouTuber named Lizzie Velasquez, who is a motivational speaker and anti-bullying activist who has had to defend herself for much of her life about her condition — a condition which inhibits accumulation of body mass.

For all we know, Eugenia may have something similar, or some other terminal condition for which there is no known treatment, and she could be living out her days pursuing her dream of being a YouTube star.. but those telling her to get help are getting lost in the mix of haters telling her to go eat a hamburger. Again, whether she wishes to tell us about any health condition, is up to her, but so far, she insists she’s fine, and that’s good enough for me. If there even is something, whatever. If there’s not something, whatever.

3. Calling her beautiful does not reinforce an eating disorder (if there even is one), because (a) she’s an adult and not some kid who doesn’t know any better, and (b) the words of the speaker mean what the speaker means. To say that calling her beautiful is harmful, is taking the side of the creeps who says the way a woman must surely be advertising the oldest profession by the way a woman dresses. Whether a woman wears a certain kind of shirt because she wants to show off her assets, or because it’s hot outside, is her interpretation alone to make. If you shout NO to an assailant, is the assailant allowed to interpret it how they wish? If no means no, then my “beautiful” is not harmful.

4. She does see doctors. Just before her trip to LA from the northeast, she had an injury to a finger and it was in a splint for a few videos. She goes to doctors. She does seek treatment for things. You know good and well that any doctor worth the TP their degree is printed on would have brought it up. Doctors take into context all kinds of bodily issues that could affect one small injury, and address those things in the treatment of the one thing you’re there to see them for. And if any those doctors fail her, surely she can turn to the teeming swarms of iPhone warriors ready to dish out a diagnosis. Maybe the reason she’s even in LA is because there is a specialist there.

Regardless of her reasoning, Eugenia owes it to zero persons to explain anything about her health. I’m a fan. If she suddenly swells up like Marjorie Dursley from Harry Potter and floats up into the sky, I’m still a fan. It’s who she is, how she handles adversity, her general spirit and approach to life that I find beautiful, and that’s what I mean by it. If she tells us later on that she did have an ED, then my words still mean the same thing. But as far as I’m concerned, if she says she’s fine, then she’s fine, and that’s all there is to it.

List of Short Poems from “Dear John And Hank” Podcast

I was looking for a particular poem (from ep.50) and couldn’t find an exhaustive list so I figured I’d make one myself, although to be honest I did glompf the first 29 from this tumblr post (and ‘sonetexas’ in the disqus comments is me).

Episode 01 : Langston Hughes – Quote/Poem
Episode 02: Ogden Nash – Everyone Tells Me Everything
Episode 03: Mary Oliver – I Go Down to the Shore
Episode 04: Walt Whitman – When I Heard the Learned Astronomer
Episode 05: Bernie Taupin – Tiny Dancer (Guest John: Maureen Johnson)
Episode 06: Bernie Taupin – Daniel (Guest John: Emma Blackery)
Episode 07: Bernie Taupin – Rocket Man (Guest John: Charlie & Jimmy)
Episode 08: Bernie Taupin – Levon (Guest John: Grace Helbig)
Episode 09: Bernie Taupin – Saturday Night’s Alright (Guest John: Felicia Day)
Episode 10: James Tate – Never Again the Same
Episode 11: AE Hausman – Here Dead We Lie
Episode 12: Emily Dickinson – Tell All the Truth, But Tell it Short
Episode 13: Margaret Atwood – You Fit into Me
Episode 14: William Wordsworth – The World is too Much With Us
Episode 15: William Carlos Williams – This is Just to Say
Episode 16: Kenneth Koch – Variation on a Theme by William Carlos Williams
Episode 17: George Bilgere – The Return of Odysseus
Episode 18: Raymond Carver – Grief
Episode 19: James Wright – Discoveries in Arizona
Episode 20: Philip Larkin – Home is so Sad
Episode 21: Seamus Heaney – The Skylight
Episode 22: EE Cummings – I Thank You God for Most This Amazing
Episode 23: John Keats – The Last Will and Testament of John Keats
Episode 24: Marianne Moore – Poetry
Episode 25: Dorothy Parker – Unfortunate Consequence
Episode 26: EE Cummings – O Sweet Spontaneous
Episode 27: George Herbert – Virtue
Episode 28: Emily Dickinson – 202
Episode 29: Wendy Cope – He Tells Here

Episode 30: Emily Dickinson – 314 Hope Is The Thing With Feathers
Episode 31: Sonia Sanchez – Black Magic
Episode 32: David Bowie – Eight Line Poem (lyrics)
Episode 33: Robert Burns – Epitaph on a Friend
Episode 34: WH Auden – Funeral Blues (Stop All The Clocks)
Episode 35: Claude McKay – If We Must Die
Episode 36: Mary Oliver – If You Are Holding This Book
Episode 37: Octavia Butler – quote from book “Parable of the Sower”
Episode 38: Nizar Qabbani – Light Is More Important Than The Lantern (Quote)
Episode 39: DH Lawrence – Tourists
Episode 40: Sara Teasdale – There Will Come Soft Rains
Episode 41: Richard Wright – Haiku 78
Episode 42: Richard Wright – Burning Out Its Time
Episode 43: Merle Haggard – Momma Tried (Lyrics of Chorus)
Episode 44: Frances Darwin Cornford – On Rupert Brooke
Episode 45: Emily Dickinson – 314 Hope Is The Thing With Feathers (again, yes)
Episode 46: Frances Darwin Cornford – The Guitarist Tunes Up
Episode 47: Emily Dickinson – There is No Frigate Like a Book
Episode 48: Anonymous Listener – The Daffodil Knows More of Spring
Episode 49: Langston Hughes – “Poem” (..I loved my friend..)
Episode 50: Elinor Wylie – Now Let No Charitable Hope
Episode 51: Richard Wright – You Moths Must Leave Now
Episode 52: Muhammad Ali – Float Like a Butterfly
Episode 53: Leon Muss – People Often Ask Me
Episode 54: Edna St. Vincent Millay – Not So Far as the Forest
Episode 55: Adam Zagajewski – Try To Praise The Mutilated World
Episode 56: none?
Episode 57: John Green – There Will Always Be Starburst
Episode 58: Flula – Sandwich
Episode 59: John Green / Hank Green (Rick Springfield + US Mint corrections)
Episode 60: Listener Andrew – Pokemon Go corrections
Episode 61: John Green – Six Light Minutes (Rover birthday correction)

Given that there will be undoubtedly more episodes, I will try to update it but if you know of any additional, please add in comments and I’ll amend =)

How To Destroy Rape Culture: Step 2: Feelings Made

Blogger Scary Mommy recently posted about a side-by-side comparison of the covers of Girls’ Life and Boys’ Life, leading with this nonsense:

We’ve got a very serious problem here. Hell, we’ve had a serious problem here for a long time. And it’s what we’re telling our girls. Girls only care about fashion and getting boys to like them. Or some version of that.

Later:

Their worth is determined by their bodies, what clothes and shoes they wear and what boys think of them. Girls are encouraged to do well in school, but not to worry about having a serious career. … What in the actual hell are we teaching our girls?

What you are teaching your daughters and sons is what you intend to teach your daughters and sons, not what they pick up on.

The message received is not the message being taught, so you cannot be “teaching” something against your will. If you believe that, then you are establishing the environment in which rape culture thrives.

If “how you made me feel” and “well, that’s how I feel after what you just said,” is what rules at the end of the day, then so also must, “Well, she made me feel like I should do it to her” be a valid conclusion. “She made me feel like I should do it to her,” is NOT a valid conclusion — in the SAME WAY that “that’s how you made me feel, after what you just said,” ALSO isn’t valid. If you believe these two to be unequal comparisons, then you have stumbled upon that which you must sacrifice in order to end rape culture, and how unwilling you actually are to go through with it.

The only message that is allowed, is the actual intended message, and that’s it. Period.

If ‘stop” means an assailant must halt their actions, then “calm down” means the angered must halt their anger.

Failing to obey “calm down” is the failure of someone to obey “stop.”

Justifying becoming more angry when told to calm down, justifies failing to stop when told to stop.

If no means no, and yes means yes — then no can’t be interpreted as yes, and yes can’t be interpreted as no.

If how a girl dresses DOES NOT mean she wants it, then “what I teach my daughter” is what you INTEND to teach her, not the message she picks up on.

If the way someone walks DOES NOT mean they’re advertising, then you cannot mistakenly teach your daughter or your son something — your son or daughter can FALSELY believe something based on a perceived context (in the SAME way that the onlooker believing someone is advertising is a false context). If the source that does not say it, it does not teach it. The fault of the flawed message is with the recipient, not the teacher, if the teacher did not intend it that way.

In the same way that it is the responsibility of the assailant to ensure consent is actually given, it is the responsibility of the feeler to ensure their feelings match the intention of the person who made the statement.

If you’re saying that “My reaction is based on how I felt, and you’re to blame,” then you’re saying that it is the interpreter who has the power, and you’re GIVING UP power to the interpreter, when it is the sole authority of the speaker to properly and authoritatively interpret their own message.

If you are teaching that it is the listener of the message whose false reaction is what the message really is, then you’re giving the power over to assailants to misinterpret as they wish.

“Can we do it?”
“No.”
“Good, take off your clothes.”
“But I said no.”
“But the way that you said no, tells me yes.”
“But I am saying to you, no, we cannot do it.”
“You’re saying no, but you’re making me feel yes.”

How the assailant feels doesn’t matter. What the consenting party’s actual message is, is what matters. The person from whom consent hinges, is the authority of whether the event takes place. The event is the lesson being learned. The idea that “our sons and daughters learn these lessons” without you having taught them, gives them the power, not you. By giving power to the interpreter over the message, then the consenting party is giving power to the assailant whether their no means yes.

“Are you saying I’m limited to only these occupations?
“No; you can have any occupation you wish.”
“But the magazine you bought me seems like I can only have these occupations.”
“No, it doesn’t; I am saying to you, you can have any you wish.”
“You’re saying I can, but this magazine makes me feel like I can’t.”

Compare this conversation with the previous.

How the interpreter of your message feels about your message is irrelevant: what is relevant is what the message is, and the fact that you define what your own message is. It is the responsibility of the interpreter to accurately interpret the message as the speaker intended, or better research the speaker’s message to ensure their feelings correspond with the feelings of the speaker.

If the speaker’s message can be credibly interpreted the way the interpreter desires, then the speaker’s yes or no doesn’t matter. Every time you continue to feel shamed, or continue to feel hurt, or continue to feel angered by someone’s message that was not intended to do so, you are placing importance upon your feelings AGAINST what the person’s actual message is. You’re choosing to dwell on YOUR interpretation, instead of the speaker’s ACTUAL message. That policy is what establishes rape culture: that the assailant’s feelings matter more than the consenter’s message. The interpreter is the assailant, and the speaker is the consenter.

If you’re going to say that the interpreter has power over the message, then you are fertilizing the ground for rape culture to grow.

If you say that the speaker is the sole authority of the message, and that the interpreter has no say in the nature of the speaker’s message, then you uproot the environment upon which rape culture thrives.

The solution is to be a student of the speaker’s message, and stop giving credit to “feelings” about a speaker’s message without the consent of the speaker, and encouraging others to likewise be students of each others’ words. Explore what the speaker’s message BEFORE reacting. Halt the tendency to knee-jerk react, and INVESTIGATE with additional questions, having made no decision on HOW to feel YET.

If someone does not intended offense, and you are offended, then you are offended by that which the speaker did not even say — you are offended by your own interpretation of the speaker’s message and have not halted your decision to react yet, and are relying on your own reaction to justify the offensiveness of the speaker’s statement. This policy is the fertilized ground upon which rape culture grows exceptionally well — that the feelings about the message are what matters, that the boy feeling like she wants it makes it okay. If the boy’s feeling is not what matters, then neither do yours.

Insisting that your feelings override what the message really is, despite the speaker’s objection to how you reacted despite their intention, is precisely the permission given to the assailant to assault.

The solution is to promote the halting of the reaction until research can be conducted. The solution is to investigate first, before reacting. The solution is to change your feelings, when presented with evidence that contradicts your feelings. If you are helpless in the battle to alter your feelings, by what authority do you expect assailants to change theirs when confronted with that which they believe you to be advertising? If a speaker’s, “that’s not what I meant, calm down,” does not calm you down, how do you expect, “Stop, I am saying to stop,” to carry any weight? By having the policy that failing to calm down is reasonable when told to calm down, then you must also simultaneously agree that an assailant failing to stop is also reasonable.

If you do not agree, then your pursuit to destroy rape culture without understanding it, is that which most enables it. If what I suggest sounds too complicated or convoluted, then you are beginning to understand the complexity of the world you have so drastically oversimplified.