Category: Oh ... Really?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
An even more interesting thing happened at the newspaper
Actually, this has turned out to be pretty hilarious. It just shows how one can really make a fool of oneself when one is intentionally mean, spiteful and hateful. At the same time, it's also kind of sad, with a grown adult behaving like a spoiled 8 year old who can't have her way ...
In my previous post, I recounted some of what we heard and learned in the carry permit class we took. I remarked on the variety of the students, both in age and socio-economic background, but not so much in political ideology - we were definitely of like minds, especially on 2nd amendment rights, guns and how we feel about the current president's stated aims to take some, if not most, guns from the hands of the populace. Of particular interest to me, being the direct descendant of one of the most prominent characters in the story, was the recounting of the days immediately preceding the start of the Revolutionary war and how that gave the writers of the Constitution the impetus to specify the right to bear arms.
Imagine my amusement when I see that a blogger at the local newspaper took my post out of context and twisted it to imply that
the class instructor was indoctrinating the carry permit class students. Sorry, we came in to class pre-indoctrinated, thank you ... by our knowledge and understanding of American history and the US Constitution. We also had in common our desire to defend ourselves, our homes and families by a means we feel is effective - which is, by the way, not to go crazed spider monkey all over an attacker. We are not animals!
But I digress.
Then Ms. Granju continues her post to insinuate that Rich had been carrying his handgun illegally. She cites as her evidence of his misdeed his posts in which he writes about the new gun he bought a few months ago, taking it to the firing range and breaking in a new holster for it. You can almost visualize her batting her eyelashes in feigned innocence as she asks - purely out of curiosity, mind you - how someone can carry a gun around without a permit:
And here is a question asked honestly and open-mindedly about the whole gun permitting issue: the blogger I quote above is talking about how she and her fiance, a very articulate local gun-blogger, recently attended a handgun carry permit class together. But her fiance has already blogged about carrying his handgun. What am I missing here? I welcome a clearer explanation from those of you who know more about the technicailities of handgun carry permits than I do on who can carry a handgun, and when, and what permits are actually required in which circumstances. Educate me (but not about the American Revolution, thanks. I've already got that covered.).
Again, I am asking this question with respect, and I am not suggesting anything improper. I am just legitimately curious as to what the rules say. When do you actually have to have a permit and when do you not? If you can have a handgun without the carry permit, why would you get licensed?
We both replied to her, explaining in great detail exactly what "carry" means in regards to handguns, what is legal without a permit and what is not, and further, that his actions were not in any way, shape, fashion or form illegal. Still she persists, asking: "I was (and am) legitimately curious why a gun blogger would need a carry permit if he or she is already carrying. What are the advantages of having the permit? I remain curious."
No, you remain vicious, petty and hateful in your attempt to smear and perhaps cause legal difficulties to a good, upstanding, Christian man who has more moral integrity in his little finger than all the gun-grabbing lefty liberals do put together. You also remain a chicken-shit, since you decided, in the face of a couple dozen comments that quite bluntly pointed out how insanely dumb your post was, to delete the most egregious part of it as well as the relevant comments made.
But no worry ... Google cache caught the original post, which I have placed in the extended section below, with some of the comments that were deleted.
As I noted in one of my comments there, is it really any wonder that newspapers are going belly up left and right if this is what constitutes journalistic ethics and integrity these days?
How 'bout a little political indoctrination with that gun permit?
Gee, who knew you would get so much more than gun training at local handgun permitting classes?
I don't believe there was a single Democrat among us. Given how most of the conversation went that day, if there were, they very wisely kept their own counsel.
We were also reminded of how and why the Revolutionary War started ... it was not about tea, taxes or liberty, but about guns. The British, in an attempt to quell rebellions over tea, taxes and liberty, took to confiscating the colonists' guns and ammunition. It was that action the finally goaded the colonists from passive rebellion to armed insurrection to defend their liberties and the way of life they wished to live.
Our current presidential administration would be wise to reacquaint itself with American history before taking any more steps towards our guns or other freedoms, and We The People would be wise to be ready to defend our liberties as our founding fathers once did, because our current administrations has thus far proven itself to be anything but wise.
(Surely, local gun permit instructors aren't encouraging political paranoia or armed insurrection against the government, are they?)
And here is a question asked honestly and open-mindedly about the whole gun permitting issue: the blogger I quote above is talking about how she and her fiance, a very
articulate local gun-blogger, recently attended a handgun carry permit class together. But her fiance
has already blogged about carrying his handgun. What am I missing here? I welcome a clearer explanation from those of you who know more about the technicailities of handgun carry permits than I do on who can carry a handgun, and when, and what permits are actually required in which circumstances. Educate me (but not about the American Revolution, thanks. I've already got that covered.).
Again, I am asking this question with respect, and I am not suggesting anything improper. I am just legitimately curious as to what the rules say. When do you actually have to have a permit and when do you not? If you can have a handgun without the carry permit, why would you get licensed?
Posted by Katie Allison Granju on March 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Share this post: Digg It! | Add to del.icio.us | Submit to Reddit | Add to Netscape | Technorati
Comments
Surely, local gun permit instructors aren't encouraging political paranoia or armed insurrection against the government
No, but local gun bloggers are, as always, insinuating that Democrats who open their mouths are likely to get shot while in their company:
I don't believe there was a single Democrat among us. Given how most of the conversation went that day, if there were, they very wisely kept their own counsel.
Posted by: The Pullet Surprise at March 17, 2009 7:03 PM
Wow. Since when is American history considered to be "indoctrination"? And no, sorry, you do not have a complete education on the American Revolution at all. Nor do you have the slightest grasp of what the lesson is here.
Those who do not study history are
doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana
You are either ignorant of history, or you are feigning it, so you can have a platform from which you launch this latest of mean, spiteful, petty, hateful attacks against Rich and me. No wonder newspapers are going belly up left and right, if this is what passes for journalistic ethics and integrity these days.
Sorry that you can't form a cogent refutation of the points Rich and I make in debate against yours. Put on your big girl pants, and deal with it like a grown up. When we prove you wrong on a point, you are welcome to prove us wrong on ours. That's the way it works. If you can't, so what? That's what this whole blog discussion thing is about. If you can't deal with that, without launching libelous and defamatory personal attacks against your commenters and their families, to include baby grandchildren, well maybe this is just too much for you after all, you think?
Posted by: LissaKay at March 17, 2009 11:17 PM
@The Pullet Surprise - your contribution here is so laughably idiotic that I almost had to let it stand as a testament to your ignorance. But I just had to point out one thing: You are confusing the reaction of conservatives to a dissenting voice with the reaction of liberals. Had there been a liberal Democrat at this class and had they spoken up to debate some point of 2nd Amendment rights or anything from a liberal point of view, he or she would have been met with a calm discussion of the facts. They would have been allowed to keep their opinion, but they would have been shown why they were wrong.
Yes, I understand that is not the way liberal do it. They just ban those who would disagree, shout them down or otherwise shut them up. Liberals are not interested in the truth, they only believe in free speech if it agrees with their agenda.
Try to keep it straight, OK?
Posted by: LissaKay at March 17, 2009 11:28 PM
Here's the interesting thing. Katie knows me, and knows how to get in touch with me. She has at least two of my email addresses, and at one time my phone number. With a minimum amount of effort, she could have contacted me with her curiosity. Instead, she implied very publicly that I might be carrying a weapon illegally.
If this were the first instance of her making accusations without doing a basic amount of research, I might pass it off as an accident, or simply laziness. But earlier, she accused me of failing to live up to standard journalistic ethics, again without ever contacting me or my editor to get the basic facts about the situation.
Once is an accident, twice is a pattern.
To set the record straight, something required far too often when dealing with some journalists, the post Katie linked discussed two separate events, taking my new pistol to the range for the first time, and evaluating a new holster.
I had a TN HCP but had allowed it to expire months before, mostly because of a philosophical debate reconciling my duty as a Christian with my duty as an American. During that period of internal deliberation, I stopped carrying a weapon, and allowed my permit to expire.
To be perfectly honest, procrastination also played a part.
Eventually, I reconciled my beliefs, and decided to reapply for a HCP. At the same time, I upgraded both my weapon and my carry holster, since I wasn't very happy with my first one. While waiting for my carry class, I started wearing the holster around the house, to find the best positioning for comfort, security, and access, and to allow the leather to break in. However, when transporting my pistols to the range, they were stored in a case, locked and unloaded, with the ammunition stored separately, going above and beyond the requirements of the applicable laws.
Like I said, Katie could have easily found this out with an email or a phone call, but instead she chose to go public.
Why?
As to the first part of her post, it's interesting how teaching historical background of the Second Amendment is considered political indoctrination. It is historical fact that the final provocation that led to armed rebellion was the British attempt to capture the weapons stored in Lexington and Concord, weapons which belonged to private citizens. It is also historical fact that the Second Amendment, as was the case with most of the Bill of Rights, was written to limit the power of a centralized government to trample on the liberties of free men. The men who had so recently fought for freedom were determined not to allow another tyrannical government to rule over them again.
The construction of the Second Amendment makes this clear.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's take it piece by piece.
A well regulated Militia,
Regulated in this context does not refer to rules, regulations and laws, but referred to effective functioning. In this usage, well regulated means well trained and equipped. In other words, the members of the militia must have weapons and experience in using them.
being necessary to the security of a free State,
Note that State is capitalized. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, Americans had a deep distrust of a strong centralized government. (From the perspective of our current situation, we can only say they were right to be afraid.) Americans of the time, and this is born out by historical documents, were citizens of their home State first, and of the United States second. The capitalization of State indicates that each State considered itself to be Sovereign over its own affairs, and that State's Rights superseded the authority of the Federal Government, unless that State specifically ceded those rights to the central government. This state of affairs is documented by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
This begs the question, why would a Sovereign State need a militia to provide security? Who is the enemy? Let's ask Noah Webster:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
Not only was the militia called on to defend the people against foreign enemies, but against usurpation by force by a centralized government.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No explanation needed.
Put the whole thing together, and the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution as a right for individuals to keep and bear arms to act as a force to protect against the loss of liberty, whether that loss came at the hands of foreign threats or domestic.
This is history, not paranoia.
Now then, Katie asks why this would be discussed at a hand gun carry class.
Are you kidding me? Have you read the papers lately?
Despite the recent Heller decision by the Supreme Court that said that the Second Amendment does apply to the people individually, the Obama Administration is already working to effectively repeal the Second Amendment. In February, Attorney General Eric Holder, who filed a brief opposing the Heller decision, told reporters that Obama would seek to renew and make permanent the Assault Weapons Ban, despite the fact that there is no credible evidence that the ban reduced crime by the slightest degree.
Why bring back a law that restricts the rights of the people but has no benefit, such as the reduction of crime?
Sadly, in a time when our rights under the Constitution are under full blown attack, part of learning how to carry a gun to defend yourself is learning how to defend your right to carry the gun in the first place. Frankly, I want people to be better informed, and I'm surprised to find a journalist taking the other side of the argument.
More information is better than less, and I automatically distrust any person, business, or agency that seeks to limit the free flow of information. The Soviet Union demonstrated that the way to control a man is to control the information he is allowed to have. As Robert Heinlein said:
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.
To find a paid journalist arguing against providing historical context of our rights is probably one of the most disturbing signs of the collapse of modern journalism.
Posted by: Rich Hailey at March 17, 2009 11:58 PM
Rich:
You and Lissa blogged about this stuff. That's the forum in which you set up the discussion. Thus, I continued the discussion in the same forum: via blogging.
What did I need to call you and ask you? I was (and am) legitimately curious why a gun blogger would need a carry permit if he or she is already carrying. What are the advantages of having the permit?
I remain curious.
Katie
Posted by: Katie Allison Granju at March 18, 2009 6:16 AM
You're a journalist. Or at least that is what you tell us. Surely you have resources available to you, such as the internet, or colleagues, that could explain to you what the state law is regarding handgun carry and for what situations one would need a permit. Rich already explained this above, but here it is again ... and I am typing slowly so you can keep up.
A person needs a handgun carry permit in order to legally carry a loaded handgun in public.
Rich has NOT done so. He has carried the UNloaded gun, packed inside of its case, for the purpose of transporting it to another privately owned location (firing range) where he then unpacked it from its case, loaded it with bullets and proceeded to practice shooting. One does not need a permit to do this.
He has also carried the gun in its holster, upon his person while on his own private property. This also does not require a permit.
Again, had you taken a few minutes to do what most other journalists do - research your topic and carefully consider what you are about to publish, you would have had your question answered. You would have also avoided making a groundless accusation or insinuation of wrong-doing or illegal activity by my husband. But I think this was less about your ignorance on the topic, and more about defaming him and perhaps even causing him legal difficulties. I hope your research notes are in order.
Posted by: LissaKay at March 18, 2009 7:17 AM
just another liberal journalist pushing an agenda. . . Why do folks expect facts from them any more? And they wonder why the main stream media is not trusted any more and print news is dying. . . .
Posted by: JD at March 18, 2009 8:19 AM
"Rich already explained this above, but here it is again ... and I am typing slowly so you can keep up."
Heh, pwned.
Posted by: JohnS at March 18, 2009 8:21 AM
===================
To see the page in context, you can download and unzip this file to your desktop. To open, double-click on search.htm and let your browser open it. It won't be perfect, but will be a very close approximation of the page when Google indexed and archived it.
http://www.lissakay.com/images/uploads/KNS-Granju-Post-031809.zip
« Hush me up!
Monday, May 07, 2007
Is EVERYTHING Partisan Now?
The
Atomictumor gang is all
excited about this
band, Christabel and the Jons. AT saw them last weekend at a Knoxville night spot, and they are slated to appear this week at
Sundown in the City on Thursday, then again in Oak Ridge on Friday. AT has some awesome taste in music, so I went to check them out a little more. If I can work up the courage to actually go out in public by myself, I might even go see them. It also happens that they are appearing at
Vestival on Saturday, which is an arts and heritage festival being held in South Knoxville. I read of this in the
Metro Pulse ... an alternative paper for the Knoxville area. Therein lies the crux of my rant ...
This is not about the politics of AtomicTumor, or Christabel and the Jons, or Oak Ridge or Knoxville - that's just for context ... it IS about the general climate in this country, of which this is an example.
They're expecting a big crowd. Saturday at 9:30, police will even close down Maryville Pike. But a lot of people are wondering what the crowd will look like. Festival organizers are inviting everybody, old and young, and they've got keen interest from across South Knoxville's often-contentious political spectrum. It's safe to say that the particular group of people who will convene at the old Candoro place have never been in the same place before.
WTF? Just how does politics play into an arts and crafts festival? Why does it matter what the political persuasion of the other people is at this festival? It's not a rally or protest is it? There's not even an upcoming election for candidates to stump for. Why is this even mentioned? It would also seem to imply that there have been similar events where people of a certain political persuasion were not invited or welcomed.
Has America really become so politically stratified that one has to check out the pulse of a crowd before one goes, lest they find themselves in a minority amidst people who hold differing opinions? Are we afraid of catching cooties from each other? Are we no longer mature and dignified enough to be able to agree to disagree on certain topics and remain friends otherwise? Or at least get along enough to be able to attend events together?
What the hell has happened to America? Have our individual identities been reduced to what political party we vote for or align with? Must we choose, else we don't "belong"?
This is disgusting. This country needs to get a grip and grow the hell up.
Posted by
LissaKay on 05/07/07 at 03:24 PM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (1)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Monday, June 26, 2006
Freedom of Speech and Opinion?
Not if it isn't aligned with the Left ... and if they hate the messenger, anyone who agrees with the message is hated in a similar manner.
Strolling through Bloglines this evening, I happened upon a post at
No Silence Here. Michael Silence quoted, among others,
Joe Powell, who stated, "
Like others, I don't think much of the anti-immigration stand, but they did have a permit and this IS still a free nation (isn't it?)." My eye drawn to "anti-immigration stand" I traveled over to see if he, like so many others, confuses anti-ILLEGAL-immigration with anti-ALL-immigration, and hurls the ever so tiresome racist and xenophobic barbs at those who wish to keep our sovereign land sovereign.
Good God in Heaven above. I waded into a cesspool of mindless, irrational, illogical diatribes of the looniest kind. Not so much on the ILLEGAL immigration protest, or even the pretty good post on the Fear of Fat, but just below that were two posts ... I am still trying to make sense of it.
Joe Powell says about Ann Coulter, "You are either for her or against her. Since Ann Coulter has found much money for painting the political world in her two-tone dialectics, then it's time to paint her and her supporters with the same brush." And goes on to further state if you agree with her in any way, you endorse her crass way of stating her views.
Whut Da Hell?? He is telling me how I must think? That if Ann Coulter has a viewpoint that I happen to agree with (and there are a few) that I then endorse her crude way of stating them? Or conversely, that if I abhor her ways of stating her views, then I have to oppose her views as well? Hey Joe? Does that mean I have to disagree with her on
everything? What if she likes double-fudge marble ice cream? Do I have to hate it lest I be painted with the same brush of scorn she has brought upon herself?
Then, a commenter takes on Joe and his echo chamber. He makes some good points, but Joe et al pull the usual underhanded "debate" tactic of arguing a point not made, when they aren't clapping each other on the back. Inaccurate accusations fly too ... the commenter is said to use vulgar language throughout. I count two craps and one horseshit. Joe's buddies rack up at least four instances of cussing, including some name-calling. All the while staying off topic, not addressing the point being made.
Very juvenile indeed.
The
post that follows continues the flow of foam from their mouths ... it seems they caught the attention of the folks at
Tongue Tied, a site devoted to pointing out breaches in the right to free speech. I don't always agree with all the views expounded there, and I have stated so in comments, but the site bears watching. Anyway,
Kim's comment is quoted by Joe and held up as an example of a "hard core Party Faithful." Um, Joe ... you might want to spend a few minutes over at
Kim's place, and then consider perhaps retracting that statement. It makes you look quite the fool. (I am quite liking Kim myself though ... we straddle that neither left, nor right political fence much the same.)
Joe rants on about the commenter on the prior post, totally mistating what they said and accusing him of vulgarity, when he and his buddies are guilty of far worse. I should screen shot those comments, as I bet Joe will race to edit out the Bad Words™ to make themselves look like choir boys. But Joe still doesn't get it. At all.
Try this one on, guys ... I don't like Ann Coulter. I didn't like her before her classless book and tirades recently on TV. She is just the sort of person I don't like. And her political views factor into that not one bit. You see, I have the intelligence, the maturity and the logical capability to separate the person from the opinion. That is why I can debate with friends and still be friends. I can also share opinions with people I do not like, as I do with Ann Coulter and the Jersey Girls. But hey, if it makes it any easier for you to fathom, instead of agreeing with Ann Coulter, let's say I agree with
Dorothy Rabinowitz instead.
Does that work for ya, Joe? Can I have my opinions back now?
Posted by
LissaKay on 06/26/06 at 10:59 PM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (4)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Friday, April 01, 2005
Have Fun Today
April Fools Day ....
Heh ... cynics will spoil all the fun. Just so ya know ...
Posted by
LissaKay on 04/01/05 at 01:01 PM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (0)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum
*WAVES* to the people visiting from thread #291672 and #32300 ... that's where you say nasty things about me, right? Like you all do to Joe, Ken and Dawn ... such lovely people you are.
Heh ... the fact that I am now being attacked directly tells me that I hit that nail dead on the head. I should be shocked at these vicious reactions, but then again ... The question now is, should I take those attacks public so everyone can see the true nature of some of these people? Oh and thanks for reminding me about Mel ... that makes 4 ... that I know of. Mirrors are pretty inexpensive, perhaps a good investment ...
=====================
Truth is a funny thing. We all hold it up to be an honorable concept. Lies, deceptions, fibbing are all bad ... we are taught this from when we first learn to express ourselves. We base our sense of trust around the truth ... we trust those who do not lie to or betray us. But I have found that sometimes, the truth is not always a good thing. Well, it is a good thing ... but some people react to the truth in bad ways. Especially if the truth is about them, and they don't like it being pointed out. Those reactions can be vicious, and will tell even more truth about who that person really is.
By nature, I am very direct and blunt. In grade school, I failed to win friends and influence people with this directness ... if I didn't like someone or something they were doing, I told them so. Time, wisdom and maturity tempered this directness and taught me to hold my tongue in most situations. Those times that I just couldn't keep quiet, I used sarcasm or irony to make my point. Unfortunately, it would fly right over the heads of most people.
Recently, I pointed out a nasty bit of truth to some people. I was very direct about it. The reaction was, of course, just as nasty as the truth is. Heh ... yeah, you get all defensive and I know I've hit dead on the nail. The attacks that followed just prove it even more. These people are so beside themselves dealing with this truth, all they can do is strike out, making wild accusations and twisting anything else I have to say.
They even tried to make me go away. Sorry ... I'm too stubborn for that. The truth hurts? Aww ... my heart is breaking. Deal with it.
What was this bit of truth and who are these people? The people are participants in one of the discussion forums I frequent. The truth is, while they denounce racism, bigotry and discrimination, sexism ... or rather, derogatory statements and jokes about women in particular, are overlooked or ignored at best. At worst, several more join in on the joke or expand on the derogatory statements.
A recent example: A member posted about a recent study that pointed out the differences in the male and female brains. The article itself, after a rather interesting discussion of a very relevant study, ended with a sexist remark. In the thread discussing this article, a poster remarked, in reference to the studies findings that the two halves of the brain talk to each other better in women, that we now know why women never stop talking. He followed up to that post with the picture of the two dogs, one of which is yapping in the other's ear while he cringes. They are dressed up as a man and woman, the woman-dog being the one doing the yapping.
This was not posted in the humor forum, it was in the Health and Science forum. What was the reaction from the rest of the members to this sexist post?
*crickets chirping*
This is but one example out of many others that I have seen there recently. I have kept quiet until now precisely because of the reaction I did get when I brought it up. I'm "overreacting" ... "it's nothing" ... "get over yourself" ... and my favorite, "I'm so offended that you would accuse this forum of being sexist! I demand an apology!" Don't hold yer breath, buddy ... I am not going to apologize for stating the truth, no matter how it offends your delicate sensibilities.
In addition to the jokes and derogatory statements is how women are treated there in general. Out of a regular posting crowd of about 30, there are 6 women that make regular appearances. Two never make controversial statements, or if they do, they resort to what I call hair twirling and eyelash batting to take the heat off of themselves. One does, but when they hit back, she backs down. One is a moderator (the ONLY female moderator!) and she's tough as nails. I think they are a bit afraid of her. That leaves me and one other. I'll call her "Ms P" ... and more on her a bit.
About a year ago, I was warned by a former member of this forum ... a female who is just as ballsy as I am. She pointed out that women are treated differently there and that there is a strong undercurrent of sexism. Instead of ditching the forum then, I decided to stick around and watch things a little more closely. I have discovered that she was absolutely right.
The owner of the forum (no matter how he tries to tell us he's handed it off to someone else, it is still his baby, he is the king there) is possibly the worst of the bunch. While he says up front that he admires intelligent, strong women and respects their opinions, his actions tell a much different tale. He and his little circle of buddies rule that little roost. If anyone crosses them, disagrees with them or dares to declare that the emporer has no clothes, they will find themselves attacked, vilified and castigated. I have watched this bunch run several people off, banned them or made things so miserable there they quit on their own, simply because they didn't toe the party line. Once they were gone, the insults would fly. I wonder what they are saying about me right now. I can only imagine.
The flashpoint of this big mess came about recently. Mr Owner and I used to have very similar viewpoints on one particular subject. Over time, he changed his mind and swung completely to the other side. I still championed the same side. He debated from the other side ... and he did not play fair. I have never seen him do this with a male member of this forum, only with me and a couple other females. With the use of hyperbole and disengenuity, he tried to play me for a fool ... he would change the meaning of what I said and argue a completely different point. Not being aware of what was happening, I would debate this new point while my original argument went by the wayside. Very effective, but also very unseemly. Each time I would bring the discussion back around to my original point, he would argue some point of semantics. The goal, of course, was to frustrate me to the point where I gave up entirely, or worse ... broke some forum rule. He did not succeed. His only recourse would be to have the thread in question locked so there would be no further discussion, usually with him having the last word.
Gee ... that really reminds me of someone else I know ....
Anyway, I called him on the carpet on these tactics. He didn't like that one bit. I pissed him off and I knew it was just a matter of time before he swung his axe in my direction. It actually took him several tries and only when he was able to get some others in on it, was he able to hit his mark.
Back to Ms P ... she's in a very similar situation. She argues her points and doesn't give in. She and I have disagreed on some matters, agreed in some others. We do OK and can have reasonable discussions. Not so with The Guys ... Mr Owner's little clan of cronies. I see them using the same tactics on her as they have with me. When they first started in on her, I thought about warning her, but I thought she was doing pretty well on her own. But I am sending her a link to this ... some food for thought and perhaps a confirmation of what she might be thinking as well. That place is hardly different than the Blue Room-Red Room concept we've seen elsewhere ... lots of back-slapping and high-fives to those who ride the party line, insults and the label of troll to those who don't.
They hoped to run me off because I pointed out the truth to them. I have turned this over in my mind for a while and have not yet decided what exactly I want to do for now. Is that place really worth it? Not really. It's not really even worth this post. It's just a discussion forum on the internet, and there are thousands more just like it. There are a few people there I consider friends, a couple that I thought were friend but now know differently. It's just a place I kill a little time at when I have the spare time. But am I going to run with tail tucked to go lick my (non-existent) wounds? Not on your fucking life ... there will be more like me in the future and if they think they can get away with it, they will continue to do so.
Just a note, in case anyone has missed it ... I am a bitch and charm is not a part of my routine. Deal with it.
« Hush me up!
Posted by
LissaKay on 02/27/05 at 08:37 PM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (5)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Bananas are racist fruits
Now, I have heard of the word "banana" used as a racial epithet against Asians ... but a woman attending a Civil Rights march in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday became offended at the sight of a policeman who was eating a banana.
What. In. The. H-E-double-hockey-sticks???
Michelle Malkin is hot on the case. Go figure, eh? Of course, this is not a subject that
she is unfamiliar with, having had a word or two about petty grievances of the offended before.
But no kiddin ... a woman got all bent out of shape because she witnessed a cop eating a banana ...
Just think of all the ways a man might use a banana to offend a woman.
Then you may imagine why some people leaped to the wrong conclusion when a woman complained about a Columbus police officer eating a banana at the Civic Center as people gathered for a Jan. 15 civil rights march.
The woman was deeply offended, she told police. The police were deeply bewildered.
The offense was not what you might imagine it to be. I imagined the officer shoving the banana into his pants pocket to make others point at it and say, "Hey, is that a banana in your pocket or are you just glad to be here getting paid overtime?"
But that was not what offended the woman, who hung up on people who couldn't figure it out.
Then she called Mayor Bob Poydasheff. He said she just started berating him about the police. He told her he'd heard only compliments about how officers handled the weekend march in which the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other longtime civil rights activists led 8,000 people from the Civic Center to the Government Center.
"She said, 'No no no no, when the buses pulled into the Civic Center, I saw a policeman eating a banana.' And I didn't know what to say," Poydasheff recalled. "I was stunned. I said, 'What's wrong with that? Police were on their feet for eight hours. They had to get potassium in their system.'"
He said the woman told him the banana "was an affront to me and to others, including a former state senator." She wouldn't name the senator.
Why was she offended?
Well, it seems that in the context of the march, she took the officer's banana eating to imply an analogous racial slur relating black people to apes.
Gosh ... I wonder what other foods are offensive? And to whom? And why?
Grapes ... they are used to make wine. Men use wine to get women drunk so they can have their way. Grapes are part of the evil oppression and subjugation of women! Because of grapes, women have become nothing more than se
x objects!
Bonbons are offensive to full-time mothers because of the old joke about laying on the couch eating bonbons all day watching soap operas!
Fruit! That must be offensive to gays, right? Any kind of fruit! Oh dear ...
I can't think of any more right now ... feel free to contribute ... what food items could be potentially offensive to some sub-group of humans?
Geez ... unreal!
More bloggage on this idiocy:
Ramblings' Journal
Wizbang
Posted by
LissaKay on 02/15/05 at 04:34 AM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (0)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Friday, February 11, 2005
When you get to the end of your rope ...
Les and
John had better be sharing some of dat stuff ...
Oh yeah ... that's what I be screamin' ...
Via
Parenthesis
Posted by
LissaKay on 02/11/05 at 04:52 AM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (1)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Through the looking glass
When the world has turned on its side ... when up is down, yes is no, right is wrong, black is white, hot is cold ... how does one keep from letting loose with one long, loud primal scream?
Last week, I took my son in to the doctor's office. He has been having chronic knee pain. Diagnosis: Osgood Schlatter's disease. It's very common in teen-age boys, especially following a period of rapid growth. Sonny boy has grown a good 6-8 inches in the last two years ... yup, that's pretty rapid. Comfort measures are the first line since it is a temporary condition that rarely gets severe ... heating pad, knee braces, aspirin.
Then I ask if the doctor would possibly consider prescribing his medications for his bipolar disorder. Losing TennCare means also that he can no longer take advantage of the services at the clinic where he was seeing the psychiatrist. Private shrinks charge anywhere from $200 to $275 for an initial visit and $90 to $125 for each follow up, every other month. This is not covered like regular medical visits for a $20 co-pay. There is a $500 deductible, then it pays 80% of whatever
they say is reasonable office fee. Lab tests are subject to the regular outpatient hospital deductible. Those are $350 each and must be done quarterly. The co-pay on his medications is $56 a month on top of all that. I had to just about terrorize Blue Cross Blue Shield to get this much information ... they didn't want to even speak to me about his benefits because I am not on the policy, it is his father's. I set the bitch-switch to full throttle though, climbed through the ranks of clueless supervisors and got to someone that would cough up the info. Throwing around the insurance comissioner's name helped a little bit too.
So, if the internist could prescribe and monitor, he could be seen for the $20 co-pay. That office has its own lab, so no deductible for lab tests. The med co-pay I could handle in this situation. So, Doc ... how's about it?
Well sure ... he can do that, no problem, but my son would still need to see a psychiatrist at least twice a year.
*blink blink*
Uh Doc ... I just explained that we cannot afford to see a psychiatrist because of the way BCBS discriminates against those with mental illness. So we are right back where we started, eh? But we have another appointment next month, so the Doc has time to review his records from his last shrink. Maybe we can find an alternative solution by then.
On the way out, I stop at the appointment desk to get an appointment for myself. I see a different doctor in this same group. It's a family affair ... my parents come here too. I will need refills for my Depo in March. The clerk pokes around on her computer for a few minutes ... how about April 21?
*blink blink*
Ummm ... I need an appointment in March. Preferably before March 15. It's not terribly unreasonable to expect to be able to get a follow up visit within 6 weeks, is it? That's the first appointment available. I ask if I could see the nurse practitioner instead. The clerk has to check. My records say that the Doc wants to see me herself. Well then ... I need an appointment before March 15 ... that is when I need to have my medication refill. April 21 is the soonest available.
*silent scream*
OK, I ask to have a nurse call
tomorrow. I will have the day off
tomorrow. She can call anytime
tomorrow. I will be home most of the day
tomorrow. But I need to get going. I have to go to work now. Please have the nurse call
tomorrow.
So when does the nurse call? That afternoon, right after I got back from lunch.
*blink blink*
The next day, I call and ask the nurse to call
today. I am home
today. All day, I am home. Please call.
Today. And guess what? She didn't call! Aauuuuggghhhh!!!
Onward ...
I had been trying to call to get an appointment for my son's disability determination since the end of November. The line is either busy, or rings until it disconnects. Your taxes at work, boys and girls. No email address is available. And I don't want to send off the paper application until I have a specific person to send it to. Finally, I find a toll-free number. I call and speak to a very nice lady. She tells me that the local numbers are impossible to get through. I hold back several snarky comments ... she is, after all, the first reasonable person I have dealt with in ages. That, in and of itself, is enough to make me wonder if I have stepped into the twlight zone. A government worker, on the phone, being nice, polite, helpful and even cracking a joke or two. Pick me up off the floor cause I have surely fainted dead away!
Then I call DCS again to see if I can get any more information from them on how I can get my son together with his father. The person I spoke to before was not in. So I explain the situation all over again ... I should write up a little script for this, I swear. We make zero progress for a good 20 minutes. There is a court order specifying that visitation will be supervised by DCS.
But DCS does not supervise visitation, we never did. So how do we get this changed so that my son and his father can see each other?
That's the judge's orders, we cannot change them. So can we get the judge to change them?
Not without a court petition or a custody re-determination. But there is no need for any of that. We just need the order to be amended in this one little spot ... to be supervised by a mutually agreeable social worker or similar professional? We even have one all ready to go, but his employer needs assurance that all is within the court order.
The court order says supervision by DCS. And DCS doesn't supervise visitation, never has, never will. Why did the judge write the order that way then?
Don't know. How can we change it?
We can't.
Umm ...ma'am? Lissa? What is that thumping noise? Is everything OK?
*wham* That. Is my head. Banging. On the desk. *wham*
OK, let us cut right to the meat of this whole mess. What do we need to do so my son can see his father? AND his father stay within the court order? AND the social worker's boss will be OK with it, legally? We ARE going to do this, but we need to make sure that no one is going to get in trouble with the court or DCS, because, nothing personal now, dealing with the courts and DCS sucks big green hairy ones.
I guess I should refer this to the legal department. I will call you back later.
What a splendid idea! Now we are making some kind of progress.
That was last Thursday. I haven't heard boo yet. This one is at the top of my list for this Thursday. Definitely at the top of one of my lists ...
This one spun off into an insane vortex when I was called hostile, two-faced, a liar, whore, bitch, mentally unstable, and vicious for my efforts by various and sundry parties directly and indirectly involved.
*blink blink*
OK, maybe I am not quite as enthusiastic about this anymore. Go figure ...
And this weird, upside-down, inside-out world has invaded my work place ...
Our little company was bought out by a mega-corporation last month. So, there are major changes afoot. But they can't tell us what kind of changes and how or if it will affect us little peons ... yeah us, the ones that are actually making the money for this company. For now, there is a big slow-down in work. Our hours are being cut back to 32 hours a week. Bonuses? Ha! Yeah right ... it's been a long time since I've seen one of them, it will be a long time before I see another. But hang in there! It will get better! And any display of negative attitude will be a write-up offense!
So come on and get happy! Put on your smilin' face! We'll blow sunshine up your asses until this is a hap-hap-happy place!
I don't even want to get into the weird customers ... that is a novel in and of itself. Many of us are just sticking around to see what happens next ...
And now it is time for my nightly conundrum. I head up to bed ... sleepy, eyes heavy, barely able to drag my butt up the stairs. I lay down, I pick up my book, kitty settles in for some skritching and belly rubs. Within 10 minutes, my eyes are slamming shut. I roll over, put my book down and turn out the light. And then I am wide awake .... for at least another hour.
*blink blink*
« Hush me up!
Posted by
LissaKay on 02/08/05 at 03:23 AM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (0)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
An observation
When I hear or read of someone who feels it necessary to "brag" about how wonderful their life is, how good they have it, and that others who have, in their opinion, less financially or materially ... it seems more like they are trying to convince themselves. It also shows how shallow and petty they really are.
I mean ... I don't go around bragging that I have never been convicted of crimes against children, or any crime at all ... nor have I spent any time in jail ...
I'm just sayin' ... ya know?
Posted by
LissaKay on 11/24/04 at 02:28 PM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (7)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Just wondering
If one hires a professional to do a job, and then the job becomes twice as easy as it was to start with, is it appropriate to ask for a partial refund of the fee paid?
Or ...
If the entity that one is doing battle with hands one more and more ammunition, and then stands on high ground, outside of cover, is it fair to keep shooting?
Eh ... of course it is. Fire when ready, Gridley!
Posted by
LissaKay on 07/31/04 at 03:44 AM in
~ Oh ... Really?
• (0)
Comments •
Pop Up
•
Permalink •
