Drunk drivers are some of the most loathsome people on the planet. It's too bad that there will always be alcoholic drinks (because banning them has proven impossible) and irresponsible asshats, and that no number of dead innocents killed by drunk driving will ever be high enough to put a stop to shitbags thinking that freedom includes the right to do whatever they want, other people's lives be damned.

The father of one of my middle school classmates, who lost his brother in a drunk driving crash the night after his high school graduation in 2000, pleaded and pleaded with students in a speech to my middle school to not drive drunk and kill someone else's son and brother. I wonder how many students actually cared about this grieving father's speech that day, and didn't think that this man was just another parent who wants to spoil their fun.

Speaking of fun, is prison fun? Is forever bearing the guilt of knowing that you killed someone's family member or friend because of your own irresponsibility and carelessness fun? Is one fun night out drinking always worth it in the end, even if someone pays for it with his or her life?

A message to teen girls all across America.

Don't get raped, especially by your school's star athlete. He will get a slap in the wrist and whine about going to a trial while you will be slapped in the face by your school's administrators, your school district, and the courts for exercising your first amendment right of freedom of speech by not cheering for your rapist rather than being the weak, submissive woman they expect you to be.

1. Celebrity couple (X & Y) goes on a romantic date in a hip cafe.
   
2. Paparazzo A, hiding behind some bushes across the street from said cafe, takes photos of a brief moment when Y is smiling while speaking to a waitress and X is grimacing while digging through her bag.
3. Paparazzo A sells photos to trashy tabloid rag A for $$$$$.
4. Tabloid A publishes photos under headline "X to Y: IT'S OVER! X is enraged over Y talking to a hot waitress during their date, and threatens to move out and take the dogs with her"
5. Tabloids B and C splash old photos of X & Y making angry faces (presumably from noticing a paparazzo rather than being angry at each other) all over their covers, and use similar headlines to Tabloid A.
6. X & Y separate because of distress from hearing break-up rumors.
7. One week later, Paparazzo A takes pictures of X walking her dogs post-separation, looking tired and not perfectly put-together.
   
8. Around the same time, Paparazzo B takes pictures of Y smiling while speaking with his young female cousin at a family barbecue.
   
9. Paparazzi A and B sell pictures to Tabloid A for $$$$$
   
10. Tabloid A publishes photos under the headline "X: HE BROKE MY HEART! X crying during a lonely stroll one week after shocking break-up with Y. Y speaks with young girl: he's a cradle robber, too!"
11. Y publicly rebukes and threatens to sue Tabloid A for defamation. He later brings a lawsuit.
    
12. Cash-strapped "friend" of Y releases photos of Y shirtless and drunk at a frat party in college to Tabloid A, which gives this "friend" $$$$$ in return.
13. Other celebrities lambaste Y for "poor choices" on Twitter and Facebook.
14. Y refuses to issue apology, saying that those photos should have remained private, and publicly rebukes his "friend".
15. X does not issue any statements, despite being coerced by reporters.
    
16. Tabloids A, B, C, online magazines 1 and 2, blogs 1 to n, and "reputable" news sources I-V publish stories and opinion columns bashing Y for being an insolent liar, pervert, and cheater and proclaiming X to be a victim.
    
17. Y is forced to issue an apology to X, and he finally does.
    
18. X does not respond immediately, leading "news" sources to bash HER for being indecisive and secretive. Tabloids coin a nickname for her to mock her indecisiveness: "Waity X-ie". Why can't she act the victim like she should?
    
19. "News" sources claim Y's apology is insincere and attack him again. This man can't be trusted to tell the truth!
    
20. X finally responds, saying that she remains friends with Y, does not believe in these rumors of infidelity, and wishes to reunite with him after a period of time. She also asks for the paps to leave her and Y alone.
    
21. "News" sources bash X for not being an "empowered" woman. Is she stupid or what?
    
22. Paps leave X alone, and she is not photographed out and about for weeks. They ignore her plea for them to ignore Y.
    
23. Tabloids A-C claim that she's a lazy bum who is moping around because she just doesn't know what to do with her life after the break-up. They make up a new nickname: "Lazy X-y". She's a typical clingy chick who can't go on without her man!
24. Y wins defamation suit against Tabloid A for an undisclosed amount.
25. "News" sources scream injustice at the ruling, claiming that the judge is a fraud who let a known pedophile go free because this wealthy celebrity bribed him.

and so on.

Minorities within minorities.

I'm a PC person. Make of it what you will.
I'm a Sims 3 fan. Make of it what you will.
I'm a woman. Make of it what you will.
I'm Chinese. Make of it what you will.
I'm an environmentalist. Make of it what you will.
I'm a Democrat. Make of it what you will.
I'm a progressive. Make of it what you will.
I'm an atheist. Make of it what you will.
I'm a dreamer. Make of it what you will.
I'm overweight. Make of it what you will.

Patronized. Ridiculed. Scorned. Threatened. Shunned. Oppressed. Ignored.

Put down for being proud...outspoken...wanting fair and equal treatment...or even existing.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I am (or, I used to be, as you'll see in a bit) a lurker at Daily Kos. There was one member who posted positive Obama diaries on a regular basis, because she felt that the site was becoming overtly hostile to the President. Recently, she was so fed up with the nasty atmosphere of the site, that she quit posting to it altogether to start her own blog, in which she intends to post more such positive diaries about the President. A friend of hers on Daily Kos posted a diary announcing the creation of the blog, and its intended purpose. The comments section of that diary made me so disgusted, I could spit. Many of the members made derisive and scornful comments against the diarist, the member who left the site, all former members who left the site out due to increasing hostility toward the President, etc.

People like her--who share her mindset--are being shut out of the conversation, in DK and in other sites like it, because they dare to focus on the President's accomplishments rather than his failures. Obama's critics on the left love to screech about how he failed to include a public option in the healthcare bill, how he hasn't yet repealed DADT and DOMA, how the financial regulation legislation is a joke, how he's going to cave to the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts, extending the deadline for ceasing combat in Afghanistan, etc. Someone mentions all the promises he has kept, and the immediate positive impact of his first two most significant achievements, and that person is called an "Obamabot", or worse. The critics righteously proclaim that Obama ought to be primaried in 2012, or that he should resign, a la Nixon; those of us who recognize that the loss of the White House in 2012 would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, can hardly make an argument for keeping him without confronting a barrage of spiteful comments.

The critics have made it clear that no healthcare bill would have been better than the one that got passed...I'm sure that the people who benefited from it would argue that they wouldn't have been able to wait another 10 or 20 years for another attempt at passing better healthcare legislation.

These people so drawn in by his promises of change, that they failed to realize that history has proven that systemic changes almost never happen overnight, nevermind without any flaws? Why did they raise their hopes so high, even while knowing that those same hopes would come crashing down upon hitting the ceiling known as "reality"?

Us pragmatic (when did this get a bad connotation?) progressives, who have the same ideals as other progressives but believe in a different approach to achieving them, don't get any respect. We're "spineless", "cowards", "sellouts", "centrists", etc. Since when did trying to get things done a step at a time become the tactic of cowards? In that same logic, babies ought to be born able to solve Fermat's Last Theorem and run marathons in four hours. An analogy I like to use is that Obama was expected to erect a 120-story skyscraper in six months, and the progressive purity police (PPP) were so disappointed when he was only able to finish the six-story basement carpark, that they want to fire him and hire another contractor--because, y'know, if it's possible, then...why can't you do it NOW? AND with no mistakes?

This demand for ideological purity from elected officials is what's causing an enormous rift among the Republican Party right now. Teabaggers demand that their candidates run on a platform of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, anti-"taxation without representation", anti-separation-of-church-and-state, anti-immigration, anti-government-on-their-backs, anti-everything-Obama, etc. Many moderate Republican candidates lost in primaries because the teabaggers were on a mission of purification. And the critics of Obama on the left want to primary him, supposedly on principle...the Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of a civil war on the left, just as we have been watching with glee as the GOP fights the Tea Party.

Miserable fools.

Some of Obama's most vehement critics are from the left. Deeply mistrusting and cynical from decades of observing American politics, they are always inclined to assume the worst intentions from Obama's actions and words. Even if, under his watch, health care reform has gone further than ever before in history, those critics will simply say that he should have done more and put the needs of the American public by the wayside from the very beginning. Why do those miserable fools still observe politics if they expect that no good will come from it? More importantly, why do they seek to make the optimists miserable like they are?

What's so different between those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum? Not much. These left-wing critics are no better than the radical right-wing critics of Republican politicians. The latter may consider a Republican, who is already considered to be a conservative by the mainstream public, to not be conservative enough. The recent election in NY's 23rd congressional district is a prime example of how the right fringe showed its displeasure at the nomination of a moderate candidate: it nominated its own candidate because it didn't consider the GOP candidate to be "conservative enough".

By the way, they lost that election. Consider what would happen if these threats by purist Democrats to primary Blue Dogs and even President Obama himself were to come to fruition in 2010 and 2012. The media and the GOP would have a field day with the "Democratic Party is fractured" meme, and the GOP would almost certainly benefit electorally. Republicans could win back both the House and the Senate, and possibly even the White House, if the Democrats are disorganized and fighting amongst themselves. They'd create an even greater mess for the next Democratic president to clean up, and inevitably, his critics from his own party will claim he's not doing everything exactly to their liking.

The Democratic Party's inclusive, "big tent" philosophy naturally results in a base that is diverse in age, skin color, background, and experiences; it's a double-edged sword, and Democrats will always be somewhat handicapped by their diversity. The Party leadership must place great emphasis on the "common, shared human experiences" theme, because now the conservatives and the progressives are feeling absolutely no love for one another. Obama, naturally, is in the crossfire, receiving blows from both sides.

He is treated like a child in a family with two highly-demanding parents; I've been around families like this, especially within the Chinese community. You know how those families are. The parents force their children to practice their musical instruments for hours a day, and expect them to excel in academics. Straight-A report cards and top scores on standardized tests are not even cause for praise. Oh no, they must go above and beyond--win all the science and math fairs, skip grades, gain entrance into the most prestigious colleges in the nation (with full scholarships, no less). Obama's stuck in the same rut--he can't please his base, no matter how hard he tries. His critics say that all his accomplishments so far (and there are quite a few) are par for the course, and that any Democratic president would have achieved them; they claim he hasn't lived up to his slogan of "change we need". Never mind that he's ten months into his first term, and that his major promises are also the ones that take the longest to achieve.

Granted, most of these parents are products of their upbringings and environments; in China, for example, the competition is extremely fierce among secondary school students, because China has too many students and too little space in colleges and universities. The parents, if they were immigrants, had probably come to America in search for a better life, and want their children to be better. I'm going to go ahead and say that most of Obama's critics simply wish for him to live up to his promises and bring about real change so that all present and future Americans may benefit, just like those parents wish for their children to have better lives than they had. As for some of them, though, I can't help but think that they are either so cynical and jaded that they expect no less than for him to betray his party, or that they have never liked or trusted him for some reason.

All politicians make promises during their campaigns; how quickly they can fulfill them is difficult for them or anyone else to predict. If they had told the truth and said that they can't promise they will give everyone's pet issue their full attention in their first year in office, would anyone vote for them? My argument is that we should believe those promises, but not expect our politicians to act on all of them immediately, and not expect them to have our number-one issues as their top priorities right away. Some people set themselves up to be extremely disappointed, but why do that when we know better? I swear they are like parents who are so cynical that they expect their teenage children to do drugs, imbibe alcohol, and hang out with the bad crowd even if none of them are actually involved in those activities. Add to that the parents' not believing their children even when they are telling the truth. It's sad that it had to come to this.

What bothers me the most is that the latter tend to like to spread their misery around. They go to Obama photodiaries or other positive Obama diaries and post comments that are intended to disrupt the stream of mostly positive responses and chastise the other commenters for being naive, stupid idol-worshippers who were blind to all his (supposedly) true loyalties and allegiances that they (think they) know him to have. Like they are in his inner circle, or could tap into his thought processes and discover his true intentions.

He ought to be criticized when necessary, but some of his critics are truly taking it too far and attacking his character, assuming the worst intentions, and bullying those who still support him. Do they really think they are helping the cause by attacking the President this way? Do they really think primarying him is a good, noble action against a supposedly corrupt politician? Do they really expect him to fulfill all his promises at an inhuman pace, circumventing the obstacles of the media, his opponents, and all the delays in the legislative process? Who is really naive here?

One long, winding rant

In a forum that I frequently read, the discussion of the bloody murder of a model by her wealthy husband quickly disintegrated into a cruel mockery of her "blonde bimbo" image. To them, she was the epitome of a vapid, naive young woman who used artificially-enhanced looks to gain the affections of wealthy men. Their mockery of her reminds me of the public's and the media's treatment of Anna Nicole Smith, who also died tragically, with the aid of others who were supposed to be helping her. What they forget is that these two women, and others like them, were human beings both before and after their transformations who became caricatures of themselves in order to gain the attention of others. I guess, in a sense, they deserved the treatment...but even after their deaths? It's beyond tasteless--it's cruel.

What also disturbs me is that one member of the forum made a post using Chelsea Clinton as a euphemism for "ugly". Unsurprisingly, another forum member--who has made previous posts which suggest that he is a social conservative--thanked the first member's post for being "useful" (which is the forum's way of letting members show their appreciation for an informative post. Unsurprisingly, it's used often to indicate an agreement with the poster's sentiments, rather than the quality of their posts). Now, when the name of a former president's child is evoked as a substitute for the word "ugly", you know the quality of the discussion has deteriorated beyond recovery. The latest posts in that thread have little to do with the murder itself, which was its topic; it's turned into personal attacks and weak attempts to guide the discussion back to the original topic.

I have learned indirectly that Chelsea Clinton was once called the family dog by a nationally-recognized conservative Republican, whose similarly-minded audience at the time thought the comment was absolutely hysterical(-ly funny). Their ilk also called Hillary Clinton names that should make any woman righteously furious, simply because she did not fit their mold of the ideal woman (subservient and unambitious. A woman's dangerous when she's ambitious, doncha know.). In one of the more stunning demonstrations of their underhanded tactic of using personal attacks when they have nothing substantive or relevant to bring to the discussion, they attacked CHILDREN for being liars when they dared to support a Democratic candidate or a Democratic platform. The best (worst?) example of all is their calling President Obama's oldest daughter some of the same names they had used on Hillary Clinton simply because the 11-year-old dared to wear a shirt with a peace sign on it and to walk out in Europe with her hair unkempt (or so they thought). Little thought was actually given to the purpose of the Obama family's being in Europe in the first place...it was all about Malia's shirt and hair (and her skin color, but the name-callers claim they are not racists.).

Yet, when members of my party pointed out the misdeeds of the Bush twins or former AK Governor Palin's exploitation of her children to score political points, we become the target of "outrage" from conservative Republicans. How dare we criticize the Bush twins for using fake IDs to obtain alcohol and setting a poor example for their age peers. How dare we criticize Palin for a)constantly using her mentally disabled son as a prop to extol her "family values" while her record strongly indicates that she had turned her back on the mentally disabled children of other Alaskans; and b)seemingly being unaware of just how far her daughter had taken her relationship with her then-boyfriend while, again, extolling the family value of no sex before marriage. These people demonstrated their poor judgment by their actions, so we rightfully criticized them for failing to practice what they preach, but their defenders say we have no right to do so (because what? Because you are Republican, therefore beyond all reproach?). Who, then, gave them the right to make personal attacks on innocent members of my party and even children with no political affiliation for having the "misfortune" of looking the way they do by accident of birth (to Democratic parents--those immoral heathens) or the audacity to support an expansion of SCHIP because, I dunno, they are seriously ill and NEED health insurance to pay for their outrageously expensive medical treatments that their working/laid-off parents could not possibly afford? Why can't they just not get sick? If their parents KNEW they couldn't afford to pay for their children's medical treatments, why did they even HAVE children (they had to have anticipated that their children would get seriously ill before they were even born)?

Speaking of which, the cause of health care reform, which was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's life's passion, has gained new momentum and meaning due to his recent death (may he rest in eternal peace). The cause is personal for so many millions of Americans, both conservative and liberal, and is the cause on which President Obama has essentially staked his reputation and success. Those who are eager to enforce the status quo are stoking the fears of those ill-informed reactionaries of the Republican Party, planting lies in their desperate-for-vindication-of-their-worldviews brains that socialism is an evil to be thwarted at all costs, that Obama's "death panels" (actually end-of-life counseling, which is essential) will "pull the plug on Grandma", that government-administered health insurance under Obama would cover illegal immigrants, and so on. All these arguments are absurd and untrue, and yet so many buy into them because they are so terrified of change that they will hold on to any embankment or rock in order to avoid being swept away by the steady flow of the stream of change. In those health care town halls that have captured the news media's attention these past few weeks, vocal groups (who have not read and will not read the actual proposal) opposed to health care reform have stifled debate, shouted down supporters and Democratic legislators, and even threatened their lives. From bringing dangerous assault rifles to "teabagger" rallies outside of town halls to hanging Democratic legislators in effigy, they have shown that there is no limit to the lengths they would go to prevent even the slightest change, even if it actually benefits them.

Do these foot soldiers of the opposition really know what it is they are really fighting for or against, as opposed to what they only believe is true? Are they so wedded to the culture of "Me", that even the thought of contributing a penny to cover the costs of another American's medical treatments makes them tremble with rage and indignation? Had they forgotten that over a trillion of tax money (including their own) was spent on deadly wars that they supported when Bush was president, and that far less money would be spent on health care reform, which would actually create and aid instead of destroy and plunder? What should be a passionate debate on a moral issue concerning all Americans is instead a ruthless, dangerous assault from one small but seething minority on the right that is fueled by fear, contempt, resentment, and racial prejudice. They have turned health care debate into a war, and they aren't afraid of using violence to silence those who want a reasoned discussion. In order to do what's morally right, and honor the memory of a faithful public servant, this discussion should get back on topic--the assurance of a brighter future for the American people.

I am so sick of celebrity-bashing. That it amuses and gratifies so many people disgusts me. They are treated by the public like zoo animals; we point and laugh at their antics while safely behind reinforced glass windows and metal bars. Or, it could be that they are parading across a giant stage, doing their acts for our amusement, and we are the ultimate judges of their performances; unfortunately, their acts include moments of their personal lives we have absolutely no business in.

We shamelessly ridicule celebs like Britney, Lindsay, and Paris for shits and giggles instead of paying serious attention to the real dangers of underage drinking, drunk driving, and drug abuse. We lambasted Britney's poor parenting skills while so many relatively unknown people are abusing, kidnapping, raping, grossly neglecting, and murdering their children. Luckily, the Caylee Anthony story has gotten plenty of national attention, but the vast majority of the rest of the cases similar to hers are given little attention. Instead, people prefer to read the latest posts on their favorite sleazy celebrity gossip blogs or watch yet another E! News story about some celebrity's latest trip-ups and drama. 'Cause come on...real news is bor-ing, right?

We may argue that the news is being forced down our throats by the media. That is right, but we also have superpowers called "changing the channel" or "not reading tabloids". We don't have to pay attention, but we're choosing to. That's what's fueling the unhealthy celebrity obsession. By buying more magazines, tuning in to more TV programs, and bringing more traffic to celebrity gossip blogs, we are indirectly encouraging more of their destructive behavior and ignoring far more urgent concerns.

So a paparazzi took a shot of Britney's girl parts. Members of the general public have come to the conclusion that she wanted us to see that picture to bring more attention to herself. Britney's not 100% mentally stable, but I doubt she would want that kind of picture being shown all over the Internet and on TV. Instead, it is because some photographer wanted to take the most sensational shot to sell to mags for $$$. She may have brought it upon herself by being so (in-)famous, but that doesn't mean that there's a free-for-all for her dignity. Let the woman retain all of it that she has left and leave her alone.

The only celebrities I know of who seem to genuinely want to draw attention to themselves are P. Diddy and Paris Hilton. There are probably others. Call me stupid or call me naive, but cynicism is not how I roll.

Bitter much? The Aussies are upset because Phelps defeated their home team in every event, so once his 12,000 calorie-a-day diet was revealed, they weren't shying away from making crude comments and insults.

They're just like the Americans when they lose--they whine, complain, find scapegoats, and throw hissy fits like spoiled children...which isn't far from the truth. No wonder they can't fathom going through China's athletic or academic programs--it'd require too much effort in addition to assuming responsibility and blame for one's own actions. They'll blame it on the oppressive Communist regime, of course.

Phelps practices in the pool every single day for several hours, swimming for a few dozen kilometers. If I am not mistaken, a swimmer of his caliber isn't exactly going to do a leisurely swim in the community pool as his daily practice. He most likely does other forms of exercise, such as weightlifting, to increase muscle strength. He is obviously not a "lardass"...and calling him by that shows incredible immaturity.

Assume that Aussie swimmers have the same rigorous training regimen as Phelps and eat the same amount of calories every day as he does--it can't be that different. Would you call them lardasses, then, or is that reserved for the Americans (because we obviously are all fat tubs of lard)? He's not an attention whore because he doesn't try to draw attention to himself, but because his accomplishments draw others' attention to him. He's not an egotistical maniac, and even if he were, his actions would back up his claims.

Come on, you people are not children. Show some restraint and maturity, especially on the Internet. Phelps isn't going to be hurt by your invectives because he knows things you don't and never will.

Angelina and Brad are not self-important and attention-seeking celebrities because their doctor addressed the media on the condition of their babies. Would you let all the often ugly lies and rumors spread across the world without feeling the need to set the record straight? Sure, a normal couple wouldn't ask their doctor to give a "press conference" updating the world on the condition of their pregnancy, but when it comes to the most famous couple in the world (which by default makes them highly 'abnormal', in a sense), unwanted attention follows them everywhere. They didn't want to do things in this fashion, as so many commenters in the blogosphere have suggested, but by the public's lust for information and the media's lust for viewership/readership and money, the J-P camp had few other options.

And for some to suggest that Angie/Brad deserve the lack of privacy for being celebrities in the first place, that's the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever heard. Are these critics justifying their own secret pleasure at viewing scandalous, salacious, and sensational celebrity news? One thing's for sure, though: nothing justifies this appalling media circus surrounding the twins' birth--not money, curiosity, nor even their parents' celebrity.

To certain people (you know who you are): We don't care if you don't care a whit about the J-P's. Just don't come to us telling us we're all rotten people for following all the news about them. Among us there are actually plenty of people who actually do care about their lovely family and don't buy into all that bullcrap the tabloids puke out every day. Unlike you.

I'm boycotting YOU, CNN.

Two very good articles:

http://www.cctv.com/english/20080418/103173.shtml

http://www.cctv.com/program/chinatoday/20080417/107718.shtml

I hadn't been on CNN.com in weeks. I'm glad I hadn't, because apparently things got rather nasty in there with the hatred of China. Jack Cafferty called the Chinese "goons and thugs". O RLY. Then what are the Tibetans who set fire to Chinese businesses then? Freedom fighters? Apparently, CNN also cropped a picture of the demonstrations in Tibet, putting the focus of the picture squarely on the Chinese military trying to control the group of rogues who were committing an act of organized violence instead of the Tibetans themselves and the destruction they had caused. CNN prides itself on being fair and accurate. Well, cropping pictures sounds awfully like something the Chinese government would do--diverting attention from the truth. The Chinese media used--gasp!--the WHOLE PICTURE. With the FIRES and everything. What does CNN have to gain from all this?

I am so sick of all this BS nonsense about China being evil. It's turning into an all-out hate-on-China fest. Sooner or later, the "discussion" is going to turn into this:
"The Chinese all work in sweatshops for pennies a day."
"They gamble, drink, smoke, and spit everywhere."
"The Chinese people are bucktoothed, dirty scumbags who eat cats and dogs."
"They shit and piss into holes in the ground, and can't see out of their slits for eyes."
"They want to poison our children with their toys and make nothing but junk [thank you Mr. Cafferty]."
"They're taking over our businesses, schools, and communities with their dirty Communist ways!"

There are already people out there accusing China of genocide and "occupying" Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Who knows what kind of arguments they'll come up with next.

I don't know the extent to which CCTV is controlled by the government. What I do know is that after reading about all these people needlessly bashing China, I'm relieved to know that people will stick up for it still. Stick up for the people, their happiness and pride. Stick up for China's future. No more of this hate and ignorance.

Some commenters on the Internet should leave their computers.

To the wonderful examples of humankind that are some of the People.com commenters:

• Get a life. You surely have better things to do with your time than to sneak around on entertainment websites just so you can post insulting comments about a public figure you happen to hate.
  
• Do you know Hillary/any random celebrity whom you dislike beyond what's presented in public? Didn't think so. Before you make any snap judgments about or heave personal insults at anyone, learn something about him/her. Before she went into politics, Hillary worked her ass off on behalf of women and children while working at all-male prestigious law firms. Bill was a Rhodes Scholar who had a less-than-ideal family situation, but still managed to stay on his feet and succeed. Did you bother to learn all that before you touched your keyboard?
  
• They are human beings, like you (though I have my doubts about you). Don't think for a second that they don't go through the same crap in their lives as we do. They worry about finances, pay taxes, raise children...just like you.
  
• Even the people we despise may say something or do something which would ultimately benefit us. Assuming that nothing good can come out of your enemies is doing yourself a disfavor.
  
• You try being constantly under national and international scrutiny. Chances are you won't like it, but if you're like Ann Coulter, you'd feel right at home basking in the glow of attention (even if it's almost 100% negative).
• Did you graduate from one of the top business/law schools in the country? Did you persevere at your work until you reached a position of prestige at your law firm/company? Did you publicly advocate unpopular positions or little-known issues? Did you run or help to run a country? Didn't think so. So don't assume you understand.
  
• You can't deny that Chelsea Clinton and Cate Edwards turned out to be fine, intelligent, well-adjusted, successful young women, no matter how evil you perceive their parents to be. Their parents must have done something right--how shocking!
  

To conclude: If you've got nothing useful or positive to say, just shut the hell up. It helps unclog the Internet.

Olympics

Due to the recent crackdown of the Chinese government on Tibetan protesters, a question was posted on CNN.com asking readers their opinions on a possible boycott of the Olympic Games in 2008. While some readers thought the boycott was a terrible idea and that politics shouldn't be mixed with sports, many arrogant, self-righteous assholes essentially proclaimed America and its allies as the beacons of morality by supporting a boycott. Boycotting the Games is exceedingly stupid, arrogant, and foolish; it is vastly unfair to athletes and to the Chinese people.

The crackdown today, the history of political and social oppression, and corruption aren't the only reasons why Americans and their allies take such a stance against the Chinese government. I have heard people mention, among all things, female infanticide as meriting a boycott of the Games. It seems as if people are more than happy to slough through all the positives that China has produced and select only the events which would help paint China as evil. Female infanticide is definitely a practice horrible beyond belief, but China's not the only country which has this, nor is it the only country which has a history of terrible oppression of females. Parts of Korea, Japan, and so many Third-World countries practice female infanticide or female circumcision, but the West turns a blind eye to them because they aren't communist or socialist dictatorships (or have nothing to offer). No one would blink an eye if India hosted the Games, yet it's hard to find a country where female infanticide in rural areas is more commonplace.

Do these commenters even know what actual Chinese think? Do they have Chinese friends or family, or even coworkers? My guess is that most do not. Most of the Chinese I know dislike the Chinese government, and have personally experienced much of the oppression and suffering which came with modernization, yet they had never, ever in any way shown that they hated their mother country. We all love China with all our strength and want only what's best for the people, whom we consider ourselves to be among, still. We may have come to America to achieve a better life for our families, but that does not indicate that we ever wanted to leave China behind forever. We just hate the way the government is run, and desire change as much as non-Chinese do. These changes take time, and some significant changes have already occurred. If China's given the chance to really show itself off like it plans to later this year, the Chinese people will be better off for it. The people of China have a genuine enthusiasm for the Games, which is their chance to make all their countrymen inside and outside proud. It's only fair that we be given that chance. Boycotting the Games would amount to essentially destroying the spirit of the Chinese people, and that could only lead to negative consequences for everyone.

Do the commenters know much of anything about China, its history, its culture, or its people? We value family above all else. Chinese holidays, for the Chinese, are bigger affairs than Christmas, Easter, or Thanksgiving. During the Spring Festival, people take their precious two-week holidays from work and school to drive, fly, or ride trains (often for days) to their homes to be with their parents, siblings, and extended families for huge celebrations. The Chinese adore their children just as much as Americans do, and the attitudes of the more traditional families toward filial piety have softened, but children are still taught to respect their parents and elders as children should. The language and much of the culture have survived with few changes for millenia, and Chinese had invented some of the technologies we now take for granted.

The entire world is against China, it seems. The Democrats in Congress (it almost makes me want to change parties) want Bush to boycott the opening ceremony. The French and English have interrupted the Olympic torch relay, and now this tradition has been canceled. The few Tibetans who began burning the businesses of Han Chinese (thus ruining the livelihoods of innocent people) had chosen the perfect time to stage those protests, and now the entire Western world is on their side, blindly guided by their holier-than-thou attitudes of moral superiority. Even people who have no knowledge of Chinese history or people are coming to Tibet's defense, making baseless claims using information from biased media reports. Some of those people have also claimed that the Chinese are "occupying" not only Tibet, but Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, all which have been Chinese territory for centuries before the Western powers took over or the Communists took charge. Just ask any person who's grown up in China or has done extensive research into Chinese history...but of course, they're lying because the Communists made false claims on everything. I am an ignoramus because I obviously didn't watch all the American news reports.

Well, the Communist Party of China certainly didn't fabricate the experience I had when I was visiting relatives in 2001. When the IOC announced that China would be hosting the Olympics in 2008, my entire family was ecstatic, cheering and hugging. The Chinese people are absolutely enthralled by the opportunity to finally host the Olympic Games, but if the world boycotts the Games, there will be over a billion dispirited Chinese people. And dispirited citizens certainly won't help China to change its ways and become more open. What those Westerners believe they're achieving by boycotting the Olympic Games will not be what actually happens. Why must they be so damn cocky about it?

What about Western imperialism and the terrible consequences that wrought on Africa and Asia? Slavery? Are those not moral transgressions or examples of human rights travesties? How is it not hypocritical to condemn China's oppressive policies when the very countries who are threatening to boycott the Olympic Games had once committed even worse crimes against human beings in the past? All these are hidden under the covers when it comes to China's, Russia's, or Cuba's human rights travesties. It's time to step off the moral high ground, you fools. The fall from your high horse will be more painful than you think. Communist China's human rights violations will not somehow justify your country's own wrongdoings or undo them.

I know I know: "it wasn't our idea". The human rights violations in China weren't my idea (and nor were they my parents', our friends', or our families'). We know it's not your intention to condemn the entire Chinese population (though if that were your intention, shame on you), but by supporting a boycott of the Olympics, you're effectively insulting all Chinese people.

You know what? We don't want you in China anyway.

I swear, sometimes I feel like we're on par with the Jews based on how each of these groups were unfairly treated throughout history. China was carved, sliced into pieces by Japan and Western powers during the later Qing dynasty. They took so many of our national treasures, poisoned our people with opium, declared war on China in the name of expanding their empires. The Communist Party formed indirectly as a reaction to foreign imperialism. Now we're the criminals. How is this justifiable or fair?

Everyone complains about parking...

...me being one of them. Now I don't like to complain (at least publicly or even just to friends), but this has been an ongoing source or frustration for me as well as almost everyone who owns a car on campus. Driving around for 20 minutes searching for a place to park where I would not get ticketed wastes gas, and that gas isn't cheap (and I could go on forever). It's even been suggested that we park on the grass if we can't find a single open space, since parking in a handicapped space would result in a far heftier fine ($20 vs. $250). Oh, and some people park their scooters or mopeds in spaces designated for cars--one per space, even. Extremely insulting, especially considering how much we pay for decals.

Students paid $110 for the privilege to park on campus this academic year, and we are subjected to a game reminiscent of "musical chairs" or "searching for a job" every time we take our cars out for a drive. If I weren't graduating this semester, I would have to face competition from an enormous 2008-2009 freshman class. They're letting more freshmen in than ever before, yet they build over old parking lots?

My Business Chinese instructor must park at the mall several miles away and take the bus to campus, so this problem is not restricted to students. Most students, anyway. In Fraternity Row, there must be a pretty low ratio of students to parking spaces compared to the rest of campus because that parking lot is enormous. Despite that, there is no way hell I would park in Frat Row. A parking lot of roughly the same size, which isn't far from where I live, is nearly always full.

The parking lots surrounding my residence are are not 24/7, so that means after a certain time anyone could park in them and avoid tickets as long as they move before 7:30am the next day. Something's being done to change that, but the changes probably would not occur before I leave for good.

The Administration doesn't seem to take this seriously, but they each have their reserved parking spaces, so how would they understand?

And you wonder why these things happen.

School shootings, suicides, etc.

You may or may not have heard of Megan Meier, a girl who committed suicide last year due to being personally insulted by a MySpace "friend" (whose account was actually created by an adult neighbor). She had been diagnosed with depression and ADHD, had always had some self-esteem issues, and was trying to lose weight. At the time she met this "friend", according to her parents, she had never been happier, and was thrilled beyond belief that a cute boy actually thought she was pretty. After several weeks of communicating, the messages from "Josh" became more and more mean-spirited and insulting. The icing on the top of the cake was a message that insinuated that the world would be a better place without her. After she read this message, she took it to heart and hung herself.

It had since been revealed that the mother responsible for creating this account did so to monitor Megan's attitude toward the woman's own daughter, who had a falling out with Megan not long before. Soon, other neighbors got the password and began to correspond with Megan on MySpace through the "Josh Evans" account...and they definitely did not have kind words for her. They knew she had these disorders, and that her self-esteem was extremely vulnerable, but instead of trying to be understanding, they thought it would be entertaining to bait her and see her reaction. They called her ugly, among other things, even though she was actively trying to lose weight to improve her self-image.

Her parents monitored her MySpace activity, and only let her access her account with their permission. It's not clear whether her mother knew of the age limit for MySpace account-holders, which was 14 years of age (Megan was 13 when she died). On the day she hung herself, her mother had forcefully asked her many times to log off her MySpace account, but she wouldn't, and Megan became more hysterical the more comments she read insulting her character and weight.

Not surprisingly, many bloggers have posted about this, and most of the ones I've read were highly sympathetic to Megan and her parents. On one sympathetic blog post, the blogger asked for justice for Megan's family and harsh punishment for the woman responsible for the fake account. One commenter (unsurprisingly, who remained "anonymous") posted an unbelievably cruel, insensitive comment:

"Anonymous said...

Justice? What a waste of space you people are. If a girl is that messed up in the head to where "breaking up" with a guy she had never met sent her over the edge; she was going to off herself sooner or later, no question about it. I mean, what if, God forbid, she got a rejection letter from a college?

What is this garbage about "things a 13 year old girl should be interested in?" Myspace does not let 13 year olds have accounts. She was an online liar too!!"

Insulting a recently-deceased 13-year-old girl, calling her a "liar", and insinuating that it's a waste of space to ask for justice when the girl would've committed suicide eventually anyway is not just insensitive...it's downright cruel. The person who wrote this would not have been out of character posting demeaning messages about Megan on the "Josh Evans" account. This is the kind of "human" being who thinks making fun of, mocking, teasing, baiting, and insulting people less fortunate or "normal" than him/herself (fortunate to be an insensitive bastard?) is horribly entertaining and boosts his/her own self-image. These are the people who directly or indirectly contribute to many of the problems with modern kids, including the school shootings and suicides like Megan's, by being prejudicial, intolerant, hateful, and less than understanding. All these kids with low self-esteem want is for someone to pay positive attention to them, accept them for who they are, and overlook their physical/emotional conditions. It's sad how superficial modern society's become.

There is justice to be sought in Megan's story. The message about the serious effects of bullying should be spread to every corner of the Internet and every community in the real world. Whether the mother who created the fake account and her collaborators should be persecuted is not the big issue--the big issue is bringing to light the facts, forcing people to pay serious attention to them and to prevent things like this from ever happening again.