Disqus - Latest Comments for wordygirl

Re: http://www.songlyrics.com/dj-jazzy-jeff/my-peoples-lyrics/

oOo wordgirl oOo — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:05:28 -0000

"My people was made to endure, my peoples all shapes and colors, my people got more people with them, that's more people, more sisters and brothers..." Please fix, lol!

Re: Brown Sr.: 'They crucified his character'

oOo wordgirl oOo — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:04:28 -0000

The question I have is whether the commentary would be the same if the races were reversed: If Michael Brown were white and the powerful population in this country were black, and if white people were the ones who have suffered from the history of victimization and racism, and if it were a black officer who shot a white M.B., would the reaction of white people be as it is in the comments below? Where is the call for justice when a teen gets no consequences for his (far more serious) crimes because of "affluenza"? It seems to me that "justice" is far easier to abide when your side wins.

Re: Linda Tirado: The one thing I miss about being poor - Oct. 2, 2014

oOo wordgirl oOo — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:07:28 -0000

I think you are discounting the fact of your opportunity. Not everyone, even people in America, have the same opportunities. And it's completely noxious of you to come here an insult Americans when you'd be marinating in your own waste back in India without us.

Re: Linda Tirado: The one thing I miss about being poor - Oct. 2, 2014

oOo wordgirl oOo — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:54:15 -0000

I'm with you on that one. It is far from typical that a hard worker achieves wealth (in the sense that wealth means an abundance of money). Some of the hardest workers are the working poor, and it's ignorant of us to presume that the working poor --or even some welfare recipients-- are failing because they're not trying hard enough.

I don't mean to disregard YoungWerther's hard work or downplay his sacrifices, but living at home for 12 months is not even an option for (probably) most people who are trying to start a business. I know it's not for me, certainly. If I fail, I'll be homeless. Yet, I'm still trying, and it's frightening as heck, but with the kind of career I have, I can't find a permanent job. I have no choice.

And some people are just not smart enough or in possession of enough resources to attend college. Simply, some people truly have neither launch pad nor safety net. I'd be willing to guess that probably most people don't have a piggy bank from which to eat in order to grow a business, either.

I think that those kinds of blind spots of privileged people (who don't realize they're actually privileged) are the cause of so much of the upset about poor people and welfare recipients. I've heard the same argument, time and time again, that people need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but many, many people are incapable of that because they simply don't have bootstraps.

Sympathy or empathy is a difficult thing to achieve when we choose not to see things that cause dissonance within ourselves; it's really easy to think of ourselves being shortchanged with high taxes, seeing the obvious abuse of the welfare system. But the fact is that the poor need us. I dislike losing my hard-earned cash to taxes as much as, or maybe even more than, the next guy, but I have to admit that some people just genuinely need the help despite their efforts to improve their lives.

And even if we could stop welfare from digging into our pockets, I don't think anyone would enjoy the increase in crime and civil disobedience that results from abject poverty on a massive scale.

Re: Linda Tirado: The one thing I miss about being poor - Oct. 2, 2014

oOo wordgirl oOo — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:37:12 -0000

That's a really interesting take on it. I've thought that drug testing for welfare recipients was a good idea from the beginning, but reading Tirado's words gave me pause. But you're right; people have to submit to invasive and humiliating drug testing all the time. I've even had to do it for short-term contract positions. One recent assignment included such a comprehensive background check that it took almost a month to complete, and the drug test required me to reveal my medical background in such detail that I was actually embarrassed. And this information went, not only to my recruiter, but to the company, as well. The length of the assignment? Six weeks.

Re: RealClearMarkets - If You Loathed HMOs, Prepare Yourself For No Frills Obamacare

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:16:51 -0000

Obamacare sucks. And this is coming from a centrist/liberal. I am trying to decide on a plan right now (life change) and in my lovely, high-median-income suburb, not a single one of my doctors is in ANY plan. Nice. I never wanted it, I grudgingly accepted it, and now, I'm going to pay >$400/mo. for a premium that has a $1K-$1.5K deductible and doesn't cover the medicines I take on a regular basis. Do I want my meds covered? That plan has an approximate $300/mo. premium and a $2K-$3K deductible.

But, hey, at least the working poor who qualified for Medicaid in the first place can qualify for Medicaid now.

Re: Ferguson: Black Americans treated differently (Opinion) - CNN.com

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:28:01 -0000

Maybe the difference is that your experience with the jerk would be more likely to end by your being excused and returning safely home, than to end in further harassment, arrest, violence or murder. As much as people seek to equivocate, targeting and racial bias exists. It is not the same as poor service, it is not the same as a bad encounter.

The blue eyes/brown eyes exercise was a classroom experiment conducted in 1968 by an elementary school teacher (Jane Elliott) to illustrate that discrimination changes you, and that no matter who you are, being treated differently just because of how you look is real, painful and very easy to do. (Her control and experimental groups were both white, just either blue-eyed or brown-eyed.) It became acceptable to treat the blue-eyed children poorly and as inferior because they were told it was so. No one questioned it; they just participated in treating their classmates poorly.

Discrimination is hard to see when you're not the person being hurt. It is important for the fortunate, un-discriminated-against people to make the issue seem small or invalid because the alternative is to realize what a great injustice is being perpetrated and to then deal with the issue and all of its implications.

Until you have been treated unfairly because of who you are by a majority, powerful entity that controls your fate, you will never understand even a fraction of the problem that exists for people of color.

Re: 'The Wizard of Oz' at 75: Did you know...?

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:06:31 -0000

Seems that Glenda the Good Witch is the only one to come out unscathed from the technicolor side --she and Oz, that is. (I thought at least one comment should be about the article.)

Re: 'Breaking Bad': Complete Episode Ranker

oOo wordgirl oOo — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:39:40 -0000

I disagree with the "Rabid Dog" ranking. The Marie/therapist scene was to provide some levity and show us Marie's state of mind. It exposed her devastation, but it cast Walt as the villain, versus Skyler. (Which gives the audience a hint of the eventual truce between Skyler and Marie, as does Hank's comment that if he went to the DEA, they wouldn't be able to help Skyler if she changed her mind.)
It shed light on much of the thinking of both Marie and Hank, really. I think it also served to show us the contrast between the sisters. At the beginning of the series, Marie was the criminal and the liar (albeit a far milder version than her sister turned out to be), at the end, Skyler was the much worse human being. Where Marie hated going to therapy in the beginning and she suffered from a big mouth and bad prioritizing, this scene proves that she has changed. She refuses to tell her therapist about the issue because of Hank, and she's sincerely devastated; not just angry, not just hurt. She's matured. Conversely, Skyler made up a therapist and allowed herself to be pulled into Walt's criminality.

The Jesse/gasoline bit of the episode was so telling. It revealed that Walt was murderous, even toward the people he loves (maybe a hint at the future murderous close-call in that very living room between Walt and the people he loves). It provided suspense and set up one of the cleverest (in my opinion) reveals of the series. We were all left wondering what happened to Jesse, and I can't imagine anyone, anywhere would have guessed where he was and with whom. It was a perfect way --maybe the only way-- to put Jesse into the Hank camp and leave Walt completely, believably, in the dark.

For me, the Skyler scene showed a lot about her --and her relationship with Walt--that we hadn't really seen since he was unmasked: Skyler was jaded, self-centered, completely miserable and a very bad person. It was shocking to see her suggest killing Jesse, but that scene was crucial. It made the "tapped phone" scene that much more poignant, between her and Walt, because we know she wasn't the victim that Walt painted her to be. It extends our sympathy for him at a time when he was really irredeemable.

Admittedly, the bald man was a bit contrived, but even that scene showed us how there is really no relationship left between Jesse and Walt. Even though Walt has protected Jesse from, well, everyone: he clearly loves him, yet he is willing to kill him.

Not for nothing, but, anybody else notice the author's name is one letter away from "Franch"? :D

Re: Joan Rivers 'stands behind' Gaza quotes: 'War is hell'

oOo wordgirl oOo — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 07:05:34 -0000

I think that very few people commenting here are actually qualified to comment about something so important. My point is not that people shouldn't comment, but that maybe it's prudent to think before we write horrible things. This is an incendiary topic, but it is also a topic that surrounds a tremendous situation that is costing lives, and in some cases, generations of lives; generations of families, even. There will be no bridge of understanding, but at least we could try to avoid pouring gas on the fire in a stupid forum. (And I advise myself as much as anyone.)

Re: Joan Rivers 'stands behind' Gaza quotes: 'War is hell'

oOo wordgirl oOo — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 06:53:52 -0000

"Shoe on the other foot" should be something the Israelis understand particularly well. It is frankly incredible to see the willful blindness in this charade.

Re: Jon Voight: Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz 'ignorant' about Israel and Gaza

oOo wordgirl oOo — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 07:20:33 -0000

Because they are ALL Semites, dumbazz.

Re: Jon Voight: Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz 'ignorant' about Israel and Gaza

oOo wordgirl oOo — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 07:16:23 -0000

How about you keep things in perspective: Israel's existence is called an Occupation for a reason, and the only ones being pushed into the sea are the Palestinians. They have taken the country of people who lived there, literally kicked them out of their homes, made millions of people homeless and they cry "victim," and only this past Wednesday, the United Nations voted to condemn, in the strongest terms, Israel's gross violation of international law and human rights. The resolution received ONE single vote of support, and that was the US. Every other country, even countries traditionally allied with Israel, either abstained or actually voted against Israel.

It is simply a fact that Israel is violating international law, according to both the Geneva Convention and The Hague, along with just about every other entity concerned with international relations. The world stands against this occupation, with small exception, and even when we generously allow this occupation and remove the rights of the citizens to defend themselves against their occupiers, Israel STILL violates even the internationally agreed conditions concerning ANY occupation. No less than the Israeli High Court of Justice has stated, for more than FORTY years, that Israel's presence in the West Bank is a violation of international law. ISRAEL'S OWN HIGH COURT has called their presence a violation of international law.

Suffice it to say that taking history from the point at which you choose to examine it is blind. And you talk of the "moral choice." The moral choice would be for you to take your head out of your nether regions.

Re: 'Opie & Anthony's' Anthony Cumia fired over tweets

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 01:10:28 -0000

I say good riddance. I've never found O&A funny. In fact, I've often wondered what makes people like them at all. My guess has been that it's a cultural thing: kind of like, the people who were with them when they were not so famous "get" them. Or, maybe it's just a place in the realm humor that I find irrelevant or unfunny.

Re: What life is like for Casey Anthony

oOo wordgirl oOo — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:17:38 -0000

Is this what passes for journalism, now, at CNN? I returned to the top of this article, repeatedly, looking to see if it was an editorial or posted in the Opinion section. Nope, it's in the Justice section.

If that much subjective reporting and opinion is allowed in journalism, then where should the public seek actual news?

This is the kind of propagandizing that the US used to decry in other countries. I'm not giving a personal opinion about Anthony; I happen to agree with the general public on that matter, but this article is garbage. Is there even an editorial staff at CNN?

Re: 'The View' shakeup: Shepherd, McCarthy stand together

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:16:11 -0000

I haven't watched this show in YEARS because some of the hosts were just so annoying that it wasn't enjoyable to watch. And though that's not necessarily a decision-point when it comes to some panel discussions, those exceptions are for examples of intelligent, respectful, informed conversation, which, in my opinion, this show has never been. I think that --like her or not-- Joy Behar was far and away the most intelligent and informed person on that show, aside from Barbara, and even maybe including her. She certainly was the only one I had any respect for, in terms of having a well-thought conversation that wasn't just plucked from some rigid, dogmatic catechism of talking points, or air-headed whimsy that wasn't tied to any kind of actual cognition.

Re: VIDEO Bombshell: First words of Bergdahl’s father at White House were Arabic

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:34:32 -0000

Isn't that what you do? Isn't that what the bible and torah call for? Oh, wait: you don't read your bible...

Re: VIDEO Bombshell: First words of Bergdahl’s father at White House were Arabic

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:32:11 -0000

Muslims are not considered Muslim unless they believe in Jesus, Joseph, Mary, the virgin birth, all of the prophets, hold holy the bible, torah and Qur'an, and follow the laws of the land in which they live. Sadly, many people, including Muslims, are ignorant. Will you start the ball rolling on disseminating truth instead of slander?

Re: VIDEO Bombshell: First words of Bergdahl’s father at White House were Arabic

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:28:03 -0000

Yep, TN is an awesome state, more known for its inclusiveness and religious freedom (read: Christians, Jews and Muslims) for ALL.

Re: VIDEO Bombshell: First words of Bergdahl’s father at White House were Arabic

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:15:50 -0000

President and all congress and senate swear their oaths on the bible. Muslims believe in Jesus as the Messiah and revere the bible, as well. Allah means The (one and only) God. Seems to me that a lot of harmony is going on. But far be it for peace to get in the way of intolerance.

Re: VIDEO Bombshell: First words of Bergdahl’s father at White House were Arabic

oOo wordgirl oOo — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:08:08 -0000

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim is uttered before literally everything, including having sex, opening a car door, putting on your hat, eating your food, greeting someone in writing, making a formal statement, oh, wait...that last one sounds familiar.

Re: Gwyneth Paltrow makes people mad -- again

oOo wordgirl oOo — Thu, 29 May 2014 23:57:37 -0000

I think Gwyneth means well, but, geez, does she come off as an entitled, out-of-touch, deluded, spoiled, rich girl. I don't believe she's ever known a single day's "regluar" life, given that she was born to the rich and famous, and it seems that folks like this should not moan about women not cutting one another slack. They should try to figure out why what they say is considered to be so outrageous.

Re: Edward Snowden 'was trained as a spy,' he tells NBC

oOo wordgirl oOo — Thu, 29 May 2014 06:46:26 -0000

Amidst the debate about privacy and security, I wonder if anyone is surprised to know that this was coming a long distance away. I used to be rabid about privacy, but in recent months, I've begun to wonder: What is it that makes us think we are able to hold onto anything to which we believe ourselves to be entitled? We "used to" be able to live anyplace we chose on the planet. The idea of purchasing part of the earth from someone was not /even/ and idea.

I long for the days where we could do an embarrassing thing in secret, but the truth is, that will never again be the case. Even /if/ we could disband the NSA, the government has (taken) the right to spy on its citizens, as bitter a thought as that is. And it is also true that we are too many in number to be picked on for our everyday deeds.

However the argument leans, however the populace cries, a future of individual surveillance is certain, in my estimation. Dystopian future, maybe not so much; but maybe so. Whatever it is we face, though, technology is far too advanced to truly stop the powerful from their aims. And I wonder similarly to joan15's statement on occasion: How many times has our government protected us from horrors about which we'll never know?

I know that I trusted our President when he was elected. I don't know how much I trust him, now, but I do believe that his, and our preceding administration, and all of those before them, share a common ideal of keeping our country, its citizens, alive and safe from harm.

Why do we spend our energy and happiness fighting the inevitable? I think it's better to focus on our lives and accept the world as it is. Surely, there are things more in need of fighting for, things that will make an immediate and incredibly important difference in the lives of those whom they affect, like homelessness and poverty; like the dire need of clean drinking water in parts of Africa, like mental healthcare for those who cannot afford it, like inequity in the educational and criminal justice systems, like ridding our government of the crippling debt we own.

I am not a typical tow-the-line citizen, as is evidenced by my comments on Disqus and in other forums, but I believe that, for me, it's more constructive to change what I can for the better in this world, while I'm alive and am able to make a difference.

Re: 'The Maya Rudolph Show': What's the verdict?

oOo wordgirl oOo — Fri, 23 May 2014 06:17:51 -0000

Louis CK, Bill Burr, John Mulaney and others of that vein are the ones to watch these days. Louis CK was my favorite before he got famous. Now, with his eponymous show, I see that his cynical view of the world is deeper and more nuanced than what comes across in his act, and I'm even more impressed.

Re: BBC presenter Jeremy Clarkson begs forgiveness amid n-word uproar

oOo wordgirl oOo — Fri, 02 May 2014 19:29:45 -0000

I am part African and I'm not offended in the least. This guy is not a racist. What's all the chatter about? I hope he knows that regular people are NOT offended, by and large.