

I call this "Potential" or something like that, then I cut the flower part off.

Just kidding, lol.



Here was a purple flower as seen through our fall foliage.


When thoughts come to mind, I will put them on my blog. Real names for personal stories are used with permission.
The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.
There’s a man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?
Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.
This man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual rapist, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s Rapist, and this particular Schrödinger’s Rapist has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a man who ignores a woman’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.
For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.
-Sweet Machine
So...by not going to SC and getting herself hurt or killed, Michelle Obama is oppressing the freedom-loving, conservative patriots who just want to express their “dissent” to her personally. Is that right?
On that note, I’m pretty fed up with theocratic assholes who think that their First Amendment right to be free from government impediments of speech means that they are allowed to force any particular person to listen to them.
Chicago just passed a law creating 50 foot buffer zone around abortion providers’ workspaces. Within 50 feet of the building, you cannot approach someone closer than 8 feet without her permission. The ACLU is actually on the theocrats’ side in this, evil socialists they are, b/c it’s hard to leaflet from 8 feet away.
Anyway, tons of screaming about how these wonderful people who never harmed anyone and have saved countless baybeez are being discriminated against and not being allowed their freedom of speech.
You can talk. You just can’t talk to a specific person if they don’t want to listen: that’s called harassment.
Specifically to this post, no one is stopping anyone in SC from dissenting. If they can’t behave like civilized people or like Americans, then it’s their own fault if they can’t have nice things like a visit from the First Lady.
-Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes