post a new creation

i still get these people who tell me that what i am doing is "great experience" for "down the road." these people like to say that they "started out as aides and paras" and "learned so much" from the work they did.

well, i suppose i have learned a couple of things too. i have learned that, on my salary, i can barely afford an apartment that is priced at below market value. i have learned that i do not qualify for the state health insurance that is supposedly mandatory, because i make "too much," despite the fact that if i were to take the insurance offered by my job, i would have no money left over from my paycheck after the rent is paid. i have learned that education and schooling have little to nothing in common. i have learned that teachers, paras, and others that work with youth are a pretty mediocre bunch, no more interested in education than any other group of people. i have learned that, because of racism, special ed programs tend to be dominated by students of color and by those who have a hard time understanding english.

the thing is, you are supposed to want a "career," not just a job. everything you do has to have some kind of purpose, namely the purpose of making a lot of money.

like most of humanity, i work because i have to. my work is not a "stepping stone," or a "valuable learning experience." it is done so that i will have a roof over my head.

palin actually used the phrases "say it ain't so, joe" and "joe six pack" during the vp debate.

i am really into booker ervin at the moment. what a sound. it goes right through you. when he got together with byard, davis, and dawson, it swung hard, and different from what had come before. his music was never barron, kenny. i told sarah that i thought the modern players palin comparison to booker, but she claimed they were biden there time.

do people really think that obama and mccain are the best candidates? are they aware that other people are running? they tell us that third party candidates have no chance, but this is only so because people aren't voting for them. and by the way, since when did americans need a great chance of winning in order to do something? millions of people play the lottery, even though they have next to no chance of winning. people root for teams that will never win the championship. the more i think of it, the more it strikes me as bizarre that an anti-war voter could vote for someone who wants to increase our troop levels in afghanistan, and who supports striking pakistan and iran, "if necessary." they will likely support this candidate because the other candidate is worse, but that is like supporting rape because rape is "better" than murder. no one ever runs around saying that rape is "the lesser of the two evils." if you are anti-war, why not support an anti-war candidate? if you want universal health insurance, why not support a candidate that does as well? if you want a significant increase in the minimum wage, why not support a candidate that calls for one? if you want to see the corporations battled by our government, why not support a candidate who has spent his entire adult life battling these very same corporations? isn't the idea to support someone, as compared to not opposing one candidate as much as the other? there is an old saying that says we should live the change we wish to see in the world. i can't help but think that we should vote that way as well.

essentially the problem is that only one side votes for what it wants, while the other side votes against the guy it wants less. it is an unfair fight, unequally waged. progrssives need to figure out what they want, and then try with all their might to get it. voting is only a small part of this, but i think it matters.

the progressive voter is in an abusive relationship, but is afraid to leave the relationship, for things "could get worse" if they do.

worse?