When I go through hard times (like I am now), it's hard for me to figure out the right way to vent my anger. I have heard of people having to punch pillows, scream at the top of their lungs, or some people drink. My problem is I don't know what option would best suit me.
Let's star with punching a pillow. This sounds perfectly fine. It allows me to be violent and yet hurt nobody at the same time. Actually now that I think about it, this process already has a problem. Nobody gets hurt. If I'm going to punch something then I want the punch to connect with something. Pillows leave no indication of any damage being done to it at all. I want something to be damaged! I'm in a bad mood! Maybe there's a marketing opportunity here? Breakable pillows! Pillows made specifically for people who need to take out their aggression. Nah, that will never work. Then you'd get the idiots who buy breakable pillows on accident and start sending them back and creating all kinds of restocking problems. Then I'd get frustrated and start breaking the breakable pillows I have in my warehouse and that would cause inventory inaccuracies. It's just a bad system all together. Who the hell though of this stupid "Breakable Pillow" idea?
Anyway, I could always try drinking. That could work. It's easy enough to get some booze. But that can lead to health problem. What is my liver goes bad? I now have hospital fees and medication! I already hate going to hospitals, so this won't help any. Besides, it's my liver! That's important. I mean I only have two. (Or is it kidneys? I always get those mixed up...oh god I hope it's not kidneys...) So now I have to get a replacement liver. Where do I get one of those? I'm 90% sure they don't sell anything like that at Wal-Mart. So this is no good.
And let's face it, screaming is just stupid. All is does is piss off the neighbors and not to mention you just look fucking goofy. Screaming is just one of those things that is best done in someone's face. Somebody who deserves it. Like the lady at the DMV who's giving you an attitude, like you're wasting her time. (Oh, sorry I asked you to do your job, how ridiculous of me.)
So I'm stuck. How do I get out my aggression? This is one that I don't have an answer for just yet. No clever ending, no witty lines, just a question. What do I do?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Quotations...
Have you ever gotten a card from somebody for say Christmas or a Birthday and the card envelope has your name with quotes around it? Like for example, "Jimmy" or "Sarah". Why the quotes? Is there a doubt as to who I really am? If the person doesn't really know me that well then why send a card at all?
Perhaps it's to avoid confusion with another Will. Like, "To us you're Will, but that guy over there is 'Will'." Like he would be a sort of "Dark Will". A Will that fought in 'Nam. That Will saw some intense action and to this day he can't talk about it. He can't relive the memories of seeing good old Frankie and Dan "Ferret" Stevens (The troop's combat Vet) get shot in the back by Charlie and left for dead in the swamps. That Will has ghost haunting him to this day. He's a Will in name only, because deep down he's not a person anymore, just a walking, talking hunk of meat who's number hasn't come up yet.
But that can't be it! No, then the person would write "Will 2" or put the first letter of his last name on the envelope. (Which is Will T. in case you were wondering). It has to be something else. Maybe it's their way of trying to be cute. They know that at least I'm a guy and I wouldn't want any hearts over the letter i or have my name written in pink. They want their letter to stand out and not seem so cold and lifeless. They want me to know that we're on friendly terms. Little did they know that their concern has only backfired! Now, not only do I believe that we're NOT on friendly terms because they feel the need to reinforce it on the envelop, but I'm a GUY and any attempt to make an envelop "cute" will only anger the inner MAN BEAST hiding deep within my soul.
That's probably not it either. It's most likely that they put no thought into it at all. They just wrote it without thinking. Their only thought was, "Okay, write his name on the envelop and mail it." Well if that's the case then I don't want a card from you in the first place. Why would I want to receive a letter in the mail from somebody who didn't put much thought into getting me the damn thing. When I send a card it's for a good reason. It's important, it means something, it's a form of communication and I spend at least a little while making sure I say the right thing. What if I send a card to someone and they read it and think, "That's it? That's all he wrote? Well I'm tossing this."? That's a lot of pressure on me.
So please, next time you send a card to somebody, don't do it out of a sense of obligation or out of some knee-jerk reaction. Do it because it means something. Unless there is reason to doubt the identity of the person you're sending the card too. Then by all means, add the quotes.
The Law is the Law!
People use this phrase all of the time. The law is the law, no exceptions! However, we (myself included) tend to use this phrase when it's applied to something we like. For example, saying "In my opinion, God is a Faggot!" is protected by our freedom of speech. Or telling McDonald's to write HOT on the side of their coffee because otherwise we'd have no idea. These are times when the law can be used to our advantage.
But what about when the law is applied, nay twisted, into something we don't like. Take O.J. Simpson for example. He is on trial for murder, then is found not guilty despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He's released into the world a free man, only now wherever he goes he has a thought in the back of his head, "All of these people around me think I killed my ex-wife and Ron...Ron...what's his name?" (I don't know if O.J. didn't know Ron Goldman's last name, but he does seem like the type of guy to murder someone without really knowing the man.) He forever has the shadow of doubt cast upon him. He can't make any money, his dating life is incredibly more difficult, and even though a U.S. court found him innocent nobody else believes his story. (I'm 100% positive he did those two by the way) But do you see? By law he's innocent, but that's not how society treated him.
Another point, I went over to CNN.com the other day and found a great example of how the law works in our favor. A police department was forcing a Sex Offender to move out of his home so that he wouldn't violate the "At least 1000 yards away from a school" rule. Fantastic! Until I heard more about the man. See, he's bedridden. Dieing. He can't move without the aid of a walker, and even then it's not like he can run. He lives with his sister and her husband and they take care of him. So I started thinking, "Sure he's a perverted old man, but at what point are we all just beating up a perverted old man?" Let's face it, if you believe your kids would be in danger because if this man, then you need to take the kids to the park and spend a day teaching how to walk at a "brisk" pace. And during the video I saw a few interviews with the locals and I heard that phrase, "The law is the law". One lady said, "It don't matter if he's ill, he still has those urges and desires, so he should leave." Really? You know every once in a while I have the urge to drive over to Fox News Channel and smash Sean Hannities head in with a mallet, but I don't have the gas money or the resourcesto pin the murder on Alan Colmes. So does that mean if I were to stand trial for Hannitie's murder that I should be banned from cars and mallets forever? (I think I could get off of a murder charge for citing "Justifiable Cause")
Recently a man, who dies in jail years ago, was just found to be Not Guilty of rape and murder. Right now that man is somewhere thinking, "Great timing, assholes!" He had to live the rest of his life knowing that he was innocent, but everybody believed otherwise.
Let's try a scenario, you're 17 and you break into somebody's home and you take all of there liquor. The good stuff too, even the expensive whiskey that's twenty years old. You get caught and spend a couple of years in jail. When you get out you're changed. You don't even like alcohol anymore! But, every job you apply to sees that you've been a...GASP...delinquent!
Or this one. You're mugged! The man takes all the money and valuables you have on you. He gets caught and stands trial. After he serves his sentence, he's a free man, he's payed his debt to society. How do you feel now that he's back on the streets? Should he be watched? Monitored? Should he always have that on his record, possibly forever keeping him from getting a better job? Maybe one that payed him enough so he wouldn't have to resort to mugging?
My feeling about all of this is that the law IS the law, no doubt, but how far do we take that idea? If someone is found innocent of murder, doesn't that mean they didn't murder anyone no matter how much we wanted them to be the killer? And if a person IS found guilty of some crime and serve their sentence, then at what point do we allow them to have a complete "fresh" start and not just a conditional "We'll let you out only if you..."?
Our justice system is based on punishment and by no means do I think that should completely stop. But, after all of these cases of the law both succeeding and failing simultaneously for years now, isn't it time we tried a different approach? How about instead of the slammer for anyone who broke the law just enough to warrant the sentence, why not try and rehabilitate them? Let's take the money being spent on frivolous lawsuits and sending repeat offenders back to jail time and time again, and spend it on helping people who have committed a crime and help them to become productive members of society again? Spend our time and tax money helping those that have broken the law and instead of trying to find the most sever punishment for a crime so that hopefully "those people" will get the idea that they shouldn't break the law. Stop focusing so much on punishing and start focusing on fixing.
Maybe if we try this it might actually work! Maybe if criminals can be helped and return to society with a clean slate, then they'll want to help make it better? Not all, but some. Maybe it will only be 5% of the criminal population, but just imagine 5% more people out there who'll want to help instead of 5% more people who'll still want to mug, steal, and rape.
But no, that will probably never happen. Because some jerk just stole my good liquor! And I want them to throw the book at that asshole!
But what about when the law is applied, nay twisted, into something we don't like. Take O.J. Simpson for example. He is on trial for murder, then is found not guilty despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He's released into the world a free man, only now wherever he goes he has a thought in the back of his head, "All of these people around me think I killed my ex-wife and Ron...Ron...what's his name?" (I don't know if O.J. didn't know Ron Goldman's last name, but he does seem like the type of guy to murder someone without really knowing the man.) He forever has the shadow of doubt cast upon him. He can't make any money, his dating life is incredibly more difficult, and even though a U.S. court found him innocent nobody else believes his story. (I'm 100% positive he did those two by the way) But do you see? By law he's innocent, but that's not how society treated him.
Another point, I went over to CNN.com the other day and found a great example of how the law works in our favor. A police department was forcing a Sex Offender to move out of his home so that he wouldn't violate the "At least 1000 yards away from a school" rule. Fantastic! Until I heard more about the man. See, he's bedridden. Dieing. He can't move without the aid of a walker, and even then it's not like he can run. He lives with his sister and her husband and they take care of him. So I started thinking, "Sure he's a perverted old man, but at what point are we all just beating up a perverted old man?" Let's face it, if you believe your kids would be in danger because if this man, then you need to take the kids to the park and spend a day teaching how to walk at a "brisk" pace. And during the video I saw a few interviews with the locals and I heard that phrase, "The law is the law". One lady said, "It don't matter if he's ill, he still has those urges and desires, so he should leave." Really? You know every once in a while I have the urge to drive over to Fox News Channel and smash Sean Hannities head in with a mallet, but I don't have the gas money or the resourcesto pin the murder on Alan Colmes. So does that mean if I were to stand trial for Hannitie's murder that I should be banned from cars and mallets forever? (I think I could get off of a murder charge for citing "Justifiable Cause")
Recently a man, who dies in jail years ago, was just found to be Not Guilty of rape and murder. Right now that man is somewhere thinking, "Great timing, assholes!" He had to live the rest of his life knowing that he was innocent, but everybody believed otherwise.
Let's try a scenario, you're 17 and you break into somebody's home and you take all of there liquor. The good stuff too, even the expensive whiskey that's twenty years old. You get caught and spend a couple of years in jail. When you get out you're changed. You don't even like alcohol anymore! But, every job you apply to sees that you've been a...GASP...delinquent!
Or this one. You're mugged! The man takes all the money and valuables you have on you. He gets caught and stands trial. After he serves his sentence, he's a free man, he's payed his debt to society. How do you feel now that he's back on the streets? Should he be watched? Monitored? Should he always have that on his record, possibly forever keeping him from getting a better job? Maybe one that payed him enough so he wouldn't have to resort to mugging?
My feeling about all of this is that the law IS the law, no doubt, but how far do we take that idea? If someone is found innocent of murder, doesn't that mean they didn't murder anyone no matter how much we wanted them to be the killer? And if a person IS found guilty of some crime and serve their sentence, then at what point do we allow them to have a complete "fresh" start and not just a conditional "We'll let you out only if you..."?
Our justice system is based on punishment and by no means do I think that should completely stop. But, after all of these cases of the law both succeeding and failing simultaneously for years now, isn't it time we tried a different approach? How about instead of the slammer for anyone who broke the law just enough to warrant the sentence, why not try and rehabilitate them? Let's take the money being spent on frivolous lawsuits and sending repeat offenders back to jail time and time again, and spend it on helping people who have committed a crime and help them to become productive members of society again? Spend our time and tax money helping those that have broken the law and instead of trying to find the most sever punishment for a crime so that hopefully "those people" will get the idea that they shouldn't break the law. Stop focusing so much on punishing and start focusing on fixing.
Maybe if we try this it might actually work! Maybe if criminals can be helped and return to society with a clean slate, then they'll want to help make it better? Not all, but some. Maybe it will only be 5% of the criminal population, but just imagine 5% more people out there who'll want to help instead of 5% more people who'll still want to mug, steal, and rape.
But no, that will probably never happen. Because some jerk just stole my good liquor! And I want them to throw the book at that asshole!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
