Someone needs to coin the word "archikomori" to describe the withdrawal from society that architects tend to take during school with many unable to interact with other people outside of a studio culture. Sadly, this affect many deep into middle age.
3tk, that's quite interesting. i've found cosplay and such to be interesting, but more as a 'just for fun' sort of thing. it's certainly an escape, but those articles seem to point out a perspective i never really considered. it's like they've all just given up on really improving their lives or settling down the way they're supposed to. hard work isn't going to give them a better life. that's not just a pessimistic outlook, it's how real-life works now. the jobs and opportunities their parents walked into just aren't there, so what are they supposed to do? retreat into a fantasy is a apparently an appealing option.
we didn't have the lost decade japan did in america. however, with our 'jobless recovery,' we're kind of in a similar spot now. american parents probably pressure their children less, and there isn't so much of the 'dishonoring your family' thing, so maybe the minds of the next generation won't be as badly screwed up. i think most millennials are more independent and confident in themselves. i can certainly see an increase in the hikkikomori thing though - kids retreating and just watching tv or playing video games all day. it will be interesting to see how millenials are psychologically impacted once we have a bit of hindsight. i would not expect a lot of competition for jobs that demand people work 40 hour weeks with a paycheck that can't lift them out of poverty.
Party down all you over 40 people! Party down! Think they will be singing 12 days of Christmas and acting out each day and posting it on u-tube in the morning?
What global warming? Have you seen the ice floes in Chicago's lakefront on the news? Lake Superior is iced solid in parts. Even though I want to eventually visit Duluth MN, how do people live up in those areas?
This was a party for PTA friends at my son's school. That is why the un-vitation, Miles. Or do you have a child at my son's school? If so sorry I overlooked your family!
I'm exhausted and only slightly hung over. Got up at 5am to make deviled eggs as requested by my boss for our office holiday luncheon today. Plus run another round of dishes from the party in the dishwasher. Will tackle the rest of cleanup this evening. Party hosting is exhausting but I love, love, love it. My 10yo son started the party in regular clothes, then suddenly was wearing his gym shorts and a swim shirt, then ten minutes later he had on his tux and was performing Jingle Bells on violin. If I didn't know better I'd say he was drunk!
curtkram - yeah one of the nice things about the US is there is still some belief in the myth that you can create your own success, and to some extent this does happen. Somehow in Japan I felt you were supposed to get on a known track and just put in 40hrs b/c that's the way the world works - a far cry from how Sony started.
HandsumCa$hMoneyYo - arrchikomori is definitely right that would make a good architecture t-shirt...
Japanese society is traditionally based on a rigid hierarchical structure. It is difficult to understand due to the vast gulf that exists between our cultures.
did anyone else catch that new mexico legalized same-sex marriage yesterday? barely a blip on national news.
and today utah? utah.
I'd like to see what is called a catchment study, a term used in marketing. That is, in terms of the target audience, how many people will avail themselves of same-sex marriage and how many will just shack up? Also, how many people will use it as a vehicle to get its benefits when a "marriage grade" relationship doesn't even exist? Why don't singles rebel and indicate they are being shortchanged in terms of access to someone else's pool of perks and benefits? Oh brother.
Toaster, I assume that's because allowing same sex marriage is obvious and not news-worthy. Not allowing same sex marriage might be news because it's so profoundly stupid
Dec 21, 13 8:45 am ·
·
Same sex marriage is stupid. In fact, all marriage is stupid. The truly progressive postion wuld be to abolish the state sanctioning of sex relationships.
Not allowing same sex marriage might be news because it's so profoundly stupid
Is this just a knee -jerk liberal response or a thought out one? So what happens now - are there 2 husbands, 2 wives, a husband and a wife, or spousal unit 1 and 2 on the marriage certificate? So, unless the guy is flaming, and he says he's married, you won't know what the gender of the spouse is. Here's the deal - L.A. in the '80s - reality. People who were in same-sex relationships called their significant others their lovers. That was the word of THAT decade. These relationships must have been sufficiently open, because some of these people had to bury their lovers. Then the detestable word partner came into vogue. It's detestable because it's so loveless, but probably fits. See "American Beauty?" The "this is my partner" scene was a hoot. That was the 90s. Now, we have spouses, and we don't know what they are. It's a real clusterf**k. By the way, this is not moralistic. It's practical. If you know the score in big metro areas by having a truly diverse slate of friends, and listen to their stories, then you know that this institution is not tenable for many same-sex couples and many will not be availing themselves of it. It is also expensive. Shacking up required no legal gymnastics. If you are boinking someone of the same sex, write a will if you want to make sure they get your shit. Obamacare has a cost, but is necessary. This is not. Society has become about not pissing people off. One night, on the news, there was a story about transgender bathrooms needed in SF public schools. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't a transgender a person who hasn't had the surgery and is essentially one who cross-dresses and identifies with the gender they are not? So, for 350 kids, out of 55,000 in their system, they need special bathrooms! Easy. Go to the bathroom that aligns with your God-given genitalia. I don't believe there is a 3rd type of genitalia. When you can attest to having enormous breadth in your slate of friends and acquaintances, I'll let you slide. But I don't think you do.
Same sex marriage is stupid. In fact, all marriage is stupid.
I agree that marriage is stupid, seeing how many people divorce. If you can handle the draining stress and dramatics, family law is a good career choice. Just as people will always get sick, families will always have drama. As for this one, I believe the easiest solution was the remove the word marriage across the board in the U.S. and replace it with civil unions. Let religious institutions issue marriage certificates. Hey, what's wrong with saying "We're a union?" Ever see the poster "Fly united" where it showed two larger birds in flight, while one was mounting the other? At any rate, you now see teenage kids chanting for same-sex marriage and they've barely gone through puberty, so they don't understand what it entails, and shows like "Modern Family" have straight couples say shit like "we're not getting married until you can, too." Kids today are so effin' annoying - they text instead of speak, they are more selfish and narcissistic than ever before, they are LUG (lesbian until graduation), they are packaged liberals out of peer pressure, and on and on. With the future in their hands, I'm glad I probably won't be around to see it. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney were scary enough.
Dec 21, 13 10:57 am ·
·
"Go to the bathroom that aligns with your God-given genitalia. I don't believe there is a 3rd type of genitalia."
I'm inclined to think that bathrooms seperated by sex are pretty stupid too. I've got some sympathy for the people int hte 3rd category so to speak. It must be hard to confront such a personal issue every time you just need to piss.
In a culture that makes vast distinctions & seperations between sex (muslim culture, for example) then yeah, seperate bathroons are obvious. But as the western (or maybe it's globalized culture) continues to push toward equality and gender neutrality on all fronts, then why the fuck are we still building "men's" and "women's" rooms?
Dec 21, 13 11:11 am ·
·
And I'm not sure "civil unions" are necessarily all that better than marriage either. Other than the responsibility of child rearing, why should the state have any interest in who you are supposedly fucking on the reg?
As for kids, legally speaking probably something like a trust should be set upon child birth (until age of majority) with both biological parents being on the hook to make contributions.
But as the western (or maybe it's globalized culture) continues to push toward equality and gender neutrality on all fronts, then why the fuck are we still building "men's" and "women's" rooms?
Because we (they) can be schizophrenic. They, meaning women, want equality and to become Supreme Court justices and the like, which is fine by me if they have the background and the horsepower, yet women still expect you to open the door for them and God forbid you tell a woman a dirty joke because you don't know how she'll react. You watch R-rated movies, right, hon? Then listen to the God damned joke and laugh.
^ Not really. Seeing things for what they really are, either in institutions or in the human condition, isn't what people want to hear. It's easier to subscribe to current popular thought and view things in a packaged manner, effectively burying one's head in the sand. Hey, we can extrapolate this to a-school. I was an a-school "agnostic" from day one. I saw people salivating over the current stars and the current vernacular, some of it good and some of it bad. Yet, some of these fellow students were borderline intoxicated. I thought "this too shall pass" (in terms of being mass consumption group think). It reliably does. No need for psychological help. I just wish I was less of a realist, and therefore less negative. There are other realists on here - who are either true to being realists, or watch from the sidelines. Then there are those who obfuscate reality, either because it's popular to do so or because they don't want to be criticized and argued with.
observant, i don't get your position. i think you're saying you're opposed to same sex marriage because it would be harder for you to categorize and stereotype people? if a man is married, you don't know if he's married to a man or woman, so it's hard for you to judge them?
if you want to marry someone, then marry them (if they agree). if you don't want to marry someone, then don't. pretty simple. not a lot of morally ambiguous gray area.
observant, i don't get your position. i think you're saying you're opposed to same sex marriage because it would be harder for you to categorize and stereotype people? if a man is married, you don't know if he's married to a man or woman, so it's hard for you to judge them?
Oh, wow, in typical leftist form, you selectively picked from what I said here and there to make your point.
Ok, categorizing will make this easier. First, I don't have a token this or that friend, like some people think (i.e. racist). I have more than one friend in every non-WASP demographic group. I currently do not have any WASP friends. Sorry. So, with (urban) gays, what seems to be situation is that you have single people who are promiscuous, single people who are not promiscuous and also not apt to couple, coupled people who have open relationships, and coupled people who are monogamous. By catchment study, I was asking what percent is category #4. I don't think America wants to know that. It would be a tough pill to swallow. The marriage certificate does nothing more than a registered partnership would accomplish in terms of rights and it would not be difficult to toss in registered partnership and such into the tax code for bequeathing property and such. The fight is about semantics, so it doesn't create a separate but equal situation. Well, guess what? Since two guys or two women can't reproduce, it's not really equal to what my parents and your parents had. The fight is about flouting a time honored convention. It will not further acceptance. Why this pissing contest about a word, and certainly not initiated by straights, when same sex couples had access to a partner's insurance and other benefits in states with registered partnerships? Simple, people NEED to feel offended and take up causes. Maybe all states just need to allow same sex unions. And what fucks people have become. The latest trend is to throw people who have bakeries under the bus for not making cakes for same sex couples because it is against their religious convictions, driving them out of business in the process. You've seen the sign "we refuse the right to refuse service to any one" at various establishments. This is an extension of that right. Lastly, curt, since you feign being liberal and yet are not capable of discerning what a handsome man is, per a previous post, and, while I don't know if you were in a frat, they sure do. They land on the better looking guys to rush them like flies on shit. That said, why do these heartthrob media and sports types who come out remain single? In straight circles, guys with that caliber of looks are seldom single. I'm not talking morals. I'm not even talking religion. I'm talking about the reasonableness of such an accommodation so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt, a la 350 transgender kids among 55,000 students in the SF public school system.
Yeah, and those crazy women, always wanting jobs AND people to be polite to them. What are they thinking?!?
That's not the point. The point is that, while I have not experienced this, it is ok for women to be lewd and crude in a work or organizational setting yet, when a man does the same, he is held accountable. Women want to be equal? Let them go to the front lines of battle, too, if they want to be a CEO or Supreme Court justice. Let me take the equality further. How equal is the divorce playing field? If a couple divorces, the man is the primary wage earner, the woman has a child or two, and the man is the de facto cause of the divorce, through cheating, she is entitled to child support and possibly alimony. If you have the same situation and the woman is the de facto cause of the divorce, through cheating, the financial shake out is roughly the same. How equal is that? My position is that, if the woman caused the divorce, either through cheating or any physical or psychological abuse, the man should be able to WALK, and not pay a cent for those kids, the same way that a woman just rakes in the money simply for having had them. Now that would be equal. It would put him in the situation that, if he had that foresight and/or is clearly not the cause for the divorce, he is restored to his premarital position. This way, people are accountable for their actions and it would disincentivize marital dishonesty and improper behavior ... or force someone to bear the consequences unilaterally. So, being polite is the wrong word. I'm not in favor of allowing them to selectively be a twat in some areas and selectively be a damsel in distress in others.
Also, I am neither liberal nor conservative. I can think for myself. Most architects tend to lean full tilt left.
Observations on The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare:
Every plan has essentially the same coverage and the same out-of-pocket limitations. The differences between plans are (1) the cost of the premium, (2) how much the deductible is and (3) how much assistance (copay) one gets after the deductible is spent.
All plans are constrained to specific networks. Any services provided outside of the network are 100% out of your pocket. In other words, care is limited to a specified pool of providers. Another term for this is rationing.
The cheapest plan for a couple is around $700 a month. The deductible is $6,000. After the deductible is spent, you pay 50% of all costs until you've spent another $6,350.
In summary: The insurance ipolicy costs $8,400 a year. The $6,000 deductible means you have to spend $14,400 in a year (policy cost plus deductible) before you get any assistance except maybe a checkup. Your total medical bills - spent strictly within the insurer's limited network - must exceed $19,700 before you reach your out of pocket limit. Granted, you're paying half of the cost between the deductible and the cap, but that's $12,350 plus the cost of the policy, which in the case of a couple using the cheapest plan available is $8,400.
So if you get seriously whacked, to the tune of $20k plus, you get coverage. What's not clear (among other things) is how this is implemented. Is this on an annual or calendar year basis? If you get slammed in November, does the policy and deductible reset in January?
As for the assistance part, if you qualified for 100% assistance on the premium, how could you possibly pay the $6,000 deductible let alone the $12k plus in medical costs (per year!) that are specified by the law.
The only thing I can say about The Affordable Care Act is that it isn't. This is the biggest scam perpetrated on US citizens in my lifetime. I actually thought I was going to get some care out of this. Instead I'm mandated to purchase private corporate insurance that is essentially catastrophic care and penalized if I don't. Fuck insurers, fuck BO, and fuck congress.
Medicare for all. And a cash bounty on all insurers.
Observations on The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare:
Every plan has essentially the same coverage and the same out-of-pocket limitations. The differences between plans are (1) the cost of the premium, (2) how much the deductible is and (3) how much assistance (copay) one gets after the deductible is spent.
All plans are constrained to specific networks. Any services provided outside of the network are 100% out of your pocket. In other words, care is limited to a specified pool of providers. Another term for this is rationing.
Some revisions are necessary. That is for sure. The thing is that it's here, preexisting conditions and all. You are also looking at one of the worst scenarios and some inherently bad features. Those who are self-employed professionals earning certain incomes will pay full fare, though it is slightly less than what this would be at pre-2014 rates. Fair or not, the younger and healthier are subsidizing the others, as is the government. Every insurer is doing a bronze, silver, and gold plan, for the most part. The higher the premium, the less the cost sharing ... and vice versa.
However, it is insurance. If a perfectly healthy person went horseback riding, got thrown, and suffered catastrophic injuries requiring surgeries and ongoing care, going without insurance is not an option. The only way to defray costs is to use the networks, which make this whole thing look more HMO like. What happens then is that a person pays those premiums, sees doctors and specialists within their network for stipulated co-pays, and gets any scrips with stipulated co-pays. Clearly, a hospitalization will send them into the cost-sharing percentage zone. One simply can't have an out-of-network doctor that is hooked up with an out-of-network hospital. It wont' work.
The worst things about it are the adherence to networks and the cost sharing formulas for the lesser plans. The best things about it are that no one can be turned down and I'm sure there will be subsidies and such for those who may encounter the higher costs en route. Basically, if a person is on one of the plans and can stay healthy enough between Jan 1, 2014 and the time they get onto Medicare, when they just buy a wraparound plan, it shouldn't be too bad. There are some ifs, though.
Yeah, children should starve when their parents are having sex, especially if its the woman having sex.
And that's not what was implied.
A story illustrates it better. Let's take a young couple that marries after college, say at age 26. It is a marriage of equals, in looks, demographics, economics, education, and the like. He might be an actuary at an insurance company making a decent salary, and is a graduate of big state university. She goes off to work as an admin assistant in a law firm or medical office. The two incomes allow them to get a cookie cutter house in the suburbs. They have a kid or two. They might be in their early 30s.
Then, the wife and either an Ivy trained attorney or doctor at her work get on famously. He has a fatter wallet, he buys her lunch and gifts, and she finds his technique in the boudoir more to her liking. Things don't feel right at home. She no longer feels fulfilled (literally). Her coworker/boss makes promises to her and/or she falls out of love. Yet the guy was the same guy she married 6 or 7 years ago.
Bottom line: not a cent for you, babe. She needs to get better skills or work 2 jobs to support herself and her kids, which I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted under such egregious circumstances.
Similarly, if the situation is reversed, and it's the husband who does the shenanigans, a la Tiger Woods or Eliot Spitzer, then he pays the freight and she can stay home and raise them.
It's about assigning blame correctly, and the cash flow that goes with that. I've seen both scenarios happen. This isn't misogynistic. It's about what's right. Lots of moms who chose to have kids on their own or whose husbands are deadbeats make it pencil. So should the cheating party.
Yeah, fathers don't love their children once the mom cheats.
Here's another scenario: the guy understands that he is more than an ATM, married or divorced. He understands that love and sex aren't an exchange of power and money, but something that two people, regardless of gender, exchange when they dig each other. He understands that, even if his lover does something rude and stupid, he still needs to take care of his children.
Yeah, fathers don't love their children once the mom cheats.
A lot of kids are used as pawns in a divorce war. I have had numerous friends and acquaintances express this frustration. And, since kids tend to live with their mothers, it's more easy to demonize their fathers. I don't think a spouse should forgive a cheating spouse. Fool me once. It's a better economic existence for everyone when a marriage stays intact. When the separation occurs, there are redundant flows of money. The mother usually stays in the principal home with the kids and the guy goes into an apartment. Nice, huh? For something he didn't do ... in this scenario.
I was in Canada on vacation in 1999 or 2000 and saw a story in the Toronto Star about a suicide epidemic among divorced dads in the province of Ontario. They were struggling financially, living on their own in worse conditions, fighting with their exes, and having access to their kids metered, so they offed themselves. What a compendium of variables. Some other guys distance themselves from the drama, and their kids, because they would have to swim upstream to gain ground with their kids. Some just walk away because it's probably too painful. And if wifey is now living with some six million dollar man, let him pay more of the freight. He can easily do so. I don't think that most guys will admit it that, in a situation like this, many wished they hadn't married and had kids.
In the united states, no-fault divorce is common. Division of assets does not consider who cheated. If either parent harms their kid because they can't forgive the sins of the other, or can't otherwise let go of their hatred for the sake of the child, doesn't that kind of make them a bad parent?
In the united states, no-fault divorce is common. Division of assets does not consider who cheated. If either parent harms their kid because they can't forgive the sins of the other, or can't otherwise let go of their hatred for the sake of the child, doesn't that kind of make them a bad parent?
1. Yes. I know. And it's a racket that aims for deeper pockets. It's an incentive not to reproduce if there ever was one. For my d.i.n.k. friends who got divorced, they expressed "Whew, thank God." Their post-divorce child-free lives are much easier.
2. Not having been through it, most people who divorce resent the other spouse in perpetuity, especially the spouse who was more "at fault."
this is a pretty good indicator of the value of your views on this subject, observant. please.
Very dismissive, Steven. And I don't have to pet a bull shark off a Florida beach on the Gulf to know that it will maim, or kill me, either. The point is that when it's happening all around you, to friends and relatives, and landing on your breakfast table, you can deduce the score. And it doesn't take a business education, either, to pencil basic life functions. "Shooting blanks" is probably more of a blessing than a curse.
i feel like your dismissing my observations too observant.
I am neither dismissing your observations nor your misspelling.
I basically told you that I believe we need to return to "fault" divorce. The stats on the delay in the marriage age are astounding. It has soared upward. People are having fewer children. It is largely rooted in basic economics, more so than "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free." The primary reason cited for delay or avoidance is $. In the U.S., the birth rate is not a problem. In largely Catholic Spain and Italy, where people used to spit out kids, the birth rate is now the among the world's lowest and to the point where the population cannot be sustained. Shucks. I used the word "sustain," which means granola ways are taking hold. In the U.S., it's no problem. All the people who shouldn't be having kids are happily reproducing.
No. Go educate yourself or stop talking. Telling us you're ignorant and then continuing to blather on from your soapbox says a lot about you.
Selective again, because the other parts support the points I make. I was attempting to be sarcastic. I don't really need to thoroughly learn what a transgender person is. I just know that I don't think .006 of the student population (which does not have a physical limitation) does not need special bathrooms in SF public schools. I heard that on the news and shook my head. Sneakypete, I think this is really about your efforts at matching black and brown apparel, and your story that went with that.
but it's no fun if ignorant people stop talking. :)
I love it. Whereas people in a cross section of society are blended between liberal, conservative, and moderate, I know this forum tilts full left; therefore, anyone who doesn't tow the line is full of shit because there is group think. If a-schools weren't liberal, then they couldn't be avant garde. Likewise with most of the students. I think I was a Republican for about 5 or 10 years of my life, including when in a-school, and that pissed off a liberal feminist chick to no end, especially when I once said "Robert Venturi and his wife." This is great. This is the first place I've been called a redneck. And it's the first place I've been called ignorant. Yet people have called me conservative, liberal, but mostly traditional, depending on the subject at hand.
Observant - I'll agree with you on the abolition of 'marriage'; states should recognize 'civil unions' - a legal contract between 2 individuals to be recognized as a singular financial entity. I could care less if it's sexual. The federal government needs to work on eliminating all clauses containing marriage benefits to partners - if there is to be equality then there ought not be segregation based on a contractual relationship recognized by a state other than pertaining to interstate commerce.
As for bathrooms, why do we keep them separate? and not just have stalls? Though I suppose having enough stalls would create serious space issues in a stadium.
Now that insurance costs are equal regardless of gender, is equal pay more equitable? It always irked me that some women asked for equal pay and not equal compensation (pay+value of benefits & time off).
Of course we can't have integrated bathrooms! Where would the ladies go to talk about their dates, or hide from them? And there's no room for couches in men's rooms. Oh. Wait. I wasn't supposed to tell you guys that we have couches.
Anybody see the last two comments on the naked dudes thread? Those are great!
Of course we can't have integrated bathrooms! Where would the ladies go to talk about their dates, or hide from them? And there's no room for couches in men's rooms. Oh. Wait. I wasn't supposed to tell you guys that we have couches.
The problem is when a guy is standing at a urinal, and has to make some moves to dry it or if they turn around after completing and are partway done zipping up.
As for couches, I knew that. Before a-school, there were a lot of clerical ladies who worked on my floor. One black lady who wore a lot of base (that purple/red stuff on her cheeks, I believe) would nap on it during her lunch hour. After doing this for several years, the ladies said that the couch had become streaked with her cosmetics and had to be thrown out.
As for men's bathrooms, that diaper changer that pops out of the wall kind of makes me chuckle. I've NEVER seen a guy change a baby on those things. I think to myself "good beta dad."
Sometimes, TC is the locker room thread. Moving on ...
Dec 23, 13 2:50 pm ·
·
Sometimes, TC is the locker room thread. Moving on ...
Well in that case, hope you kids don't mind if this old fart gets naked.
I don't think I want to be joining women in the Bathroom. I was there in 1972, visiting friends at U Mass, Amherst where it was a coed dorm and coed bathrooms. Women always go to the bathroom in two's and I have yet to figure out why. Urban myth is so one can shake the other as she if positioned above the toilet, as to not have to sit down.
Thread Central
Someone needs to coin the word "archikomori" to describe the withdrawal from society that architects tend to take during school with many unable to interact with other people outside of a studio culture. Sadly, this affect many deep into middle age.
Listening to Christmas doo-wop music as I clean for the party. This morning's holiday concert at my son's school had me weepy - I'm a sap.
i read that as a party for over 40's.
3tk, that's quite interesting. i've found cosplay and such to be interesting, but more as a 'just for fun' sort of thing. it's certainly an escape, but those articles seem to point out a perspective i never really considered. it's like they've all just given up on really improving their lives or settling down the way they're supposed to. hard work isn't going to give them a better life. that's not just a pessimistic outlook, it's how real-life works now. the jobs and opportunities their parents walked into just aren't there, so what are they supposed to do? retreat into a fantasy is a apparently an appealing option.
we didn't have the lost decade japan did in america. however, with our 'jobless recovery,' we're kind of in a similar spot now. american parents probably pressure their children less, and there isn't so much of the 'dishonoring your family' thing, so maybe the minds of the next generation won't be as badly screwed up. i think most millennials are more independent and confident in themselves. i can certainly see an increase in the hikkikomori thing though - kids retreating and just watching tv or playing video games all day. it will be interesting to see how millenials are psychologically impacted once we have a bit of hindsight. i would not expect a lot of competition for jobs that demand people work 40 hour weeks with a paycheck that can't lift them out of poverty.
Donna, thanks for the unvitation.
Party down all you over 40 people! Party down! Think they will be singing 12 days of Christmas and acting out each day and posting it on u-tube in the morning?
What global warming? Have you seen the ice floes in Chicago's lakefront on the news? Lake Superior is iced solid in parts. Even though I want to eventually visit Duluth MN, how do people live up in those areas?
This was a party for PTA friends at my son's school. That is why the un-vitation, Miles. Or do you have a child at my son's school? If so sorry I overlooked your family!
I'm exhausted and only slightly hung over. Got up at 5am to make deviled eggs as requested by my boss for our office holiday luncheon today. Plus run another round of dishes from the party in the dishwasher. Will tackle the rest of cleanup this evening. Party hosting is exhausting but I love, love, love it. My 10yo son started the party in regular clothes, then suddenly was wearing his gym shorts and a swim shirt, then ten minutes later he had on his tux and was performing Jingle Bells on violin. If I didn't know better I'd say he was drunk!
gruen, are you removing asbestos while naked under your Tyvek suit? Cool.
curtkram - yeah one of the nice things about the US is there is still some belief in the myth that you can create your own success, and to some extent this does happen. Somehow in Japan I felt you were supposed to get on a known track and just put in 40hrs b/c that's the way the world works - a far cry from how Sony started.
HandsumCa$hMoneyYo - arrchikomori is definitely right that would make a good architecture t-shirt...
did anyone else catch that new mexico legalized same-sex marriage yesterday? barely a blip on national news.
and today utah? utah.
Japanese society is traditionally based on a rigid hierarchical structure. It is difficult to understand due to the vast gulf that exists between our cultures.
did anyone else catch that new mexico legalized same-sex marriage yesterday? barely a blip on national news.
and today utah? utah.
I'd like to see what is called a catchment study, a term used in marketing. That is, in terms of the target audience, how many people will avail themselves of same-sex marriage and how many will just shack up? Also, how many people will use it as a vehicle to get its benefits when a "marriage grade" relationship doesn't even exist? Why don't singles rebel and indicate they are being shortchanged in terms of access to someone else's pool of perks and benefits? Oh brother.
Toaster, I assume that's because allowing same sex marriage is obvious and not news-worthy. Not allowing same sex marriage might be news because it's so profoundly stupid
Same sex marriage is stupid. In fact, all marriage is stupid. The truly progressive postion wuld be to abolish the state sanctioning of sex relationships.
sexula liberation is liberation.
Not allowing same sex marriage might be news because it's so profoundly stupid
Is this just a knee -jerk liberal response or a thought out one? So what happens now - are there 2 husbands, 2 wives, a husband and a wife, or spousal unit 1 and 2 on the marriage certificate? So, unless the guy is flaming, and he says he's married, you won't know what the gender of the spouse is. Here's the deal - L.A. in the '80s - reality. People who were in same-sex relationships called their significant others their lovers. That was the word of THAT decade. These relationships must have been sufficiently open, because some of these people had to bury their lovers. Then the detestable word partner came into vogue. It's detestable because it's so loveless, but probably fits. See "American Beauty?" The "this is my partner" scene was a hoot. That was the 90s. Now, we have spouses, and we don't know what they are. It's a real clusterf**k. By the way, this is not moralistic. It's practical. If you know the score in big metro areas by having a truly diverse slate of friends, and listen to their stories, then you know that this institution is not tenable for many same-sex couples and many will not be availing themselves of it. It is also expensive. Shacking up required no legal gymnastics. If you are boinking someone of the same sex, write a will if you want to make sure they get your shit. Obamacare has a cost, but is necessary. This is not. Society has become about not pissing people off. One night, on the news, there was a story about transgender bathrooms needed in SF public schools. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't a transgender a person who hasn't had the surgery and is essentially one who cross-dresses and identifies with the gender they are not? So, for 350 kids, out of 55,000 in their system, they need special bathrooms! Easy. Go to the bathroom that aligns with your God-given genitalia. I don't believe there is a 3rd type of genitalia. When you can attest to having enormous breadth in your slate of friends and acquaintances, I'll let you slide. But I don't think you do.
Same sex marriage is stupid. In fact, all marriage is stupid.
I agree that marriage is stupid, seeing how many people divorce. If you can handle the draining stress and dramatics, family law is a good career choice. Just as people will always get sick, families will always have drama. As for this one, I believe the easiest solution was the remove the word marriage across the board in the U.S. and replace it with civil unions. Let religious institutions issue marriage certificates. Hey, what's wrong with saying "We're a union?" Ever see the poster "Fly united" where it showed two larger birds in flight, while one was mounting the other? At any rate, you now see teenage kids chanting for same-sex marriage and they've barely gone through puberty, so they don't understand what it entails, and shows like "Modern Family" have straight couples say shit like "we're not getting married until you can, too." Kids today are so effin' annoying - they text instead of speak, they are more selfish and narcissistic than ever before, they are LUG (lesbian until graduation), they are packaged liberals out of peer pressure, and on and on. With the future in their hands, I'm glad I probably won't be around to see it. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney were scary enough.
"Go to the bathroom that aligns with your God-given genitalia. I don't believe there is a 3rd type of genitalia."
I'm inclined to think that bathrooms seperated by sex are pretty stupid too. I've got some sympathy for the people int hte 3rd category so to speak. It must be hard to confront such a personal issue every time you just need to piss.
In a culture that makes vast distinctions & seperations between sex (muslim culture, for example) then yeah, seperate bathroons are obvious. But as the western (or maybe it's globalized culture) continues to push toward equality and gender neutrality on all fronts, then why the fuck are we still building "men's" and "women's" rooms?
And I'm not sure "civil unions" are necessarily all that better than marriage either. Other than the responsibility of child rearing, why should the state have any interest in who you are supposedly fucking on the reg?
As for kids, legally speaking probably something like a trust should be set upon child birth (until age of majority) with both biological parents being on the hook to make contributions.
But as the western (or maybe it's globalized culture) continues to push toward equality and gender neutrality on all fronts, then why the fuck are we still building "men's" and "women's" rooms?
Because we (they) can be schizophrenic. They, meaning women, want equality and to become Supreme Court justices and the like, which is fine by me if they have the background and the horsepower, yet women still expect you to open the door for them and God forbid you tell a woman a dirty joke because you don't know how she'll react. You watch R-rated movies, right, hon? Then listen to the God damned joke and laugh.
you all need some serious psychological help. WTF.
^ Not really. Seeing things for what they really are, either in institutions or in the human condition, isn't what people want to hear. It's easier to subscribe to current popular thought and view things in a packaged manner, effectively burying one's head in the sand. Hey, we can extrapolate this to a-school. I was an a-school "agnostic" from day one. I saw people salivating over the current stars and the current vernacular, some of it good and some of it bad. Yet, some of these fellow students were borderline intoxicated. I thought "this too shall pass" (in terms of being mass consumption group think). It reliably does. No need for psychological help. I just wish I was less of a realist, and therefore less negative. There are other realists on here - who are either true to being realists, or watch from the sidelines. Then there are those who obfuscate reality, either because it's popular to do so or because they don't want to be criticized and argued with.
observant, i don't get your position. i think you're saying you're opposed to same sex marriage because it would be harder for you to categorize and stereotype people? if a man is married, you don't know if he's married to a man or woman, so it's hard for you to judge them?
if you want to marry someone, then marry them (if they agree). if you don't want to marry someone, then don't. pretty simple. not a lot of morally ambiguous gray area.
Yeah, and those crazy women, always wanting jobs AND people to be polite to them. What are they thinking?!?
observant, i don't get your position. i think you're saying you're opposed to same sex marriage because it would be harder for you to categorize and stereotype people? if a man is married, you don't know if he's married to a man or woman, so it's hard for you to judge them?
Oh, wow, in typical leftist form, you selectively picked from what I said here and there to make your point.
Ok, categorizing will make this easier. First, I don't have a token this or that friend, like some people think (i.e. racist). I have more than one friend in every non-WASP demographic group. I currently do not have any WASP friends. Sorry. So, with (urban) gays, what seems to be situation is that you have single people who are promiscuous, single people who are not promiscuous and also not apt to couple, coupled people who have open relationships, and coupled people who are monogamous. By catchment study, I was asking what percent is category #4. I don't think America wants to know that. It would be a tough pill to swallow. The marriage certificate does nothing more than a registered partnership would accomplish in terms of rights and it would not be difficult to toss in registered partnership and such into the tax code for bequeathing property and such. The fight is about semantics, so it doesn't create a separate but equal situation. Well, guess what? Since two guys or two women can't reproduce, it's not really equal to what my parents and your parents had. The fight is about flouting a time honored convention. It will not further acceptance. Why this pissing contest about a word, and certainly not initiated by straights, when same sex couples had access to a partner's insurance and other benefits in states with registered partnerships? Simple, people NEED to feel offended and take up causes. Maybe all states just need to allow same sex unions. And what fucks people have become. The latest trend is to throw people who have bakeries under the bus for not making cakes for same sex couples because it is against their religious convictions, driving them out of business in the process. You've seen the sign "we refuse the right to refuse service to any one" at various establishments. This is an extension of that right. Lastly, curt, since you feign being liberal and yet are not capable of discerning what a handsome man is, per a previous post, and, while I don't know if you were in a frat, they sure do. They land on the better looking guys to rush them like flies on shit. That said, why do these heartthrob media and sports types who come out remain single? In straight circles, guys with that caliber of looks are seldom single. I'm not talking morals. I'm not even talking religion. I'm talking about the reasonableness of such an accommodation so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt, a la 350 transgender kids among 55,000 students in the SF public school system.
Yeah, and those crazy women, always wanting jobs AND people to be polite to them. What are they thinking?!?
That's not the point. The point is that, while I have not experienced this, it is ok for women to be lewd and crude in a work or organizational setting yet, when a man does the same, he is held accountable. Women want to be equal? Let them go to the front lines of battle, too, if they want to be a CEO or Supreme Court justice. Let me take the equality further. How equal is the divorce playing field? If a couple divorces, the man is the primary wage earner, the woman has a child or two, and the man is the de facto cause of the divorce, through cheating, she is entitled to child support and possibly alimony. If you have the same situation and the woman is the de facto cause of the divorce, through cheating, the financial shake out is roughly the same. How equal is that? My position is that, if the woman caused the divorce, either through cheating or any physical or psychological abuse, the man should be able to WALK, and not pay a cent for those kids, the same way that a woman just rakes in the money simply for having had them. Now that would be equal. It would put him in the situation that, if he had that foresight and/or is clearly not the cause for the divorce, he is restored to his premarital position. This way, people are accountable for their actions and it would disincentivize marital dishonesty and improper behavior ... or force someone to bear the consequences unilaterally. So, being polite is the wrong word. I'm not in favor of allowing them to selectively be a twat in some areas and selectively be a damsel in distress in others.
Also, I am neither liberal nor conservative. I can think for myself. Most architects tend to lean full tilt left.
Observations on The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare:
Every plan has essentially the same coverage and the same out-of-pocket limitations. The differences between plans are (1) the cost of the premium, (2) how much the deductible is and (3) how much assistance (copay) one gets after the deductible is spent.
All plans are constrained to specific networks. Any services provided outside of the network are 100% out of your pocket. In other words, care is limited to a specified pool of providers. Another term for this is rationing.
The cheapest plan for a couple is around $700 a month. The deductible is $6,000. After the deductible is spent, you pay 50% of all costs until you've spent another $6,350.
In summary: The insurance ipolicy costs $8,400 a year. The $6,000 deductible means you have to spend $14,400 in a year (policy cost plus deductible) before you get any assistance except maybe a checkup. Your total medical bills - spent strictly within the insurer's limited network - must exceed $19,700 before you reach your out of pocket limit. Granted, you're paying half of the cost between the deductible and the cap, but that's $12,350 plus the cost of the policy, which in the case of a couple using the cheapest plan available is $8,400.
So if you get seriously whacked, to the tune of $20k plus, you get coverage. What's not clear (among other things) is how this is implemented. Is this on an annual or calendar year basis? If you get slammed in November, does the policy and deductible reset in January?
As for the assistance part, if you qualified for 100% assistance on the premium, how could you possibly pay the $6,000 deductible let alone the $12k plus in medical costs (per year!) that are specified by the law.
The only thing I can say about The Affordable Care Act is that it isn't. This is the biggest scam perpetrated on US citizens in my lifetime. I actually thought I was going to get some care out of this. Instead I'm mandated to purchase private corporate insurance that is essentially catastrophic care and penalized if I don't. Fuck insurers, fuck BO, and fuck congress.
Medicare for all. And a cash bounty on all insurers.
Observations on The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare:
Every plan has essentially the same coverage and the same out-of-pocket limitations. The differences between plans are (1) the cost of the premium, (2) how much the deductible is and (3) how much assistance (copay) one gets after the deductible is spent.
All plans are constrained to specific networks. Any services provided outside of the network are 100% out of your pocket. In other words, care is limited to a specified pool of providers. Another term for this is rationing.
Some revisions are necessary. That is for sure. The thing is that it's here, preexisting conditions and all. You are also looking at one of the worst scenarios and some inherently bad features. Those who are self-employed professionals earning certain incomes will pay full fare, though it is slightly less than what this would be at pre-2014 rates. Fair or not, the younger and healthier are subsidizing the others, as is the government. Every insurer is doing a bronze, silver, and gold plan, for the most part. The higher the premium, the less the cost sharing ... and vice versa.
However, it is insurance. If a perfectly healthy person went horseback riding, got thrown, and suffered catastrophic injuries requiring surgeries and ongoing care, going without insurance is not an option. The only way to defray costs is to use the networks, which make this whole thing look more HMO like. What happens then is that a person pays those premiums, sees doctors and specialists within their network for stipulated co-pays, and gets any scrips with stipulated co-pays. Clearly, a hospitalization will send them into the cost-sharing percentage zone. One simply can't have an out-of-network doctor that is hooked up with an out-of-network hospital. It wont' work.
The worst things about it are the adherence to networks and the cost sharing formulas for the lesser plans. The best things about it are that no one can be turned down and I'm sure there will be subsidies and such for those who may encounter the higher costs en route. Basically, if a person is on one of the plans and can stay healthy enough between Jan 1, 2014 and the time they get onto Medicare, when they just buy a wraparound plan, it shouldn't be too bad. There are some ifs, though.
Yeah, children should starve when their parents are having sex, especially if its the woman having sex.
And that's not what was implied.
A story illustrates it better. Let's take a young couple that marries after college, say at age 26. It is a marriage of equals, in looks, demographics, economics, education, and the like. He might be an actuary at an insurance company making a decent salary, and is a graduate of big state university. She goes off to work as an admin assistant in a law firm or medical office. The two incomes allow them to get a cookie cutter house in the suburbs. They have a kid or two. They might be in their early 30s.
Then, the wife and either an Ivy trained attorney or doctor at her work get on famously. He has a fatter wallet, he buys her lunch and gifts, and she finds his technique in the boudoir more to her liking. Things don't feel right at home. She no longer feels fulfilled (literally). Her coworker/boss makes promises to her and/or she falls out of love. Yet the guy was the same guy she married 6 or 7 years ago.
Bottom line: not a cent for you, babe. She needs to get better skills or work 2 jobs to support herself and her kids, which I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted under such egregious circumstances.
Similarly, if the situation is reversed, and it's the husband who does the shenanigans, a la Tiger Woods or Eliot Spitzer, then he pays the freight and she can stay home and raise them.
It's about assigning blame correctly, and the cash flow that goes with that. I've seen both scenarios happen. This isn't misogynistic. It's about what's right. Lots of moms who chose to have kids on their own or whose husbands are deadbeats make it pencil. So should the cheating party.
Here's another scenario: the guy understands that he is more than an ATM, married or divorced. He understands that love and sex aren't an exchange of power and money, but something that two people, regardless of gender, exchange when they dig each other. He understands that, even if his lover does something rude and stupid, he still needs to take care of his children.
Yeah, fathers don't love their children once the mom cheats.
A lot of kids are used as pawns in a divorce war. I have had numerous friends and acquaintances express this frustration. And, since kids tend to live with their mothers, it's more easy to demonize their fathers. I don't think a spouse should forgive a cheating spouse. Fool me once. It's a better economic existence for everyone when a marriage stays intact. When the separation occurs, there are redundant flows of money. The mother usually stays in the principal home with the kids and the guy goes into an apartment. Nice, huh? For something he didn't do ... in this scenario.
I was in Canada on vacation in 1999 or 2000 and saw a story in the Toronto Star about a suicide epidemic among divorced dads in the province of Ontario. They were struggling financially, living on their own in worse conditions, fighting with their exes, and having access to their kids metered, so they offed themselves. What a compendium of variables. Some other guys distance themselves from the drama, and their kids, because they would have to swim upstream to gain ground with their kids. Some just walk away because it's probably too painful. And if wifey is now living with some six million dollar man, let him pay more of the freight. He can easily do so. I don't think that most guys will admit it that, in a situation like this, many wished they hadn't married and had kids.
In the united states, no-fault divorce is common. Division of assets does not consider who cheated. If either parent harms their kid because they can't forgive the sins of the other, or can't otherwise let go of their hatred for the sake of the child, doesn't that kind of make them a bad parent?
In the united states, no-fault divorce is common. Division of assets does not consider who cheated. If either parent harms their kid because they can't forgive the sins of the other, or can't otherwise let go of their hatred for the sake of the child, doesn't that kind of make them a bad parent?
1. Yes. I know. And it's a racket that aims for deeper pockets. It's an incentive not to reproduce if there ever was one. For my d.i.n.k. friends who got divorced, they expressed "Whew, thank God." Their post-divorce child-free lives are much easier.
2. Not having been through it, most people who divorce resent the other spouse in perpetuity, especially the spouse who was more "at fault."
"Not having been through it..."
this is a pretty good indicator of the value of your views on this subject, observant. please.
this is a pretty good indicator of the value of your views on this subject, observant. please.
Very dismissive, Steven. And I don't have to pet a bull shark off a Florida beach on the Gulf to know that it will maim, or kill me, either. The point is that when it's happening all around you, to friends and relatives, and landing on your breakfast table, you can deduce the score. And it doesn't take a business education, either, to pencil basic life functions. "Shooting blanks" is probably more of a blessing than a curse.
i feel like your dismissing my observations too observant.
i feel like your dismissing my observations too observant.
I am neither dismissing your observations nor your misspelling.
I basically told you that I believe we need to return to "fault" divorce. The stats on the delay in the marriage age are astounding. It has soared upward. People are having fewer children. It is largely rooted in basic economics, more so than "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free." The primary reason cited for delay or avoidance is $. In the U.S., the birth rate is not a problem. In largely Catholic Spain and Italy, where people used to spit out kids, the birth rate is now the among the world's lowest and to the point where the population cannot be sustained. Shucks. I used the word "sustain," which means granola ways are taking hold. In the U.S., it's no problem. All the people who shouldn't be having kids are happily reproducing.
It's that time of year again, and for those who don't know what to get, here is the ultimate guide:
How To Spend It
"Pardon my ignorance"
No. Go educate yourself or stop talking. Telling us you're ignorant and then continuing to blather on from your soapbox says a lot about you.
but it's no fun if ignorant people stop talking. :)
"Pardon my ignorance"
No. Go educate yourself or stop talking. Telling us you're ignorant and then continuing to blather on from your soapbox says a lot about you.
Selective again, because the other parts support the points I make. I was attempting to be sarcastic. I don't really need to thoroughly learn what a transgender person is. I just know that I don't think .006 of the student population (which does not have a physical limitation) does not need special bathrooms in SF public schools. I heard that on the news and shook my head. Sneakypete, I think this is really about your efforts at matching black and brown apparel, and your story that went with that.
but it's no fun if ignorant people stop talking. :)
I love it. Whereas people in a cross section of society are blended between liberal, conservative, and moderate, I know this forum tilts full left; therefore, anyone who doesn't tow the line is full of shit because there is group think. If a-schools weren't liberal, then they couldn't be avant garde. Likewise with most of the students. I think I was a Republican for about 5 or 10 years of my life, including when in a-school, and that pissed off a liberal feminist chick to no end, especially when I once said "Robert Venturi and his wife." This is great. This is the first place I've been called a redneck. And it's the first place I've been called ignorant. Yet people have called me conservative, liberal, but mostly traditional, depending on the subject at hand.
Observant - I'll agree with you on the abolition of 'marriage'; states should recognize 'civil unions' - a legal contract between 2 individuals to be recognized as a singular financial entity. I could care less if it's sexual. The federal government needs to work on eliminating all clauses containing marriage benefits to partners - if there is to be equality then there ought not be segregation based on a contractual relationship recognized by a state other than pertaining to interstate commerce.
As for bathrooms, why do we keep them separate? and not just have stalls? Though I suppose having enough stalls would create serious space issues in a stadium.
Now that insurance costs are equal regardless of gender, is equal pay more equitable? It always irked me that some women asked for equal pay and not equal compensation (pay+value of benefits & time off).
Anybody see the last two comments on the naked dudes thread? Those are great!
Of course we can't have integrated bathrooms! Where would the ladies go to talk about their dates, or hide from them? And there's no room for couches in men's rooms. Oh. Wait. I wasn't supposed to tell you guys that we have couches.
The problem is when a guy is standing at a urinal, and has to make some moves to dry it or if they turn around after completing and are partway done zipping up.
As for couches, I knew that. Before a-school, there were a lot of clerical ladies who worked on my floor. One black lady who wore a lot of base (that purple/red stuff on her cheeks, I believe) would nap on it during her lunch hour. After doing this for several years, the ladies said that the couch had become streaked with her cosmetics and had to be thrown out.
As for men's bathrooms, that diaper changer that pops out of the wall kind of makes me chuckle. I've NEVER seen a guy change a baby on those things. I think to myself "good beta dad."
Sometimes, TC is the locker room thread. Moving on ...
Sometimes, TC is the locker room thread. Moving on ...
Well in that case, hope you kids don't mind if this old fart gets naked.
I don't think I want to be joining women in the Bathroom. I was there in 1972, visiting friends at U Mass, Amherst where it was a coed dorm and coed bathrooms. Women always go to the bathroom in two's and I have yet to figure out why. Urban myth is so one can shake the other as she if positioned above the toilet, as to not have to sit down.
In my experience men in general don't mine sharing bathrooms but most women don't want any part of it because we're such pigs.
Think about it - if a women leaves you can be fairly certain that she didn't piss all over the seat.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.