"My Irrational Prejudices" written by Changeisgood on estrip.org

10/31/07 11:59 - 55ºF - ID#41903

My Irrational Prejudices

I'm sorry. I just can't get beyond it. I do not trust the judgment or the character of the following two categories of people:

1. Anyone who has a really expensive car. I don't care how well off you are. I don't car how beautiful the car is. Your expensive car is a statement to the world, and its not saying good things about you. What it says to me is you are making bad choices. I just can't get beyond this. Even as I have grown up and made more money, I just can't shake the way it prejudices my thinking about the individual, even if I know them well and like them.

2. Vanity plates. I am sure they are out there, but I have never seen one that I didn't think was incredibly dumb or self indulgent. They just remind me of the kid in graduate school who just HAD to raise his hand and talk in class.

I am very aware that these things are irrational. I just needed to get this off my chest.

jenks writes at 09:30:50 10/31/07 - Comment #27306: Well, I agree on the vanity plates. I'm not really a big fan of vanity in any form.
[I do find it funny that vanity plates in NY seem to be actually manufactured differently- the letters/numbers aren't raised/stamped like the 'plain' plates].

As far as expensive cars... depends what you mean.
Lamborghinis, ferraris, etc I think are impracticaly, stupid show-off penis extension cars.
BMW/Mercedes on the other hand... I don't see what's wrong with having nice stuff if you want it and can afford it.
I personally have a bias against ugly/ridiculous cars. e.g. the chevy HHR. Pt cruiser. That stupid boxy scion. And the car I hate more than anything, that will get you deleted off my list of friends- the HUMMER. Not especially expensive, per se, but the worst car ever in my book. Like my dad says about golf, "I don't just hate hummers, I hate people who drive hummers."
Not a fan of SUVs in general. I mean it's one thing if you live on a mile long unpaved road in new hampshire. But suburban soccer moms do not need ridiculous "off road power" etc. Ok, this is turning into a rant, will stop now.

metalpeter writes at 07:01:18 10/31/07 - Comment #27298: So then you would Hate that Bam Margara has a custom plate on his Purple Lamoboghani (or at least he used to) man that car was preaty. In terms of expensive cars to me it is more about being practical. If you wana go off roading and camping there is nothing wrong with having a Range Rover. But if you have a family there is no reason to have a corvette or mercedes sports car.

You have to at least like vanity plates that have a tie in to sports like say a bills plate that say Bills 34 or something along those lines. The thing that I don't like about those kinds of plates is when it is short for something but you can't tell what it is cause the person picked something non obvesious.

joshua writes at 04:23:53 10/31/07 - Comment #27279: My grandpa had vanity plates up until his death. I think between that and the smiley face bulb he used to stick on his antenna that it mainly had to do with finding his car in a parking lot.

I dunno - as far as cars go if I had a classic convertible that buys you more cred than any Porsche off the lot.

james writes at 03:12:31 10/31/07 - Comment #27276: HAHAHA!! Carolinian is King Dork! Rock on!

changeisgood writes at 03:04:09 10/31/07 - Comment #27274: Carolinian - then why have one? I just don't get it. Doesn't it cost quite a bit of money to have one?

carolinian writes at 02:33:29 10/31/07 - Comment #27269: Check out my vanity plate at (e:carolinian,21102).

I intentionally had it made so it doesn't look like a vanity plate and looks like any ordinary plate.

jbeatty writes at 02:24:33 10/31/07 - Comment #27268: You're right...thats pretty irrational.

Permalink: My_Irrational_Prejudices.html
Words: 177
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: recently learned

10/30/07 04:01 - 60ºF - ID#41887

Jesus Saves...

...but you must also SAVE YOURSELF!

You must leave any church that tells you what political views you must have, because clearly that church has an agenda other than Jesus'. Get out before its too late.

My mom told me about a dinner in a restaurant she had with some very old friends, not too long ago. They worked together for years and periodically get together to catch up. They got on the subject of global warming. However, one of the friends went berserk and starting adamantly (and loudly) complaining how "liberals" made up everything having to do with global warming and how his church has been counseling them on what is the "real truth". I'm not making this up. Everyone just got real quiet (because that's how you deal with someone who acts like that).

He later called everyone and apologized. Save yourself, get out.

jason writes at 11:48:28 10/31/07 - Comment #27254: That's very interesting, Drew. I have a copy of God's Politics. In the Bible I can find a reason for disapproving of gay relationships, to be a vegetarian, to let the lazy rot, to care for my fellow man, among other things. I think I'll go back and re-read what Jim Wallis had to say. I don't have any problem with him (I bought his book).

drew writes at 11:10:54 10/31/07 - Comment #27245: Change. Sure enough. Coercion is bad. Good religion doesn't do this (which tends to make it less effective, at least in the short term)

drew writes at 11:09:36 10/31/07 - Comment #27244: Some people DO complain about Wallis, but they have to do their homework, first, as he makes a REALLY good case, and does it straight from the Bible (that tends to get to conservatives!)

changeisgood writes at 10:51:20 10/31/07 - Comment #27243: I did not claim to be an expert on the subject.

joshua writes at 10:18:10 10/31/07 - Comment #27241: Generally this is true - you don't hear anybody telling Jim Wallis to back off, do you? It has to play both ways or the whole endeavor is pointless.

Anyway, I've always been fascinated and amused by people who are not religious acting as if they are experts on the subject.

changeisgood writes at 10:05:58 10/31/07 - Comment #27239: In response to Drew's post in response to mine - I totally agree that people of faith live every minute of their lives based upon that faith. But a person must come to his or her understanding of faith as a destination after a journey they alone must take. We take in information, interpret the lessons and arrive at that faith. We cannot be forced fed and have it truly be faith.

Examples are two friends of mine I knew when I lived down South. They grew up in VERY 'charismatic' churches and VERY strict religious dogma. It took them quite some time away from those towns and households before they 'shook off' some residuals of their upbringing – as Kristi had put it, a form of brain washing.

That's what I'm taking about. The kind of force-feeding that makes you react outlandishly to long-time friends and warrants the apology the next day. History is replete with examples of people doing hateful things when that kind of fervor is triggered.

drew writes at 05:39:40 10/30/07 - Comment #27194: I'm going to have to read about said crack-up.

As for us preachers working outside our field, we have been trained not to do so (at least most of us). Even though I have a little bit of counseling training, I know better than to use it, make a lot of referrals.

I'll blog about faith and politics later. (A favorite topic of mine)

james writes at 05:32:41 10/30/07 - Comment #27192: In Sunday's NYtimes magazine was an article about the "Evangelical Crackup" happening in Wichita, Kansas where very conservative preachers are being replaced with more religion-centered preaching styles. Essentialy, they are firing preachers who bitch about abortion, the gays, etc and hiring ones who talk about god, and Jesus, and the rest of the gang. read it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html?_r=1&oref=login">here</a>

And preachers shouldn't limit themselves to just religious topics, though those are nice. Jesus, after all, seems like a bit of an Anarchist or a Socialist at least.

What bugs me is when people go to pastors and preachers for marriage problems or psychological issues, as preachers are not trained to handle these things but are considered sources of authority.

janelle writes at 05:17:03 10/30/07 - Comment #27191: I think I didn't explain my point very well, (e:changeisgood).
Liberal churches and conservative churches alike preach politics from the pulpits. Conservative churches are more likely to get slammed for it. People who slam churches for playing politics are more likely to be liberal. So they're more likely to slam conservative churches for playing politics than they are to slam liberal churches for playing politics, since they share similar views as the liberal church. It's hard for liberals to slam a liberal church for supporting gay rights since they support gay rights too. I'm just pointing out a double standard that exists for conservative versus liberal churches. I'm on the liberal ends of things, but I like to give my conservative brothers and sisters a fair shake ;)

changeisgood writes at 04:43:25 10/30/07 - Comment #27188: janelle - "taking dominion"? Creepy.

You don't hear people complaining about the other side of the spectrum because (it has been my experience) those folks just LEAVE a church. Oddly, they don't hang out to try to convince anyone. Isn't that strange? It has also been my experience that conservatives seem to want to be around their own and those 'more to the right' (a bad term) seem to hang around a little longer or learn to just put up with other's take on things (and complain about it).

janelle writes at 04:31:05 10/30/07 - Comment #27187: It's really not strange if you understand/know the christian conservative movement. At the most extreme are individuals who believe in the theology of "taking dominion" over the earth. The earth and its resources exist for man to use for humankind's purposes. The earth can't be destroyed by the purpose for which it exists. At the less extreme of the conservatives are people who believe that humankind can't destroy God's creation on their own. Neither of those beliefs are mine by the way =)
Although, I wouldn't feel comfortable in a church that demands I have a particular political view, its not unseemly for churches to encourage religion/faith to guide ones political outlook. Also, I think people tend to feel more offended by churches maintaining strong political views when those views are conservative, because I don't hear anyone complaining about churches where ministers are calling for an end to the war in Iraq from the pulpit.

dcoffee writes at 04:21:43 10/30/07 - Comment #27186: Church + Global Warming? that's strange.

jason writes at 04:20:18 10/30/07 - Comment #27184: Hell, Obama stumps at the General Synod of the UCC, and they weasel their way out of trouble. Let's just let churches tell people how to vote - it's sort of already done in a wink-wink manner all over the country anyway.

Permalink: Jesus_Saves_.html
Words: 146
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: recently learned

10/29/07 10:46 - 40ºF - ID#41858

The Work Involved with Being Appalled

I love the bumper sticker that says "If you are not appalled, you are not paying attention". I sometimes feel like there are very few people paying attention. But paying attention takes a lot of effort and energy and requires people to stop watching shows and reading magazines about celebrities.

Permalink: The_Work_Involved_with_Being_Appalled.html
Words: 50
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: recently learned

10/26/07 02:19 - 60ºF - ID#41817

Mean People Suck

Mean people really do suck. We need a penalty box where you have to spend time every time you are mean. You should be forced to discuss why you were mean and then forced to apologize. You would have to stay in the penalty box until you really mean the apology. This is where God needs to take a more active role, because the success of this hypothesis will only work if he does it - as I wouldn't trust anyone with the power or the right to put people in a penalty box. Okay, maybe it's a bad theory. Maybe it only works in hockey.

Permalink: Mean_People_Suck.html
Words: 106
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: recently learned

10/25/07 10:18 - 49ºF - ID#41791

Commuters need more "Quality Time"

It should not be convenient or easy to drive home if you live in the suburbs. You should have to sit in your car for long periods to make up for all the pollution you are selfishly creating coming back and forth far distances every day just because you wanted to live out there. Its like "time out" for adults who make bad stewardship of the earth choices. I propose speed bumps every 25 feet outside the city parameter or pedestrian crossing every 10.

carolinian writes at 12:23:04 10/31/07 - Comment #27256: I say we either put up or shut up: we either put up new energy-efficient, central-air, built-for-modern-conveniances homes in buffalo or we shut up about people moving to suburbs.

The houses can be built with renewable resources to keep the planet from getting further deforested and to appease the liberals. To appease the conservatives, people who buy said houses would receive a property tax break from the city.

Anyhow, it wouldn't shock me if more greenhouse effect leaks through the uninsulated walls of the old houses that comprise majority of the city's housing than through the tailpipes of the cars that commute to the city. What's in the city is as much of an environmental liability as what's outside the city.

drew writes at 11:25:02 10/31/07 - Comment #27249: Maintenance isn't so bad on these old houses. Move back to the city already! Houses are cheap!

tiburon1724 writes at 11:19:18 10/31/07 - Comment #27246: yeah but a condo feels the same as an apt. I'd like to be a homeowner and have a yard for the dog to run in. Guess I want everything! Well one day maybe I'll be able to afford a house on Nottingham Terrace or in Parkside :)

changeisgood writes at 01:49:47 10/30/07 - Comment #27177: tiburon - there are several condos being built in the Evillage area - see Buffalorising for details. Low maintanence and a great neighbor!

tiburon1724 writes at 11:31:31 10/30/07 - Comment #27171: I hear ya dcoffee. I currently rent an apt in Amherst but have been slowly looking at buying a house, but want a neighborhood in the city that's 1. Safe (sorry but I don't feel most of Buffalo is safe) 2. Convenient to shopping (I guess #1 would be a grocery store but I'd have to get in my car anyway to drive out to Amherst to do most of my shopping or the Galleria to shop anyway!)3. having moved up from Florida I'm used to certain amenities in a house. I'm not handy at all, so I don't know that one of these 1890's houses would be a good investment for me....pouring money into keeping it standing?

james writes at 05:02:59 10/25/07 - Comment #26940: so now you want to put speed bumps everywhere? You are a monster changeisgood, a monster. ^_^

changeisgood writes at 03:03:18 10/25/07 - Comment #26931: I need to stress that my comments will always be with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I do not expect the thruway authority to start laying speed bumps any time soon. Besides Parkways into the city being beautiful greenways (instead of gaping scars like the 33 through a once-vibrant neighborhood) they would really slow things down, better for gas mileage but much more time consuming - make 'em pay!

drew writes at 02:51:26 10/25/07 - Comment #26929: I think speed bumps and/or a longer commute would only make the pollution worse.

Higher gas prices and better mass transit are definitely key.

But I tell anybody who will listen to live and work in the same area (the Elmwood strip, if possible!) I walk to work almost every day (sometimes I need a car for off-site stuff) and I love it.

If I can brag a little bit, this was a deliberate choice (in terms of my home and my job), and one of my better ones.

james writes at 02:14:48 10/25/07 - Comment #26920: I understand what you are saying. i am just mentioning the innumerable problems that need to be fixed in order to live greener. In fact, so staggering are these problems that i am going to fix myself a drinky-drink to take the edge off.

changeisgood writes at 02:07:43 10/25/07 - Comment #26919: Please realize my dreamer/slightly off post has to do only with Buffalo. Dcoffee has it right. In Buffalo, that commute is completely by choice. I live on the best street in the city – I would have missed that and the great people if I moved back to where I grew up. I would miss the stranger I say hello to every morning because I am not separated by a car window from them. Let's just make those who choice to live outside pay in inconvenience. Maybe then they will consider moving into the city to avoid all that "quality" time in the car.

joshua writes at 01:49:31 10/25/07 - Comment #26915: Hah. To be frank, I wish I could telecommute. I am great at working autonomously and I wouldn't have to commute at all in that case. This is why I wish I had a chunk of change - I'd rather be a day trader.

james writes at 01:38:26 10/25/07 - Comment #26910: It is great that you could take the subway. I wish Buffalo would expand its subway system.

But metropolitan NYC extends to the tip of Long Island, down NJ practically to Delaware and 100 miles north into Dutchess county. In all of these areas, outside of the city proper, there are not enough jobs to support 19 Million people. Taking the train is a major pain in the ass. There is very little parking available, it takes you twice as long to get somewhere, and it is ridiculously expensive. Not everyone lives in the city proper and can hop on a subway. People have to drive to the train station, park, wait for the train, take it down to the city, go to the subway station, hop on to the nearest stop and walk to their job. Yikes!

I am not saying that this is good, far from it. I am saying that jobs need to move with people in order to make commutes greener. Public transportation is greener, but it adds an extra hour to a two hour commute for people.

jason writes at 01:25:58 10/25/07 - Comment #26906: You would think that making people sit in their car longer would sort of undermine the point of such a "punitive" action.

dcoffee writes at 12:57:01 10/25/07 - Comment #26901: In Buffalo on the other hand... housing near the city is Cheap!! The city is still the source of the jobs, but people choose to live a more expensive lifestyle in sprawling suburban homes. What's up with that? In North or South Buffalo, or many inner ring suburbs, you can get a good house, with a garage and a fenced in yard for $60,000 - $100,000 but people would rather pay more to live an inconvenient isolated lifestyle where they drive absolutely everywhere, and shop in warehouse chain stores full of grumpy teenage employees!

What is so great about being isolated? And what's so great about needing a car to run the most basic errands? If I want beer, or creamer for my coffee, I walk to the corner, but for most people in Erie county, walking to the nearest store could take an hour. They would rather step into their attached garage, get in the SUV with the windows rolled up and the AC on, drive 20 minutes to the nearest Tim Hortons and go to the Drive thru! No human interaction, and wasting money, that's paradise?

jbeatty writes at 12:19:04 10/25/07 - Comment #26894: When I lived in LI I always felt kinda sorry for the poor saps who had to sit on the train for two hours a day just to go to work. It never made sense to me why people would even bother taking the LIE during rush hour, then attempting to navigate the gridlock of Manhattan and paying out the ass to park or even worse looking for a spot and trying to decipher the code of six signs attached to the same post.

changeisgood writes at 12:14:38 10/25/07 - Comment #26892: James - I lived in NYC for 7 or 8 years. Took the subway every day. When I moved here I choose a house near where I worked and I walk to work everyday. We make choices about where we live. I am just saying, let's not make it easy in Buffalo. Because you and I know there are PLENTY of places to live here. Let's not make it a breeze to truck out to Eden everyday. Sure someone can do it, but it should be a choice weighed with a down side. A down side reflecting the down side for the city and everyone else who breathes.

hodown writes at 11:52:43 10/25/07 - Comment #26886: James- I second that. I feel it is insane for people to drive SUVs for a commute to and from work, however like (e:james) said in areas like NYC there are a lot of people who'd love to be able to walk to work, but thats something only the rich who can afford to do- live close to work.

james writes at 11:46:16 10/25/07 - Comment #26885: Having grown up in a far flung suburb of NYC let me tell you a little something.

People commute two hours both ways five days a week out there. There are no jobs out where they live but housing costs are ridiculously high because everyone works out of NYC. The metropolitan population is 19 million, which is the same population of the total state of New York. Creating jobs in smaller hubs for all 19 million is much more difficult than making people suffer for a poor ecological (but the only economical) choice.

jason writes at 11:06:59 10/25/07 - Comment #26882: Alright, if the government can come up with a way to guarantee people great paying jobs withing a specific radius of their home, for all time, I'm willing to hear it out. I'd love to be able to walk to work.

joshua writes at 10:42:13 10/25/07 - Comment #26881: I work in Williamsville and my brother works on Grand Island. We can't have it our way all the time.

paul writes at 10:24:59 10/25/07 - Comment #26879: I agree. I find it totally ridiculous that some people I work with live as far away as eden to the south, if not further in the northern direction. Lots of them drive that distance in SUVs or trucks. Its not like they just have to pay more in gas. We all have to suffer the consequences of increased air pollution - not to mention the socio-political consequences of increased gas consumption.

At least we have such a low population density that it is nothing like the yuckiness of a big city with massive idle speed commutes.

Permalink: Commuters_need_more_quot_Quality_Time_quot_.html
Words: 82
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: recently learned

10/24/07 09:11 - 49ºF - ID#41774

My thoughts on Prejudice

Anyone who is prejudice is that way because they know they have faults. They just need to feel better about themselves by putting someone below them on some screwed-up hierarchy. Therefore, prejudice is a reflection of the prejudiced person's self-loathing. Knowing this makes me feel really bad about openly demeaning the Rangers, yet I can't help myself.

Permalink: My_thoughts_on_Prejudice.html
Words: 57
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: recently learned

10/23/07 04:02 - 51ºF - ID#41762

Libertarians - I like the concept

I really like the idea of being a Libertarian. Other than the fact that I want the FDA to test all my drugs. And I want my food tested for safety. And I don't want everyone to have the right to have a gun. And some people cannot be trusted with money and/or power and must be regulated, like polluting industries. And worker's safety, I'm a big fan of that. And the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than the poor. But other than, I'm a Libertarian.

dcoffee writes at 11:45:11 10/25/07 - Comment #26884: Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a way of governing. They believe that the only thing the government should be responsible for is maintaining an army, the unregulated market should take care of everything else.
It's a decent philosophy, and we need a good segment of libertarians in the population to keep us balanced. But, if the ideology was ever implemented it would degrade into corporatism (aka Fascism) quickly, and we'd become a feudal society.

The problem is that the "free" market does not encourage competition, it encourages monopoly. If we left it up to the corporations, one of them would eventually come out on top, they would use their money to consolidate their power and hegemony over the rest. They would keep buying companies until the majority of our products and services are be controlled by one company. That company would be far more powerful than the government. We would effectively be ruled by a corporation whose leaders we can not elect. We would have no control over our circumstances. It would be imposable to take power back from this corporation by democratic means. Seems like an inevitable problem for the Libertarian system.

If you can answer the problem of the hegemonic corporation I might change my mind.

Also the ACLU is a good group to join if you want to protect your liberties.

james writes at 05:55:27 10/23/07 - Comment #26797: well, that is almost like saying "I am a communist but without the communal ownership of the means of production thing" but narrow political categories are lame, so kudos for broadening it.

brit writes at 04:59:29 10/23/07 - Comment #26796: my professor is the head of freestate.org, they are libertarians that want to move to New Hampshire and take over local politics with a eye on the House and Senate. He is kind of quietly insane but he's growing on me...still, I think guns are bad and I like high taxes for the rich so I think I won;t be allowed on the NH ark