Try it; you'll like it! ;o)
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Stupidity of the World Hurts My Head
Come on. You know, things like this are a reminder that, really, it's no wonder it sometimes feels as though the whole world's falling apart...
Someone on Twitter has been tweeting about how it's not right that Skittles profit because so many people are now buying them as part of demonstrations regarding the Martin/Zimmerman story. It's just not right that they profit "unfairly" from Martin's death. In fact, they really ought to make some huge donation to this or that cause. Otherwise, they're getting all this free publicity for, well, free. And that's Wrong.
And even more amazingly, people are jumping on board. Yeah! Skittles is profiting unfairly! Just another sign of how Corporate America is evil! They hate people of color!
Seriously? So some of these people think Skittles is somehow responsible for the incident? Unbelievable. And for those who don't take it quite that far, did Skittles ask to be used as a symbol? (I have a strong feeling they'd rather not be involved at all, supposed increased profit notwithstanding.) Also, is anyone forcing people to buy Skittles? No? Then-- if you'll excuse my rudeness-- shut up about it. If you're that upset, stop buying Skittles and make a donation yourself to whatever cause you think should be benefiting.
Is there even any point in trying to reason with such people?
The idiot in question, when someone pointed out that Skittles never asked that its candy be bought in connection with the protests/demonstrations, replied, " It's irrelevant that Skittles didn't ask us to buy. Should they profit over accidental association with a tragedy?"
. . .Well, if you insist on an answer, yes. Yes, Skittles should profit any time someone makes the decision to purchase the candy. Skittles is selling a product. They don't much care why I buy Skittles or what I'm going to do with the candies. I can eat them myself-- share them with others-- toss them out the window of a moving vehicle, one at a time-- throw them away unopened. Skittles doesn't care whether I'm buying their product because I want to taste the rainbow or because I'm using them as a prop to make a statement-- and they aren't required to care. (Nor should they be, since no-one's getting hurt.) Why shouldn't Skittles make the same profit from bags bought by a demonstrator as they do from a bag bought by someone in search of a sugar high?
Now, if Skittles decides to make a donation, that's fine. But it's certainly not their responsibility to do so. If you don't like it, well, too bad. Go on a no-Skittles diet for the rest of your life. (I prefer M&Ms, anyway.)
Someone on Twitter has been tweeting about how it's not right that Skittles profit because so many people are now buying them as part of demonstrations regarding the Martin/Zimmerman story. It's just not right that they profit "unfairly" from Martin's death. In fact, they really ought to make some huge donation to this or that cause. Otherwise, they're getting all this free publicity for, well, free. And that's Wrong.
And even more amazingly, people are jumping on board. Yeah! Skittles is profiting unfairly! Just another sign of how Corporate America is evil! They hate people of color!
Seriously? So some of these people think Skittles is somehow responsible for the incident? Unbelievable. And for those who don't take it quite that far, did Skittles ask to be used as a symbol? (I have a strong feeling they'd rather not be involved at all, supposed increased profit notwithstanding.) Also, is anyone forcing people to buy Skittles? No? Then-- if you'll excuse my rudeness-- shut up about it. If you're that upset, stop buying Skittles and make a donation yourself to whatever cause you think should be benefiting.
Is there even any point in trying to reason with such people?
The idiot in question, when someone pointed out that Skittles never asked that its candy be bought in connection with the protests/demonstrations, replied, " It's irrelevant that Skittles didn't ask us to buy. Should they profit over accidental association with a tragedy?"
. . .Well, if you insist on an answer, yes. Yes, Skittles should profit any time someone makes the decision to purchase the candy. Skittles is selling a product. They don't much care why I buy Skittles or what I'm going to do with the candies. I can eat them myself-- share them with others-- toss them out the window of a moving vehicle, one at a time-- throw them away unopened. Skittles doesn't care whether I'm buying their product because I want to taste the rainbow or because I'm using them as a prop to make a statement-- and they aren't required to care. (Nor should they be, since no-one's getting hurt.) Why shouldn't Skittles make the same profit from bags bought by a demonstrator as they do from a bag bought by someone in search of a sugar high?
Now, if Skittles decides to make a donation, that's fine. But it's certainly not their responsibility to do so. If you don't like it, well, too bad. Go on a no-Skittles diet for the rest of your life. (I prefer M&Ms, anyway.)
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Lazy Afternoon
First, a drowsy, day-at-the-beachy, 70's/Fleetwood Mac-esque melody:
And for the next one... Eh, just ignore the photo. (g) This song feels like a lazy sprawl in a cool, shaded room... decorated with floral prints in lavender, powder blue, and green... blue hydrangeas... ice slowly melting in a glass pitcher of water... ceiling fan barely rotating... Or maybe that's just what comes to mind for me. (g)
Monday, March 12, 2012
To Blog or Not to Blog...
Lately, I've pondered whether I should just close down this blog altogether. I've simply had no interest in posting anything here-- or when I do, it's fleeting, and it seems like too much effort to be worth it. I'd rather crochet or read for fifteen minutes than blog.
I guess I'll leave the blog up for the time being. It's (probably) not doing any serious harm, just sitting here like this...
In the meantime, Romney was in Mobile this morning, and apparently (according to Twitter, because I was out poisoning ant beds ahead of the rain... and wouldn't have thought to turn on the TV for it even if I hadn't been) it was pouring rain when he spoke. Excellent timing, guys. "Come to Mobile-- part of 'The South', where people say 'y'all' a lot, everyone eats grits three times a day, and there's a permanent torrential downpour. Yay, Alabama!"
But hey, if MSNBC is anything to go by (which I fervently hope it is not, for many, many reasons), there may not be many people who can even find Alabama on a map, so why worry?
I finally blog again, and this is what it's about... I'm truly in top form. No wonder I've stopped blogging. (g)
I guess I'll leave the blog up for the time being. It's (probably) not doing any serious harm, just sitting here like this...
- - - - - - -
In the meantime, Romney was in Mobile this morning, and apparently (according to Twitter, because I was out poisoning ant beds ahead of the rain... and wouldn't have thought to turn on the TV for it even if I hadn't been) it was pouring rain when he spoke. Excellent timing, guys. "Come to Mobile-- part of 'The South', where people say 'y'all' a lot, everyone eats grits three times a day, and there's a permanent torrential downpour. Yay, Alabama!"
But hey, if MSNBC is anything to go by (which I fervently hope it is not, for many, many reasons), there may not be many people who can even find Alabama on a map, so why worry?
- - - - - - -
I finally blog again, and this is what it's about... I'm truly in top form. No wonder I've stopped blogging. (g)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)