My best job-friend, Charlie, asked me if I'm voting, to which I replied with an enthusiastic, "Yes, I did!" To which he responded, "How? The polls don't open until six a.m." To which I responded with my best smile, "I mailed in my ballot last Friday!" Another co-jobber whisper-asked about the election being today, to which I responded, "Yes, it is! Are you or did you vote?" To which she responded, "I can't. I am not a citizen. But I wish I could." And then she asked me who I will vote for, and I said, "I already voted for Kamala Harris."

REMEMBER TO VOTE!

if you haven't already

TODAY IS THE DAY!

The Drafting* of a Personal Statement | Draft 1

In These United States, being poor means that one lacks Capital (money &or access to financing) and Connections (well-connected people), and the thing about These United States is that there is nobody stopping you from reaching beyond one's membership in the Poorsy Class.

The other thing about These United States is that there is really nobody helping you either.

And so, what These United States possess that other countries that aspire to be like us (or destroy us) is meritocracy. Sure, meritocracy seems like a lie, to certain people, but it's not that it's a lie so much that it's Elitist. The lie is not that meritocracy does not exist. The lie is that meritocracy is available to everyone. 

Meritocracy does exist. It is within These United States where a person, someone, anyone can go to college, become educated in a field wherein earnings beyond that which are possible through hourly-wage labor is attainable. No education, no wages beyond the hourly. 

Another lie is that an Undergraduate degree is enough to reach the wages that are beyond-hourly wages, because the reality is that one must attain a Graduate-level education in order to be guaranteed professional-class wages. The thing about Graduate-level education is that it's specifically reserved for those who are deemed "smart enough" to use only their brains for their job, and as we've learned, everyone isn't born with the brains to do the types of jobs that can only be attained by obtaining a Graduate-level degree. 

An Undergrad degree can get some people into some "professional-level" jobs, but this is also another facet of the lie. I have lots of friends who graduated with Undergrad degrees, and they are working in corporate office spaces wherein they believe that they are of the "professional" class, but what they're really part of is the top of the wage-labor class. They are still doled out wages by an employer.

Professionals are the people whose skills are their business. Construction workers, I would argue, are part of the Professional Class. Anyone who possesses a skill that they then commercialize is part of the Professional Class. Regular Folk who show up to some job to get paid out in hourly/salaried wages are part of the Working Class. 90% of all American families are Working Class ... not Middle Class. I'd argue that the Professional Class is the Middle Class in America, today.

As a person born into a Poor Family who was adopted into a Working Class family, who has been a Working-Class citizen of These United States her entire young-adult/adult-jobbing history, I am going back to school so that I can be catapulted into the Middle Class. And school is the only option available to me as a poor member of the Working Class, meaning I have no Capital (in a wealthy sense) and no Connections (i don't know anyone, personally, who does what i want to do). So school is it.

And school it is. 

Graduate School is an available option for me, right now, without anymore schooling, because I performed well in high school (auto-accepted into every state school in colorado due simply to the relationship between my GPA and SAT/ACT test scores; all i had to do was accept), and completed my Undergraduate degree. If I needed to complete my Undergraduate degree, I would not be pursuing Graduate School, I would be pursuing my Undergraduate degree. If I needed to complete high school, then I wouldn't be pursuing my Undergraduate degree either, because I would be focused on completing high school. 

The thing about "completion" is that some people have it in their heads that like you're "supposed to" go to school during some specific time in one's life. This is absurd. 

I graduated from Undergrad six years after I completed high school, and it only took me five years of school. I took a year off between junior and senior year, but then had to do a super-senior lap because I switched majors late into the game. According to them, you're "supposed to" graduate in four.

I was invited into the World of Art History during my last year as an undergrad, and I declined because I did not want to pursue an academic career in Art History. I very muchly enjoyed studying art and its history while I was studying it, but there was no way I was going to dedicate my life to the studying of art and its history. No way.

During my year-long break from college, I was invited into the World of Professional Ballet after completing the trainee program at the small ballet company that invited me. Even though I love to dance more than any other form of body movement, it doesn't challenge my brain in the way that satisfies me. Don't get me wrong, ballet is plenty mentally challenging, but it also isn't after a certain point of mastery, etc., and so, that's when I returned to school to finish my Undergraduate degree.

As a high schooler, I was welcomed with open arms into the World of Medicine, but medicine and I did & do not get along. I am no scientist. I am an artist. This I know with unwavering certainty. And so, as soon as I started learning about Medicine at the college level, I was out. I am no scientist. 

So then, of what World do I want to be a part?  

[to be continued ... cause i still have to show up to some fucking day{night}job, so i gotta stop this thing here, for the time being, so that i can quickly, loosely-edit and then post it, and then go off to my goddamn job *blech*]

*if you're here and you've been here before, then you know that i am a writer, and as a writer, i am beginning to draft my personal statement for my law school application. i am only allotted 500 words (a loose maximum, i've been informed) that being said, the task of whittling down the answer to the questions, "why law school and why this law school?" into 500 words will be an exercise in specifics. i need to be able to nail down the exact specifics of my "wanting" without any unnecessary elaboration, etc. so, naturally, the first task becomes writing down all of the things i want to say in as many words as i want/need to say it. then i can look at it and see what "the point" is ... one hopes. and they're drafts, as opposed to sketches, because for me, as an artist, drafts connote a sort of imbued notion that the thing will be edited; a sketch is a sketch, and although sketches can be edited, my idea of a sketch is for the thing to exist as it was sketched, not really to be edited but rather, to exist in its purest form as a reminder.

When known data exist about the correlation b/t women's equity and domestic violence, that 'Julia Roberts' set of ads seems like very libtarded messaging brought to us by the party 'for women,' cause if you think about both the messaging and the message of these ads, it's quite simple to see that the Libtard Left has given these magamen a target if/when Harris takes the Oval, &that target is THE WIVES OF THESE MAGAMEN. Like. Duh. Like, how fucking libtarded does a party have to be to think that this type of ad-messaging is 'good' for the country? Fuck you! You don't care about the well-being of women, &now it's #facts &I'm sending out my sincerest apologies to the women out there who are already suffering at the hands of violent men. I'm very sorry for the ignorance of the Libtards. I understand why you would not join them. They are not Empowering you. They are Targeting you. &I'm very, very sorry.

Sailor's Log | Law School Application Weeks 1 + 2 [excluding the prelude week when we took the campus tour]

From the looks of it, the Law School application process is ... extensive but not unruly. It basically requires a third-party credential collector + the application to whatever (or whichever) school(s) one plans on attending, etc. Both steps can sort of be accomplished simultaneously but only after the first step is officially started, and last week, I officially started the first step. 

The first step (for the specific school to which i am applying) is to compile all of my credentials through the third-party credential collector. All together, I have to gather all of my undergraduate &or graduate transcripts (i only have undergrad degrees), obtain two letters of recommendation, take/submit an LSAT score, and write a personal statement. 

Then I apply to Law School.

The Law School then pulls my credentials from the third-party credential collector. And there's other stuff required on that application, but we'll cross that bridge when my brain is not mush.

I secured my undergraduate-granting transcript in the middle of October, around the time we toured the school, and then I had to order two other transcripts to ensure that I would be ordering the correct transcripts for the third-party credential collector, etc., and after those transcripts arrived, I submitted my institutions (that cannot be changed once submitted) and paid the one-time registration fee. 

I also secured both of my letter-of-recommendation writers around the same time as all of my transcripts were being ordered and delivered, and I submitted one of them to the third-party credential collector, and I am waiting for the other to return from vacation so that I can get him the details. 

That leaves the LSAT and a personal statement. 

Not to be cocky, but as a person who has been a writing practitioner for the better part of two decades, I am not sweating the personal statement. A few bullet points have already revealed themselves, and for the past week, nothing new or more has revealed itself. Thus, I will most likely get a first stab at the thing jotted down sometime this coming week.

And so, the final piece of the hoop (that then must be jumped through *iroll*), an LSAT score.

The Law School I wish to attend accepts either an LSAT or GRE score, and so, I've opted to take the GRE. I honestly don't know which one is "better" or whatever, but when we (the bodybuddy/lifemate&i) were still mulling this thing, we bought a GRE test-prep book (is thick), and so, I'm going to take the GRE. If I had to take the LSAT, I would go out and buy an LSAT test-prep book, but since I have this GRE book, I'm taking the GRE *claps hands together to rid herself of riddance* 

And so, there must be some way to bypass the required LSAT score, and so, I need to send an email to the very friendly admissions person I met two weeks ago *jots down note on to-do list*

Fortunately, I do have enough time to take the GRE twice, if need be, but goddamn, I literally haven't taken a math class since my freshman year of college, which *ahem* was in the tender year of 2004. 

OH MY FUCKING GOD!

*starts breathing heavily*

*hyperventilates*

*sits on yoga mat until sanity returns*

So yea, I was an accelerated K-12 student. By the time my senior year of high school rolled around, I had run out of required math classes, so I didn't take a math class in the fall of my senior year. According to the three transcripts I received (one community college [10.5 credits obtained while in high school], one private university [attended from freshman year 2004 through junior year 2007], and the flagship state-school from which I graduated [attended from fall 2008 to graduation in spring 2010]), I got an "A" in College Algebra in the spring semester of 2004, the last semester of my high school career. And then, in the spring of 2005, the freshman year of my college career, I got a "B+" in Pre-Calculus Math, and that was the last time I took a math class requiring more knowledge then basic addition/subtraction/multiplication/division (in the spring of 2006, i got an "A" in financial accounting, but accounting is very straightforward, mathematically speaking). 

And I took zero math classes at my graduating institution.

Like I said, it's been a long-fucking time since I've done any math beyond the elementary basics, and so, I'm a bit rusty. 

I also job a management-level job that I am supposed to job full-time. 

I obviously submitted a request for a temporary schedule change due to my striving toward "higher education," etc., and none of my higher-ups had any issues with it (i'm very efficient). I already worked fewer than 40 hours, but now I have official clearance to be unavailable 8 hours/week for the next few months. 

And so, I present my current job-schedule + study schedule ::

Temporary Jobbing Schedule (until no later than 05Feb25)

Monday :: 8-hour shift
Tuesday :: 4-5-hour shift
Wednesday :: 8-9-hour shift
Thursday :: 4-hour shift

Friday :: 8-hour shift

Study Schedule | Week 1 October 21 - 27

Tuesday :: ~4 hrs before jobbing

Thursday :: ~3 hrs after jobbing

Saturday :: [was scheduled as a study day, but i passed out so hard on friday, slept for twelve hours, and then for three hours on two separate occasions throughout the night/morning, so no studying happened on saturday]

Sunday :: ~6 hrs

Study Schedule | Week 2 October 28 - November 03 (current week)

Tuesday :: ~5 hrs before jobbing

Thursday :: (learned my lesson and took the second-half of this day off as my rest day)

Saturday :: 4 hrs + 2 hrs (the bodybuddy/lifemate is upping me to two-a-days, so we went for a run in between sets today, and now i'm done with my studies, and i'm writing this thing, today being the saturday being referenced right now, and i am so fucking tired)

Sunday :: [scheduled] 4 hrs + 3 hrs or whatever amount of time is needed to complete two sets 

As I build up my stamina, the two-a-days will hopefully become easier, and I will finish the GRE test-prep book with enough time to also review the book again before taking the first stab at the GRE in mid-December.

So, if you're wondering what I'm up to, I'm neck-deep in bringing my sexy-math mind back.

*peace*

The same Libtards* (&or their same libtarded-thinking) who LOST the Hillary Jab for President are the same Libtards (&or same libtarded-thinkers) who are running the Kamala Jab for President into the same casket in which the Hillary Jab for President was buried.

First off, Hillary Clinton was, quite literally, the world's most qualified person to be President of These United States when she ran for That Office. And even then, she fucking lost that shit. The Bat-Shit Right sank their teeth so hard into the fact that she's not only qualified, she's OVER-QUALIFIED. They hit her so hard about being from "The Swamp." Drain the Swamp. Do we remember this? Has this all been lost, already, to The Past? Is this why the Kamala Campaign is sucking balls so hard right now, during this final stretch? 

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fucking Libtards are going to lose this all over again!!!

My point is that the Bat-Shit Right pinpointed her strengths and utilized all of their power to chip away at it. Clinton's power—HER EXPERIENCE. The GOP is a lot of terrible things, but stupid is not actually one of them. The GOP focused on the ONE thing that they needed to dismantle—HER EXPERIENCE. 

What did the Libtards do? 

They tried to convince everyone that the GOP was wrong. But the GOP wasn't wrong. Clinton's greatest strength, at that time, was HER EXPERIENCE. 

And so, the Libtards tried to "humanize," her, but the American people ... like, we're all humans; we're all people, and the thing that people are good at whether or not their taught how to do it is reading other people, socially. We could see that she was lying.

Clinton is the furthest thing from a "normal" American. She's so far from it that I'd bet that she doesn't even notice her security detail anymore. She's—literally—been living under 100% human-powered (not even including security cameras, etc.) protection since the 80's, maybe even longer. Clinton is not a woman who "knows things" about how the every-person lives. She genuinely referred to her own American Polity as a "basket of deplorables," remember? She's an Elitist. The Libtard Left is Elitism at its finest. They would've never considered a Dumpf-like figure to represent them. Ewe. 

Presently, I watched a short clip of Drumpf with some guy, a podcaster, not that podcaster, some mullet-wielding, white DUDE, and in this short clip (two minutes, tops), I watched Drumpf have a real conversation, create a real connection with this guy. They were talking about addiction. A smart point to hit to humanize Drumpf, because Drumpf does not drink for very humanizing reasons. As they were chatting, Drumpf outright asked the guy if he struggles more with drugs or alcohol. I was floored. The guy answered him, honestly. 

Not once, not ever have I ever seen Hillary or Kamala CONNECT with a "real" person. The reason why? Well, let's be real, neither Hillary nor Kamala have had a "real connection" with anyone without a BA, BS, MSF, MA, MBA, JD, LLM, or PhD, &c., &c, etc., in a very, very, very long time; I'd argue, decades long.

And so, what would've happened if Clinton simply admitted that she's the MOST EXPERIENCED CANDIDATE IN HUMAN HISTORY AND SO, YEA, SORRY, MAYBE SHE'S BEEN A LITTLE TOO BUSY TO BE ON THE GROUND WITH ALL OF US, BUT SHE'S READY TO CHANGE, READY TO LISTEN, READY TO BE AMONG US, READY TO BE PRESIDENT? What would've happened then?

She'd obviously be lying, no different then Drumpf (he doesn't actually care about that guy, but in that moment, he can make that guy feel like he cares), cause she doesn't actually plan on moving into a normal suburb and living among us, she's vying to move into the White House, like duh.

Since she didn't do that, and we're at the precipice of this 2024 Cycle, maybe Kamala should do the one thing Clinton never did. Maybe Kamala should admit that she is some of the things that the Bat-Shit Right is spewing. Maybe Kamala could look inside herself and see the person that the Bat-Shit Right sees, and admit that yea, there are parts of her that are absolutely what the Bat-Shit Right says, and that yes, SHE IS A WOMAN. 

If you are what someone says you are

but you deny that you are what they say you are

YOU ARE THE LIAR

not them

Let Drumpf be the Liar.

When a political party spends the past four years dividing up their own party into everyone's dozen-hyphen-specific identity, the challenge becomes one about coalescing behind UNIQUENESS. I'm no genius, and I can see that this is an impossible task. Let's all be UNIQUE, TOGETHER! *barf*

When a political party spends the past four years insisting that DEI is important, only to realize that one must only appear diverse but must possess a sameness of mind, is it no wonder that a former first lady can walk up onto a stage and declare the Presidency of These United States a "Black Job," and receive zero backlash or outcry from the party?

When a political party spends the past four years shitting on a past-president instead of focusing on their own platforms and policies and plans for the future, is it any wonder that Kamala was, quite literally, a last-minute candidate? 

(As an aside, remember those "Love Trumps Hate" signs from the Hillary days? Yea, that's right, the fucking Libtard Left SPENT MONEY on promoting Drumpf's name, and when considering the general, um, level of literacy in this country, it's not a stretch to think that Drumpf supporters read the sign as if it were commanding them to, "Love Trump's Hate," etc.)

My point is simple. The Bat-Shit Right can see that they (the GOP) and the Libtard Left (the Democrats) are one in the same—they both want to spread the ONE RIGHT WAY across ALL OF AMERICA. The Libtard Left refuses to see this Truth.

The Truth about These United States, however, is that we are a Republic. 

Both parties are disastrous because the Libtards want to force this entire country into a Blue-colored Box. This is social oppression among other things. The Bat-Shit Right wants to dismantle the Federal Government and all of its Institutions in order to replace these institutions with corporations. This is economic oppression among other things.

No matter how you cut it, BOTH PARTIES have plans to oppress us, Americans, the citizens of These United States. And we are expected to vote for our own oppression.

So which is it going to be? Would you rather suffer economically or socially?

If you're a Libtard, you've been brain-washed to believe that social oppression is the worst thing that can happen to a person. Other people are the enemy, and this is why you're Libtarded. 

If you're Bat-Shit Right, you've been brain-washed to believe that government oppression is the worst thing that can happen to a person and that the only way to free one's self from government oppression is through the privatization of all formerly-government-funded/run institutions. The government is the enemy, and this is why you're Bat-Shit Cray.

From the perspective of the Libtard, capitalism is your oppressor, and the only way to free one's self is by being "anti-capitalist," but the average Libtard does not know what capitalism is, and this is why you're Libtarded. 

From the perspective of the Bat-Shit Right, socialism is your oppressor, and the only way to free one's self is by being a capitalist, but the average Bat-Shit Right does not know what socialism is, and this is why you're Bat-Shit Cray.

As a Libtard voter, Drumpf is the enemy because he's a threat to all of our Institutions. He's incompetent and a criminal, but he's also beloved and seen by a distinct group of the masses, and the Libtards refuse to accept this, and this is why you're Libtarded.

As a Bat-Shit Right voter, Kamala is the enemy because she's a threat to all of our Freedoms. She's a woman and more Biden, but she's also very capable of great leadership because she's worked her way up through the power structures of These United States and understands them in a way that an "outsider" never can, and the Bat-Shit Right knows this about her, accepts it, and this is why you're Bat-Shit Cray.

 

EVERYONE SEEMINGLY HAS A LOT TO LOSE THIS ELECTION CYCLE

BUT ISN'T IT KIND OF OBVIOUS

THAT EACH SIDE FEELS AS IF THEIR WORLD IS GOING TO END?

It doesn't have to be this way, but in These United States, the Middle-Way depends solely upon an educated masses, and so, relying on the election cycles themselves to educate an uneducated masses, seems like an idea that falls in the "Bat-Shit Libtarded" column. And so, if the Libtards lose this again, for the same exact reasons—those reasons being their inability to both accept Drumpf the way that the Bat-Shit Right sees him and to admit their own faults—again, they have nobody to blame but their own Libtarded Leadership.

And if the endorsement of the world's most-famous self-proclaimed, heterosexual, cis white male Idiot shifts the needle in the Libtards' favor, then the Libtards really have no fucking clue what their platform is or should be, and all of this will have all been won through the fluke of a dude who, at some point, realized he is smarter than Drumpf. Let's hope he admits so much, out loud, and makes the most unlikeliest of decisions—endorsing KAMALA *fingers crossed* 

WHITE PATRIARCHY to save the day!

The thing for which the Libtard Left exists to dismantle, lol. 

*i fully understand the negative implications of using this word aloud in any context, and so, i am very-consciously using this word in this specific context to outline exactly how, as a party, the Liberals are "retarded" in that they are suffering from an inability to understand that which has already been proven. if i am causing harm or offense to anyone by using this word in any context, it's never my intention to harm anyone, but the unintended will define me. so be it. also, i am referring to both the fact that Kamala may have some of the exact same people that the Hillary campaign did, but also, maybe she doesn't, nevertheless, the same bad-thinking is being exercised.

when the next chapter, finally, gets its title ...

that which was "In My Bag"
for a campus tour
of the William S. Richardson School of Law
at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
which included a tour by a current law student
&a visit to a first-year class

[from top left around clockwise]

writing utensil case

mask

flip phone + earbuds

wifi-only phone

wet wipes

Holo card

the 아저씨

a notebook

#ootd

after the tour on thursday
we had a meeting with admissions on friday
&on the morning of the meeting with admissions
my college transcript arrived
confirming my undergrad graduating gpa
&the "morning" (we awake at night) after (today)
i awoke to an email
from my old undergrad sculpture professor at baylor university
(attended from years 2004-2007)
confirming that he can/will write me a letter of recommendation
&not only that
he still has my "wrapped object" piece &shows it to his students

^..^
since everything is not only falling into place effortlessly
but also
quickly
it's a go on applying to law school
&so
ONWARD WE GO!

next stop
a solid score on a standardized test
*sigh*

[the reasons why this law school in particular
suits my needs &appeals to me greatly
will be discussed at a later time
through drafts of my personal statement
that i will
obviously
upload here as i write them]

[POST TITLE]

[HEADLINE]

Good Job, Simu! It's so refreshing to hear about an Asian supporting, defending, and uplifting Asian-ness. There is an obvious American race-group that believes that they are the only victims of "cultural appropriation," but the reality is that Asians and Asian-ness have been culturally appropriated far more intensely and far more explicitly with zero backlash. And this same race-group pretends like Asians and Asian-ness does not exist even as they also culturally appropriate our culture *vomits*

How do I know? 

The Democratic Nominee is "Black" even though she is mixed-raced, and was raised by her South-Asian MOTHER and an "absent Black father," but yes, Kamala is "Black," not Asian, according to them. But by their own definition, Kamala is NOT Black, cause she wasn't born to or raised by a Black Woman. At least, that's why Drake's not Black. And yet, they are all obviously leaning into this "Black" Nominee, as opposed to the "Asian" nominee, because it suits them for Kamala to be Black ... the First Black Woman President. Sounds nice, if you're a Black Woman. It would sound even better, if she were just a WOMAN.

But Kamala isn't a woman, she's a Black Woman. 

And she identifies as a Black Woman for that "powerful" Black Vote. 

Yo,

To: All Other United Statesian Minority Groups,
Let's find out if this is Truth or Consequence, shall we?

Let's just let the Black Democrats vote. I'm out *peace*

[HEADLINE]

Apparently, it is upon a thick white shaft thrusting a big black tip that will climax us into the Future.

YES. YES! YES!!!

[HEADLINE]

The idea that sticks and stones break bones but that words cannot hurt thee is absolutely absurd.

There is language (the specific way that certain groups use words) within these "Christopher Columbus" headlines that use very dangerous language, for instance, saying things like, "Columbus was secretly Jewish" is dangerous language, if you are Jewish. And I get this now. I'm not sure why this particular example really resonated with me, but a lot of "credible" news outlets are using language just like this to describe the DNA results that may or may not even be real or accurate.

The sensationalism. He was secretly a Jew. I mean, maybe, but we ought not place any sort of intention on a being that lived hundreds of years ago. It's more likely that "Christopher Columbus" didn't even know what his ethnic/genetic makeup was, cause we are talking about a primitive peoples, a past none of us could accurately imagine.

And so, to use the kind of language positioning "Christopher Columbus" in some sort of deceptive light because the DNA being attributed to him maybe means that "Christopher Columbus" was a descendant of Jewish people, contributes to the anti-semitic notions about the "Nature of the Jew," etc.

And this is dangerous language, if you are Jewish.  

[HEADLINE]

Kamala continues to bash the Bat-Shit Right's Idiot while continuing to not-define herself. I guess she took a page from the leader of the Libtards, Obama *lol*

All I know is that she loves guns and has absolutely zero, none, zilch in the way of "new ideas" with regards to the Future. She's a continuation of Obama/Biden policies. She refuses to admit it. Why can't she admit that the President is a vessel? And honestly, she makes a good vessel. She will listen to other Global Leaders. She will participate as the most powerful person on Earth. She will be able to see everyone's point of view ... theoretically. But she will not lean into these strengths of hers ... the strengths she possesses AS A WOMAN, BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

They are leaning away from the fact that she might be the FIRST FEMALE WOMAN PRESIDENT IN UNITED STATESIAN HISTORY.

And will anyone even call her "Madame President"?

Cause that's sexist. 

And the Libtards do not tolerate sexism, according to them. 

And yet, it is her SEX that makes her the first of her kind to do what she's maybe about to do. 

Without her SEXUAL ORIENTATION BEING THAT OF A WOMAN, she's absolutely nothing exceptional, different or first. Like, Duh. 

According to them, they cannot (or ought not) even define her as the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.

Cause that's SEXIST.

This is why I call the Liberals, Libtards. They are retarded in the most retarded sense *sigh*

And I feel very frustrated. 

[HEADLINE]

Really? I don't have any sort of anything in economics, and I could've told you why rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor. Literally doesn't take a genius to see the world the way that it is, and yet, three men are being awarded for basically saying (in so many words), "If the White people had to kill you and your people, they were able to establish their own White institutions on top of your peoples' corpses. If they didn't have to kill you and your people, they just enslaved you and your people but did not better your or your peoples' lives in any way."

Where's my "award"?

[HEADLINE]

If you do not understand that what we're watching (in "realish time") is the bickering between a "king" of these oh-so-contemporary times and a "prince" who will never be "king," but who believes that they should not only exist as equals but also, be seen as such, or whatever. I don't actually care about any of this, for reasons stated above, and cause, their Elitist-wives, obviously, support their bickering Elitist-husbands and their elitist worldviews.