"My differences were taken into account, my sameness sought out." Feinberg 1993: 78

This quote stood out for me as I was reading because I can't quite decide if it's a positive practice or a negative one. Perhaps it's neither - just human.

As human beings we seek out those similar to us, we route out those common attributes that show a clear linkage, a possibility for relationship. Since the day we are born into this word, we are conditioned to condone similarities and shun those who are different. So, in a way, this quote reflects a negative practice that human beings unconsciously engage in every day of our lives.

On the other hand, this presents as a positive habit as they took into account her differences but still strove to accept her into their circle as one of theirs by routing out those same similarities that can make society to exclusive and so cruel. Rather than giving in to the temptation to stop at the differences and reject, the noted them and moved on.

But the final negative in this scenario is that they simply took her differences into account. They dis not try to understand them, they did not try to appreciate them, and far be it from them to celebrate them. Of course, these are things that can occur once you allow someone into your circle and begin to become increasingly intimate with them. So perhaps, this is simply a positive step on the path towards understanding and appreciation.

I believe that this is a positive practice that has grown out of a commonplace exclusionary tactic. Perhaps seeking out sameness first is not always a terrible thing.

I don't understand the what the big deal about the "L" word is. Why are there all of these rules about when and how to say it and where did they come from? Why is it so taboo to simply express what you're feeling towards a person. There's not debate about how and when and where and why to say "I hate you," so why is the positive of that so stress-inducing?

I have heard innumerable laws and rules of thumb and advice and words of wisdom on this topic - to the point of absurdity. There's arbitrary dates and assumed knowledge and stereotypes and the singularity of a relationship is almost never taken into account. "Wait, 6 months, then you know it's safe to say it because they've stuck around for that long." "If he hasn't said it, he's not feeling it." "The woman should never be the first to say it." "If a girl says it before a guy and he's not ready, he'll freak out and leave her." "Men are afraid of the phrase 'I love you.'" Where does this come from?! People who have been rejected in the past and therefore assume that their case is the rule? You care very deeply about a person, so you tell them that. If they don't feel that yet or at all then you take it in and move on. It should make the object of affections feel good, not freaked out. There is so much unnecessary pressure around these three words that it just adds stress to relationships and may even ruin them in the end. If you love someone, it shouldn't be a matter of them "sticking around." You should want them to know that you have this incredible feeling for them because you see them as special and wonderful in your life.

And what makes this paranoia even more absurd is that fairly often it's obvious when someone loves you. It's innate for you to feel it. Sometimes, there isn't even a need for words and yet it has to be said aloud and in compliance with all of society's ridiculousness. Love isn't just something that's said, it's shown - so what out! You may have already been exposed.

I'm not stating that some of the above proverbs aren't true. There are people whose natural reaction to unreciprocated expressed feelings is panic and those people need to relax and act like a rational being. In that situation, my reaction would be "I'm sorry. You know that I like you very much but I'm not sure that I'm ready to make that commitment yet or I'm not sure that I'm there yet and I want to make sure that I'm ready and committed to stating that. I want to be with you and I want to see where this goes. When I'm ready, I'll say it." Revolutionary, yes?

It just never ceases to amaze me how hysteria can blow things out of proportion and interfere with the most intimate aspects of people's lives.

I always feel that my station is precarious - regardless of how favorable my situation may be.

While I'm working on my blog about repealing alimony laws, here's another political blog that doesn't involve much research on my part.

A lot of people don't know that you can have certain aspects of your CORI sealed - 10 years later for a misdemeanor and 15 years later for a felony. However, there are certain crimes that cannot be sealed, one of which being rape. On the other hand, crimes on your juvenile record are automatically sealed once you come of age.

Those last two facts having been said,the issue of rape by a minor creates a puzzling scenario.
In Massachusetts, the age of consent is 16 years old and the law revolves around the age of the female involved. The concept of the age of consent rests upon the belief that under the age of 16, an individual cannot actually consent to anything because they are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to be able to fully comprehend the ramifications of their decisions. In a similar vein, the establishment of 18 as the legal age of an adult rests upon the presumption that under the age of 18 an individual is not responsible enough to make their own decisions, nor are they mature enough to measure consequences and long term effects.

Taking all of the above into consideration, suppose Johnny, who is 16, has a one night stand with Susie, who is 15 years old. Johnny is convicted of statutory rape for engaging in intercourse with an individual who is not mature enough to truly consent to a sexual act. However, the argument can be made that Johnny committed said act, regardless of whether or not Susie consented, because, as an individual under the age of 18, he is not mentally or emotionally mature enough to properly weigh the consequences of his actions. Under the law he is a minor but under the law he also committed rape. The same legal conundrum is created in more difficult circumstances - say Johnny had sex with Susie while she was drunk and did not, in fact, consent. It was, indeed, rape but he is, indeed, a minor and therefore, arguably, less responsible for his actions. So we have a situation of conflict of law and thus the question is, to seal or not to seal?

I personally do not believe that there is an easy solution to this situation. Ideally, it would be settled on a case by case basis, but the law doesn't work that way because in order for the law to be fair, there must be some level of uniformity. However, what is fair is not always just and what is just is not always fair. Fortunately, there is some level of discretion involved in the review of petitions to seal, which can be a saving grace for some. For others there are those who invariably draw the hard line that rape is rape, regardless of age. Perhaps some guidelines can be applied to cases across the board to make a determination - but who is to determine which type of rape is more serious a crime? Indeed, it runs the risk of understating the severity of someone's traumatic experience and even runs the risk of allowing a dangerous individual to exist unmonitored in society.

It's a multifaceted argument and the potential solutions are numerous. Unfortunately, the way that these conflicts of law are often sorted out is through a series of cases in which many suffer as collateral.

I have always been a people pleaser. Usually a little too much so. I used to be really easy going about it - I never expected anything in return, not even any recognition. I just kind of did it. But lately my patience in that area has been running out. I suppose that it 's because I'm older now and I've developed a better concept of respect and have learned to stand up for myself. Maybe it's also because I've just worn myself out giving too much. Or maybe over the years the number of people who take it for granted has built up to the point where I can't overlook it anymore.

What hurts me the most is that some of the people closest to me are guilty of it. I feel as though they almost expect that I will just do whatever they need for them and I don't even get a simple "thank-you" from them. It's aggravating and it also makes me question our relationships. Are they using me? Do they really see nothing wrong with their behavior? Do they really have as little respect for me as they display?

I suppose in that situation most people would just stop doing things for others but I must be a glutton for punishment because I can't seem to stop myself. That sounded really arrogant. How do I rephrase that? I really just don't know how to say no, particularly when it comes to those closest to me. I enjoy taking care of people and I really do like to please people. What I really need is to learn how to stand up for myself even more so and to set solid limits to allowing people to more or less use me. Don't get me wrong - I realize that a lot of people don't mean to act like that and don't realize what they're doing - but I do need to find an effective and polite way to point that out - for my sake and for the sake of my friendships.

Cliche as it sounds, my job really isn't easy and there are a lot of times when I wonder if it's really for me. I lose sleep worrying about my clients and it's amazing how nasty people can be even when you're trying to help them. But every once in a while, I meet a new client who reminds me of why I took this job and actually makes me want to stay in this field. When they finally get all set up and settled in I'm genuinely happy for them and I actually want to thank THEM for keeping me focused on what's important.

Whenever I'm driving down 95 and I see that the staties have pulled someone over, I think to myself "what the HELL could they have done to get pulled over?!" Everyone is doing 70 or better when the speed limit is 55 so they couldn't have been speeding...unless the cops haven't noticed that using one ridiculously unlucky speeder as an example isn't really working. And how much would your life have to suck to be that guy?

No, I imagine it to be something like this:
Trainee: Sir, that one! He's going 80 mph!
Officer: No. That one. Headlight out. That one's mine. (in a Clint Eastwood voice, of course)