Christmas merry?

So, yeah. I've noticed that things are becoming distinctly un-christmassy as of late. I suppose that has something to do with the fact that it just happens to be January 13. Who would've thunk it?

We spent Christmas at home this year, which was nice. Christmas not-at-home just isn't the same. Then for the rest of my precious, precious vacation, we stayed in Massachusetts.
Now, I had it pretty easy, as I was staying with my horsie aunt, who is my shorter, red-haired great-minds-think-alike buddy. However, Mom did not have it so easy. You see, she suffers from a general affliction called "genetic obligation," in which the sufferer's mind is twisted in such a way that they believe that, no matter how crazy or difficult your parents are, you should always stay at their house.
I love my grandparents, really, I do, but when I found out that my aunt was more than happy to have us stay at her house, I jumped for it. I believe in self-preservation. Apparently, Mom does not. I think it will be another few days before she is finished with her post-Christmas detox. Psychological warfare takes a few days to recover from.
~~~~~~
On another note, how pathetic is it that you've finally grown to enjoy life and appreciate the smaller things, yet you still feel an intense childhood jealously of your filthy-rich-but-in-denial 9 year-old cousins when they show you their horde of Christmas presents?
... and by "you," I mean "I"?
Grrrrr!

Calm down. Calm down. Think happy thoughts, and of Willie, who's better than any object and can love you back... :)

Big House Rant

I had to perform a rant at the front of the class for an English assignment.
I went to the US for Christmas, and what I saw bothered me.
A lot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alright people, listen up. Big houses are completely unnecessary. They are everywhere you go now. I see that there's you, your spouse, and your dog, and you like to entertain. But unless you are planning on entertaining a horde of orphans, you don't need over 2000 square feet and "bonus rooms." "Oh, but I can't live without my billiards room, man den, 3 or 4 extra bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, work out space, indoor pool, 3 car garage, and 2 dining rooms!" Yes, you can. Get over it. The amount of money and energy you spend on heating and cooling the house could feed thousands of poverty stricken people for months.
People used to make do with under 1000 square feet and those were the families with 5 or more kids. Why is it, that in the past 50 years, the average house size has doubled? Why would anyone need that much space, especially since people have fewer kids than ever before? Let's stop this craziness.
A big house should not be the measure of a person, ever. A trip through modern suburbs, and shows like MTV's Cribs seem to push the idea that a huge house means instant popularity. Not only is that shallow, it also causes people to believe that they are worth nothing because they aren't filthy rich.
I understand that different people have different priorities, really, I do. But it's time people realize that "need" and "want" are two entirely different concepts. Get rid of your extra stuff, downsize, and for godssake, don't bring home anymore of those "reusable" bags. They will not redeem you in the environment's eyes.

Famine

Sing sweetly, sap, and
Sickening,
Out here among the flowers.
Eyes to the sky,
Filled like a pie,
Where crows and locusts
Glower.

Now swooping down,
These morbid clowns
Do set upon a shower
Of buckwheat, rye, and corn flowers
All grain gone,
Work of hours.

Now eyes awake
With sweating palms
The farmer loses sleep
And paranoid of living storms
That do his harvest
Reap.

American Indians

The term "Native American" was originally introduced in the United States by academics in preference to the older term "Indian" to distinguish the indigenous peoples of the Americas from the people of India, and to avoid negative stereotypes supposedly associated with the term "Indian". Because of the acceptance of this newer term in academic circles, some academics believe that the term Indian should be considered outdated or offensive. However, many actual indigenous Americans prefer to be called American Indian. Also, some people point out that anyone born in the United States is a native of America, and that the academic who first promoted Native American confused the term native with indigenous. People from India who are citizens of the United States are called "Indian Americans" or "Asian Indians."

Criticisms of the term Native American come from diverse sources. Many American Indians have misgivings about the term Native American. Russell Means, an American Indian activist, opposes the term Native American because he believes it was imposed on the Indians by the government without consent. He has also argued that this use of the word Indian derives not from a confusion with India but from the Spanish expression "En Dio," meaning "in God". Some American Indians question the term Native American because they argue that it serves to ease the conscience of "white America"* with regard to past injustices done to American Indians by effectively eliminating "Indians" from the present. Both Indians and non-Indians argue that the term Native American is problematic because "native of" literally means "born in," so any person born in the Americas could be considered "native". However, very often the compound "Native American" will be capitalized in order to differentiate the intended meaning from others. Likewise, "native" can be further qualified by formulations such as "native-born" when the intended meaning is only to indicate place of birth or origin.

A 1995 US Census Bureau survey found that more Native Americans in the United States preferred American Indian to Native American. Nonetheless, most American Indians are comfortable with Indian, American Indian, Amerindian and Native American, and the terms are often used interchangeably. The traditional term is reflected in the name chosen for the National Museum of the American Indian, which opened in 2004 on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

Why classify people, and then worry about offending them? If only people would think before speaking.

Sources:

Jack Larkin (2003). "OSV Documents- Historical Background on People of Color in Rural New England in the Early 19th Century." Old Sturbridge Inc. http://www.osv.org/explore_learn/document_viewer.php?DocID=2044. Retrieved 2010-3-21.

"I am an American Indian, Not a Native American!". Russell Means. http://www.peaknet.net/~aardvark/means.html. Retrieved March 21, 2010.

"What's in a Name? Indians and Political Correctness." All Things Cherokee. http://www.allthingscherokee.com/atc_sub_culture_feat_events_070101.html. Retrieved March 21, 2010.

"American Indian versus Native American." Infoplease. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html. Retrieved March 21, 2010.

United States of America, 1786-1800

The central government's strength grew out of the Constitution created in 1787 by delegates from all of the North American British Colonies.
Nationalists had long argued for a strengthened union of the states. The nationalists were drawn from the elite circles of American life. Nationalists included merchants, former officers of the Continental Army, and conservatives who wanted to restrain what they believed to be the excessive democracy of the states.
In March 1785, a group of men from Virginia and Maryland, including James Madison, George Mason, and George Washington (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA), drafted an agreement to present to legislatures recommending uniform commercial regulations, duties, and currency laws.
Only five states sent strong nationalist delegates to the Annapolis Convention in September 1786. Alexander Hamilton drew up a report to call on Congress to endorse a new convention to be held in Philadelphia to discuss all matters necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate for the newly formed union's present and future needs.
Despite serious disagreements between localists (supporters of state autonomy) and nationalists, most Americans agreed that the Articles of Confederation needed strengthening, especially in regard to commercial regulation and the generation of revenue. Early in the year of 1787, the Confederation Congress cautiously approved the plan for a convention for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.