improperlyhuman: (Default)
I'm so angry I don't even know what to do with myself. I called Humane Animal Services to find out what is up with this rooster that is STILL waking me up at 4 A.M. EVERY morning. Well, they sent someone out last week. And that's it. I was told that it's legal to own a rooster in this situation, and they couldn't do anything else, and I'd have to file a petition. So then I spent some time going back and forth between this office and the local police department, the code compliance officer of which re-iterated that the situation is not legal.

I spoke to the director of HAS, who acted like a jerk. I tried to explain that the situation was illegal, and he told me that he wasn't going to "force" the residents to give up the rooster against the law. I was like, what the hell, that is not what I asked you to do. IMMEDIATELY after I said that I got the code information from the police department, he says that he doesn't know where I'm getting my information from. I honestly do not understand why people say stupid shit like this: pretend that one has said things that one doesn't say and so forth. He refused to call the code compliance officer.

Mercifully, said officer called him. Getting back to me, she painted a ridiculously complicated picture. I'm still not sure that I understand it all. Like, the city's relevant code differs from the county's code, and Humane Animal Services operates according to county code or something. In the end, Humane Animal Services will not remove the animal unless he is being kept in inhumane living conditions, OR if it is decided that the creature is a nuisance in a hearing that might be scheduled after I file a petition that must be signed by one or two other neighbors, if HAS deems the petition to be hearing-worthy. I'm sure that's a helluva lot more days or even weeks on half a night's worth of sleep.

But this is the really messed-up part: I didn't get the details of what happened when HAS paid my neighbor a visit, but the code compliance officer did. Apparently, no rooster was found at that dwelling. Only chickens. Why didn't HAS tell me this when I called?! Why the long spiel about the legality of rooster ownership? This shady shit plus the director talking to me like an idiot = I don't trust HAS anymore.

So I have three options:

1. Find the property manager and try to get her to do something about this.
2. Try to find a neighbor with whom to file a petition, hope HAS will act on it, and hope the matter will be decided in my favor.
3. Report the crowing to local PD while it's happening (again!) in the hopes that they can get me the correct unit number (this time), but then it's back to HAS, so, hope they find something against their rules, otherwise, back to step 2.

This crazy shit is one of the reasons why I HATE living around other people. There is ALWAYS some noise bombardment at some point. I looked up the relevant municipal code. A "public nuisance" is defined according to the sensibilities of a "reasonable person" of "normal sensitivity." I guess that's not me, eh? And I guess those of us with "abnormal" sensitivity are expected to simply suffer.

The sad aspect of this situation is that the one thing I specifically asked of my housing coordinator was a quiet neighborhood. My VA social worker asked me if it was quiet here because she's working with some other veterans who are seeking housing. I definitely can't answer in the affirmative any longer.

The last twist in this enraging story is that the residents of the unit HAS visited were apparently in the process of moving. So, if they really are harboring a rooster (that they hid, maybe?), maybe I won't have to listen to him for much longer. Good riddance, disgusting speciesists. Or hell, maybe they'd like to keep humans on their back patio as well.

No, that was the second to last twist. The last twist is where I ended up on my Internet search on roosters, upon which I embarked after I was told that only chickens were found. There is a creature called a frizzle chicken. I haven't been able to find many recordings of her call, but, compared to the rooster recordings, it sounds more like what I've been hearing. The sound isn't any sort of cock-a-doodle-do to my ears. I, of course, am not familiar with either, so I'm not sure, but surely roosters are much more common. But what if they found no rooster because these people have no rooster? What if the HAS officer simply overlooked a frizzle chicken???

I hate this powerlessness, and I hate when simpletons and jerks talk about "freedom in America." Well sure, compared to brutal foreign government that tortures people for petty "crimes." That's a low standard. But I have precious little leeway to get myself out of this situation. I can't afford to move away, and anyone who moves is at the mercy of landlords and realty companies anyhow. Even someone who had money would be hard-pressed to move away from her job. Honestly, I would rather like to go back to living outdoors, but of course that's illegal. That isn't freedom, that's being forced to participate in the housing market. Which of course forces a person to participate in the economy.

The anguishing thing is that people are so identified with their slavery that this kind of stuff doesn't even bother them. No animal should be barred from living in its natural habitat and forced to rely on others to survive. Forced dependence is dis-empowering. Which reminds me of the video we watched at my vocational rehab orientation this morning. People who think that relying on someone else for a job constitutes independence are SO damned brainwashed. Aside from living completely outside of the modern economy, being on benefits is actually a more independent state of living. People who work for pay actually have to produce something; maintaining benefits requires little more than filling out some forms. Outside of government jobs, an employer can fire for damn near any reason, but there are protocols and appeals and hearings for being kicked off of benefits.   

I wonder if I could find a way to use my housing voucher to live on womyn's land.

In more positive news, U.S. sicknesses are reportedly being exported, so perhaps people the world over will just die off from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. epidemics, sadly taking with them untold numbers of other animals via their potbellies and fatally clogged arteries, but, at least there's hope of an end.

The Four

Oct. 24th, 2013 05:11 pm
improperlyhuman: screenshot of Apocalypse from X-Men: The Animated Series (apocalypse)
Pestilence

Disease is isolated in the context of sparse of human populations. Some may get well, others may die, but there is no one to carry the disease to the next town/tribe/commune/whatever. Crowded cities basically create pestilence through forced routine contact with large numbers of strangers and large concentrations of human waste. Unhygienic cultural practices such as keeping animals as pets and the jet-set class galivanting all over the world, picking up foreign bugs that they then pass on to their compatriots, worsens the problem.

Famine

Risk of famine increases with the adoption of mass agriculture and "development." Incessant, large-scale farming strips the Earth of minerals and, in extreme cases, may ultimately lead to desertification. The relatively modern agricultural practice of monocropping creates a food supply that is far more sensitive to threats such as pests and unfavorable weather conditions – when the main food source becomes scarce, insufficient quantities of alternate food sources facilitate mass starvation, as in the Irish Potato Famine. Civilized development is simply the paving over and building on arable land, generally preceeded by theft of land from the poor and powerless. The result is less food producers, larger numbers of people dependent upon huge agro-conglomerates, greater pollution due to the waste generated by the latter's concentration of thousands of farm animals. Then there is the crowding into urban areas of the dispossessed, which facilitates disease epidemics.

War

Quite difficult to wage without huge numbers of soldiers and the financial resources to support them. Without warfare technology, spats between neighboring populations result in relatively few deaths and little material destruction. When no one is building up huge stores of, say, grain or precious metals, and there are no economies in which to trade them in anyhow, and little or no technology with which to mine, refine, or otherwise produce them (not to mention, no class system that allows for a group of people to sit on their asses thinking up such contraptions while others produce their food, clothing, shelter, and mind their kids), the justifications for warfare decrease.

Death

Death is obviously the end result of all of these, but it's more than that.

The concept of necrophilia (original credits to Mary Daly, if I recall correctly) refers to the fact that all roads lead to death in patriarchy:

Poisoning and polluting technology and industrial production lead to death.

Violent, hateful, unjust societies lead to murder and suicide.

Chemically-engineered pesticides and additives in our food lead to death.

Monopolization of resources leads to death.

Marrying off females into a lifetime of reproductive and domestic slavery leads to death.

and so forth and so on. Patriarchy is death-loving and death-supporting. Patriarchy is behind civilization, and civilization, in turn, is behind the other three horsemen. So death (necrophilia) is the alpha and the omega.
improperlyhuman: (thinking)
Of late, I stop and notice all of the people around me. I think of the masses of humans in the world. And it boggles the mind, that a woman gave birth to every single one of them. Every single one! All that work. The untold hours of labor, of pain. The months and months of carrying around extra weight. All that effort, generation after generation.

And this is what men think of all of that work: Today I flipped through an edition of Time magazine and read an article about Mitt Romney and Mormonism. The author reported that early Mormons, facing ostracism and religious oppression, had to be practical. They were few in number, and, in their practicality, decided that Mormon men would take multiple wives to raise those numbers. They wanted to grow their fucking cult, so, they turned to women, their baby machines, and decided that each guy would knock up more of them. Nevermind all that extra work that women had to endure! What's nine months and x hours of labor, what are repeated pregnancies in the face of "practicality"? It was practical for men; that's all that mattered.

Here is my first draft plan. The goal is to the cripple the government by decreasing its funding. Without their goddamned paychecks, useless politicians literally will not be able to afford to sit on their asses making decisions for us, declaring war in our names. They will have to go out and actually earn a living. Can you imagine spoiled politicians actually working? Not only would it be beautiful, it would do them good. The same goes for many other Americans. Of course, I harbor no illusions concerning the number of them that will willingly adopt this plan.

Citizens can put an end to government by not paying taxes. The easiest legal way to avoid taxes is to earn to liitle to be taxed. We therefore want as few people working as possible, with as few work hours as they can manage.

The first step: people have to stop having kids. Kids tie people to work and the economy because they cannot provide for themselves. The less dependents one has, the less one must work. A massive decrease in the birth rate will go far towards shrinking the economy; less people employed = less tax revenues. It will also decrease competition for jobs, shifting power from employers to employees. The wealthy should be encouraged to drop out of the job market altogether. As the pickings for hiring become slim, job application rejections and firings will decrease, and there will be a period of increased job security. Employees must seize upon this opportunity to make employment demands that will further weaken the economy. Higher pay, shorter work days, more vacation time. Employers with fewer hiring choices will be more willing to hire inexperienced and semi-skilled labor. These workers' lack of skills increase employers' time and financial investments, which slow economic growth.

Along with fucking up the supply sid of the economy, citizens must decrease demand. They must stop buying unnecessary crap. Stop buying gas, stop taking random trips. Keep the family close together to eliminate travel costs associated with visiting. Once they have to rely on their own labor just to get a meal or keep a clean shirt on, and can see firsthand how much work that is, having friends and relatives close by will prove its worth. Save and/or pool money to purchase necessities that will last rather than repeatedly buying the products of "planned obsolescence." Buy motor homes and live in vehicles rather than renting or purchasing homes. Conduct mass rental strikes, in which all apartment building tenants refuse to pay the full price of rent. Landlords can't afford to evict everyone, especially with dwindling demand for traditional dwellings. Obviously, people will have to learn some fundamentals of collective organization. Once the government's economic base is weakened, law enforcement will become spotty and downright absent in some places. People will be able to set up tents, build cabins, etc. with impunity, especially in sparsely populated areas, where law enforcement is most likely to have become nonexistent.

Outright theft of goods, if deployed at all, must be used selectively. Corporate retailers should be priority targets. Attempts should be made to absorb small, local retailers, as well as individuals, into barter economies. Economic independence should always be the goal, however. Even barter economies can explode into systems of exploitation under the right circumstances. Along with bartering and decreasing purchases, people can decrease demand by acquiring the skills to provide for their own needs. Cooking, sewing, small-scale farming, canning, vehicle and dwelling repair, home-schooling, trade skills, candlemaking, and composting provide for self-sufficiency.
improperlyhuman: icon says: Radical Feminism: Females First. Always. (females first)
I received my copy of Axiomatic Set Theory in the mail today. Excited and getting a major brain workout.

Use of men's chemistry experiments (typical chemical birth control)/torture devices (IUDs) do not constitute "reproductive freedom." They simply allow the user to trade one unwanted biological circumstance (pregnancy) for another/others (pain and an array of biochemical side effects). The only true reproductive freedom comes from the 100% free, 100% environmentally- AND biologically- AND psychologically-friendly natural birth control method NoDick. As in, no dick in the vagina. At all.

Much like other products of industries that are intimately tied in with capitalism, "birth control" is both promoted by the sellers and viewed by the buyers as a matter of "personal choice," but, like all the other poisons pumped out by the drug industry, it actually effects us all. Anything that is consumed or discharged into the body will eventually make its way into the ecosystem at large. One person takes "birth control," we all take "birth control." Just as capitalism in general regards the worker and consumer as individuals, conveniently overlooking economic interdependence, its various industries market their wares, not only specifically to the individual as disconnected from others, but also as a symbol of individualism:

"Buy this mass-produced consumable to show your individuality!"

Just as capitalism ignores the environment's places in the economic equation, so does the pharmaceutical industry:

"Take our drugs! Don't worry about urinating/defecating/sweating out the remnants or dumping the rest of your prescription down the toilet, it won't affect anyone! It disappears into thin air after you inhale/ingest/absorb/flush! Laws of physics: pwned!"

So, the takers of birth control and all other drugs have more to worry about than themselves. They owe it to everyone and everything in their ecosystem to take our health and well-being into consideration when they economically support the poisoners of the Earth and, via their bodies, provide an gateway for the poisons to get into the air, soil, and water.

What I don't understand is: why not choose NoDick? It's free. No side-effects. No hassle of remembering to take a pill. A little bird told me that many women don't even like vaginal intercourse much, and, of those who do, many can't orgasm from it, so why do so many put up with it at all? I don't get it, but I don't know anything about what goes through the mind of women who have sex with men, so maybe that's why.
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 02:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios