I'm seriously done with the political stuff.
But anyway, I was intrigued by Jaime's post.
So here is my response: my former best friend (from back in middle school) lives at home. She is 25. She has worked at 3 different jobs in the last 3 years and has a degree from ISU in fashion marketing.
Another acquaintance lives at home and works as some sort of account representative (not accountant). She has a degree in management.
Another lives on her own and couldn't afford to pay rent, (music teacher in a western suburb) so she had to take a second evening job at Hallmark to get by.
My good friend that I've known since I was born is a teacher who got her degree from Bradley...I think she lives with her parents because she is an extreme saver and very attached to her parents. So it's cheaper, and easier for her.
Another person I know is a medical transcriptionist-degree from Oakton, lives at home.
For myself, I live alone, pay my own bills, and also live in the suburbs. I live near my parents out of convenience-it's nice to have someone to take care of my cat if I need it, and also nice to be able to have a place to go to dinner. While it's not the most exciting place in the world, I prefer it because I work in the suburbs, and I don't like commuting. So I plan on staying here. I of course, am a teacher, working in a suburban school district. I am very lucky.
Most of the people who live with their parents, I would think, would prefer to live alone. They simply can't afford it. I also think that the refusal to grow up is probably not applicable to most people. (although the previous best friend mentioned above is pretty immature)
Jobs don't pay as well as people think they will pay. There are numerous surveys done with college freshmen-they think they'll make $100,000 with a Bachelor's degree. That is hardly the case.
Most people I know from Big Ten and Ivy League/Small Private colleges do, in fact, live on their own and can afford to do so. I won't make any conclusions about that. Take it for what you will.
The other people I know who live in the city are the friends of my significant other. They are all accountants. Accounting is perhaps one of the most steady jobs around. And it pays extremely well.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
I've been reading a lot of blogs on both sides (I've stopped reading that feminist one though, and I've found that I'm much happier) regarding this whole Clinton issue.
I must say that I am quite pleased.
Here are some nice quotes that illustrate what I feel. These are taken from Slate Magazine's the XX Factor, a blog written by women. The author of this piece is Megan O'Rourke (emphasis is mine)
Also, after reading the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton, and his reaction to it, I am more and more convinced that he is nothing better than a lying, cheating snake. Cheating in the sense of women (I mean seriously-he's a disgusting pig) and cheating in regards to multiple shady business deals. If you think I'm kidding, read the article (and its responses) yourself. The fact that Hillary is still with him shows that her marriage is nothing more than a political convenience and a complete and utter sham. I find that the concept of 'standing by your man' when he has cheated on you multiple times and makes no effort at changing, and then using your false marriage as a platform to forward your political ambitions not worthy of my time, or my vote.
The blogs have given me a lot of good reasons to not support Hillary. One other thing that I wish to mention is the whole "Hillary is a common person" thing. Hello?? Hillary was an Ivy League educated white woman of privilege. The only reason she is saying that is because she is subscribing to the incredibly racist stereotype that a black man who has an education is somehow an elitist. That a black man with a Harvard degree who has not come from a background of privilege sees himself as 'better' than common white, working class folk. You just need to look at her statements on how she appeals to the 'white working class' and the fact that those same folks voted for her in large numbers. I just find that really disturbing.
So, I will laugh in November if McCain wins. I will laugh so hard. It would mean that the whole Democratic party primary season was a complete waste of time! And that politics is utterly meaningless.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering why we are still stuck in this two party system. Why does it have to be Democratic or Republican? I don't care for either of those parties, I don't like putting myself into boxes, and in the end, I think everyone is the same anyway. I think it would be fantastic if we had more than 2 parties. It just seems obvious now that there should be more than 2 candidates to vote for.
I must say that I am quite pleased.
Here are some nice quotes that illustrate what I feel. These are taken from Slate Magazine's the XX Factor, a blog written by women. The author of this piece is Megan O'Rourke (emphasis is mine)
"Hillary's right, in a sense, that the way we elect our party nominees is a little ... complex. Even flawed. Sure. That's open for debate. But not WHILE the election is taking place. For better or for worse, we don't rewrite the rules midgame in American politics. Or at least we don't do that most of the time. And that's always been what made American democracy robust. The primary system is one the United States has followed for a long time. And Clinton doesn't get to change the rules midelection simply because they don't favor her. So I find it disingenuous—deeply, deeply disingenuous—that she claimed last night she really cares about "the deepest values of our party." Ours is a system of representative democracy. You don't get to throw a temper tantrum just because "your vote" wasn't "heard." After all, every time there is an election, some voters feel remorse that their candidates didn't win. If each of those candidates stirred up their supporters to the point where, as Dahlia put it, they looked ready to set off small brushfires, we'd be living in a much more violent country.
So you know what, Hillary? The deepest values of the party would suggest that you don't emotionally manipulate those who have less power and less authority than you. They would suggest that you don't stir voters into a moblike frenzy.They would place on you the burden of acting like a representative of someone who can compromise gracefully, negotiate wisely, and be generous even when the world does not bow to your will. Instead, you're creating a schism within the Democratic Party. If you really think there's a problem with the way primaries are run, take it up after you bow out. "
Also, after reading the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton, and his reaction to it, I am more and more convinced that he is nothing better than a lying, cheating snake. Cheating in the sense of women (I mean seriously-he's a disgusting pig) and cheating in regards to multiple shady business deals. If you think I'm kidding, read the article (and its responses) yourself. The fact that Hillary is still with him shows that her marriage is nothing more than a political convenience and a complete and utter sham. I find that the concept of 'standing by your man' when he has cheated on you multiple times and makes no effort at changing, and then using your false marriage as a platform to forward your political ambitions not worthy of my time, or my vote.
The blogs have given me a lot of good reasons to not support Hillary. One other thing that I wish to mention is the whole "Hillary is a common person" thing. Hello?? Hillary was an Ivy League educated white woman of privilege. The only reason she is saying that is because she is subscribing to the incredibly racist stereotype that a black man who has an education is somehow an elitist. That a black man with a Harvard degree who has not come from a background of privilege sees himself as 'better' than common white, working class folk. You just need to look at her statements on how she appeals to the 'white working class' and the fact that those same folks voted for her in large numbers. I just find that really disturbing.
So, I will laugh in November if McCain wins. I will laugh so hard. It would mean that the whole Democratic party primary season was a complete waste of time! And that politics is utterly meaningless.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering why we are still stuck in this two party system. Why does it have to be Democratic or Republican? I don't care for either of those parties, I don't like putting myself into boxes, and in the end, I think everyone is the same anyway. I think it would be fantastic if we had more than 2 parties. It just seems obvious now that there should be more than 2 candidates to vote for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)