Inconsistency

Now typically, I am the type to prefer structure to disarrayed anarchy. I like having an orderly schedule with me being able to predict most of what's going to happen. It sounds boring, but it makes spontaneity much more freeing and fun. 

But what does that matter? It matters when people are wishy washy, are one facade after another. Just pick one. If you're consistently a jackass, whatever. House finds it appealing, and maybe you will, too. If you're a vegetarian, don't eat fish; it's cheating. I hate whenever people pull this shit, and I really dislike when faceless groups do because we all know it's easier to get upset at an idea than any individual. I dunno; maybe it's a shred of human compassion that we all allegedly have that prevents us from complete and utter apathy, total cultural cannibalism, and electing Rudy Giuliani as president. 

But onto the bullshit!

Facebook & Employers

Alright, if they can't read our mail or ask us to list where we go after 5pm each day or what movies you rent at Blockbuster or any other insanely personal things, why should they even consider Facebook or Myspace? Yes, I get it. If Sally B. Dumbass chooses to post pictures of herself drunk on the internet, clearly she doesn't care who sees them, and I suppose the issue is intent. If you're simply moving Facebook to Facebook scanning about, I really don't care what you stumble upon. If you own a business or are an employer and choose to let someone's recreational (and here I add legal) activities or pictures or statuses affect your decision, I think that's wrong. Recommendations are one thing, but this is another. Jokes I would tell my friends are not what I'd say at my job; shocking as it is, I do know how to exercise discretion, and so while I can post edgy things, I won't say them at work. To be sure, this is a small annoyance compared to...

UVa's Drinking & Streaking policies vs. Steam tunneling

Okay. On tours, UVa acknowledges that drinking and streaking happen and then lists all the safety precautions concerning alcohol (safe ride, Hoos Sober, RA training, etc). Also, they laugh off streaking as a cute tradition at UVa that kids just do. Conversely,  steam tunneling is not acknowledged nor condoned. It is seen as flagrant trespassing and extremely dangerous (*gasp* what if they get lost!). 

The Breakdown?

Drinking can lead to alcohol poisoning, is illegal, and can result in personal injury. Streaking is typically not done sober, but even if it were done sober, it is illegal and can result in personal injury. Steam tunneling is done both dry and drunk, is illegal, and can result in personal injury. I'm seeing some striking similarities, so why the fuck are treated so radically different? Well, here's as far as I've surmised: because kids will be kids and drink, because it's tradition, because it's something people are familiar with and therefore are comfortable with and accept. Streaking? Well, streaking really isn't hurting anyone; they're just running a few paces and then coming back. Also, streaking is also something people are familiar with and therefore don't fear. Steam tunneling sounds scary, dirty, dark, and extremely dangerous. It's not as well spread as drinking or streaking, and so there are several misconceptions. 

In my humble opinion, drinking is worse than urban exploration (steam tunneling falls cleanly into this category). Drunks are known for getting into fights, for vandalizing property, for hurting themselves. A true urban explorer leaves no trace he was there: they don't break property or even litter. They simply are there to appreciate the wonders modern architecture has lent to those willing to follow adventure and wherever curiosity may take them. Oh, and fun fact: urban exploration isn't tied to date rape--something rather infamously married to alcohol.

PS- It's rather hard to get lost in UVa's linear steam tunnels as a few kind souls have spray painted directions on the walls down there. If you're going to do anything, be smart and research before absolutely diving in head first, and have common sense. Please. The last thing the urban exploration community wants is a dumb ass breaking his leg because he didn't bring a flashlight and was slaying from a few too many rounds of beer pong and frat juice.

Stupidity Test

There are a variety of types of laws, but I personally use two general categories: practical and illogical. The latter, I admit, I have difficulty respecting. At UVa (and probably the larger world) if you are breaking a rule, you may or may not be punished. Factoring into the decision are two overwhelming questions: were you endangering yourself or others and are you an idiot. As long as both are no, then you have a fairly good chance of getting away with whatever you're doing. It's why they don't get bent out of shape over streaking the Lawn or steam tunneling. If you're not dangerous or destructive, carry on; however, if you cross one or the other line, you've just screwed up. 

Timing has a lot to do with making an action stupid, and therefore, unacceptable. Example? Streaking the Lawn at 2am: whatever. Streaking at 2pm: you're most likely going to have a chat with an officer (unless there's been some good planning and decent luck). Here's a gem from this morning: I'm sitting in my car waiting at a red light, but because of the train track positioning, there's a fair amount of empty room ahead (some influential part of me likes giving trains space. I don't know why.). Well directly behind me is a State Trooper and behind her is a red van heretofore dubbed Crazy Soccer Mom. Well, my line is full back to the edge of the train tracks, but she apparently wanted to be in the turning lane, which was empty. And so this middle aged woman saw nothing wrong with crossing the double yellow lines, passing two cars (a state trooper being one of them, you moron), and then turning on her merry way once she was done playing Britain and returned to her side of the road. I watch her pass me with my mouth a gape and then laugh as the blue lights flashed on. I hope state troopers have a sense of humor, but I'm guessing not. You can't work with idiots like that all day and be happy about it; it's just depressing.

Professors, Quizzes, and Textbooks

I must say, having a heavily curved class does nothing to foster love for humanity. Actually, it encourages me to wish disaster and calamity on others so that the bar falls low enough to trip over it and land mostly unscathed. Never before has a 45 been acceptable in my life, but as I've learned, a 45 is awesome when the class average is hovering around a 40. For those unfamiliar, that circumstance would probably earn the grade of a B. It's an interesting system, and it's the reason engineers have a GPA but still. 

But onto other more specific situations in which I will weakly attempt to shroud details and protect identities. One of my science classes has an interesting testing procedure. As I've already said, it's curved but not as one might expect. It's completely curved. You're ranked 1-400 ish and the top 20% get A's, next 30% get B's, and so on. There are 15 multiple choice questions, which is a generous term. Personally, I don't call things with the option "answer not here" as multiple choice. The difference between that kind of multiple choice and short answer is the time it takes to grade each. And the cover sheet makes me laugh every time. It states:

You have 50 minutes to complete 15 questions. Each correct answer is worth 5 points. Wrong answers earn 0 points.

Well, I realize I'm probably the crazy one, but that originally sounded to me like wrong answers can't hurt you. I realized within two seconds, however, that this group just enjoys being convoluted. Why think of tests as starting at 100 and then lowering in grade as the student misses questions? No! That's no good at all. Everyone begins at nil and earns his/her way up to greatness. 

Okay, fine, in general I like the idea of this, but dammit it all equates to the same thing, so why the hell are we arguing? It's amusing because it overtly puts the onus on students for low grades without actually being any different than any other grading system. It's just like how all US History books put the raping of South America in the passive tense as if leaving out the subject (aka, us) makes any difference to what happened or the fact that we did it. Actually, textbook PC makes me die a little inside every time I see it. For example, American Pageant, you are quite wrong in refusing to use the word "slavery." Your reasoning? It has a negative connotation. No shit it has a negative connotation; it's supposed to! Calling slavery "coercive labor" is akin to referring to Jewish ghettos in the 30's and 40's as "restricted community development programs." Teenagers are forced to do chores; that's coercive labor. Slavery was not that, and trying to dress up, obscure, or rename it does nothing but perpetuate lies and misunderstanding.