Sars,

I saw the letter in The Vine about someone with books to donate, and if there’s any way you could pass this on to Pack Rat, I’d be most grateful.

Another place you can donate books is: www.reverieproductions.org.

We’re a small theater company in New York City, and we’re having an ongoing book drive.We take all kinds of used books, CDs, and DVDs, and sell them on Amazon — then we send you a tax-deductible receipt for whatever we sold them all for.

If you’re in the NYC area, we may even be able to pick them up from you.Our website has all the details.

We take ANYTHING.My boyfriend’s mother has given us ten big Hefty bags of trashy romance novels so far already.

Thanks,
Kimberly Wadsworth
Literary Manager, Reverie Productions

Dear Kimberly,

Your boyfriend’s mother sounds like a very interesting lady.

You can also do your own book swaps — have your friends over, pick out a few books you like, and sell the orphans on eBay and send the money to an organization you all agree on.

Oh Goddamn.I had to write.No.No one gives a holy damn what gay people
do in their private life.But you CANNOT redefine the word “marriage”
because you don’t like the current definition.THAT’S what people don’t
like.Call it a civil union.Call it whatever you want.But it isn’t
marriage.Calling a union between two same sex individuals “marriage” is
like calling two gay men lesbians.It just doesn’t mean that.

An avid but pissed-off reader who gladly voted against that amendment and
for Bush!Four more years hell yeah

Dear Oh, Here We Go,

Actually, I don’t need to redefine “marriage.”The current definition is pretty clear on who is included.

And I just don’t believe that a semantic distinction is what motivated an overwhelming majority of Mississippeans (not to pick on Mississippi, it’s just an example) to vote in favor of banning gay marriage.I have heard the argument put forth a number of times in the last week that it’s not the marriage itself, it’s the term “marriage” that bothers people, but I don’t buy it, for two reasons.One, I’ve mostly heard it from liberals who are trying to find an explanation, any explanation, for why these bans passed so overwhelmingly that isn’t based on straight-up discrimination, because we don’t want to believe that, in 2004, that’s where we are with this shit in the U.S.And the conservative mouthpieces in favor of the ban are more than happy to let liberals run with that explanation (I’m looking at you, Falwell — unfortunately, because you’re a fat pig), because according to that explanation, it’s a usage issue, and if the debate is framed that way, the people presiding over it become linguists instead of bigots.

Which brings me to the second reason I don’t buy it.I don’t think it’s never true; I think you do have a portion of the pro-ban electorate that really doesn’t care if gay folks have the same legal rights, as long as it’s called a civil union or whatever — as long as it stays different from marriage.But that doesn’t answer the question of why it has to stay different in order for them to be comfortable.If everything about a civil union is the same as a het marriage — power of attorney, joint filing, et cetera — except the word, then what’s the point?You’d just use the same word.Unless, of course, what you really have a problem with isn’t the word itself, but the concept of anal sex, or lispy men preying on their own children, or whatever backward shit Karl Rove told you about homosexuals that I for one thought we’d put to bed back in the early nineties.

(NB: I’m using the general “you” there, not trying to scorch this particular correspondent.)

It’s not about semantics.It’s about fear and disgust.It’s about people wanting the government to back them up on their own intolerance, then hiding behind a dictionary so that they don’t look like assholes.I understand the need to try to rationalize it, but — it can’t be rationalized, even if you really do believe that the Bible is right about Those People, because what business is it of yours?So they get married — so what?More room in heaven for you, then — mind your own beeswax!Feel smug about being right and let God sort it out later!Don’t you have any real problems to focus on — your own problems?

There is no justification for voting for these bans that doesn’t boil down to intolerance.None.

Good afternoon, Sars.

For the most part, I avoided post-election comments after the race was conceded and today just started reading what people have had to say.And I’m angry.But I’m not angry for the same reasons that most people seem to be.

I’ve heard and read alot about how 48% of the nation’s voice wasn’t heard.And that’s true, but I’m talking about the numbers of votes themselves.Roughly 115 million people voted.According to the 2000 election numbers, 106 million voted, and that was 54% of the population eligible to vote.Now my math skills are bad, so I’m not going to try to come up with definite numbers, but 115 million seems to me that it would represent, at the most, maybe 60%.So 40% of the voting population couldn’t get off of their asses long enough to go cast a vote?We heard for weeks how close of a race it was going to be.The polls here were open more than 12 hours.There was early voting for two weeks.Places that don’t have early voting still have absentee ballots.

Some people are mad at Kerry because they feel he failed them.There is a lot of anger towards the Bush voters.I understand that people are pissed off that Bush is getting four more years, and I understand that completely, but say what you will about the people that voted for Bush, at least they voted.

Where’s the anger at the huge percentage of the population that sat back and let others make the choice for them?

Frustrated in the south

Dear South,

Lies, damn lies, and statistics…it really depends on which numbers you use and what you call them.The voting-age population is not the same as the eligible-voter pool, because in the voting-age population, you have non-citizens, ex-cons, people currently in prison and institutions, and so on.So, yes, 48% seems like a pretty high apathy number, but I think you have to adjust it down a bit from that.

I feel your frustration, though.I do not want to hear one damn complaint from anyone who didn’t get it in gear to vote.If you stayed home and let the chips fall where they might, well, you did this to yourselves.

A lot of people did vote, though.The issue, I think, wasn’t the non-voters; for example, Kerry managed to turn out the younger demos, but they didn’t go overwhelmingly his way.The issue was the issues, really, and the fact that the GOP did a better job of staying on message and controlling the discussion.

Anybody else wish I were still on about baseball?Yeah…me too.Let’s get a manners question up in here already.

Dear Sars,

I have an apartment-etiquette question and I hope you can help me answer it.
I live in an apartment complex with about 100 apartments in eight different
two-story buildings.In each building there is a little laundry room, with
two washers and two dryers.Tonight I went to wash my whites (which I
desperately needed to do) and there were clothes in the washer that were
clean, but I had no idea when the owner would come back.I checked the
other laundry room across the walk to see if it was available, but it also
was in use.I decided to put one set of Person X’s clothes in the dryer and
one set on top of it — making sure the dryer top was clean.I came back
after an hour to put my clothes in the dryer, and Person X was in there,
and he emptied one dryer but not the other (which had four minutes left on
it and had most certainly dried the clothes).While he was emptying his
dryer I emptied both washing machines, so it was clear that I had need of
both dryers.However, he left only having emptied the one.

I waited until his dryer had finished its cycle and then emptied it.He
hadn’t left a hamper for it, so I put it back on top of the dryer — which I
had carefully wiped off to make sure it was clean.He came back partway
through this and commenced the chewing-out: “Why would you stop it before it was done?”Okay, it was done.I had
waited.”It’s not clean up there, now they’re dirty.Why would you do
that?You did it before, too” for about two minutes.Bear in mind this was
all said very angrily, so I bit my tongue and didn’t respond, as I didn’t
want it to get ugly.Uglier, that is.

Now, Sars, I come from a college atmosphere, where laundry machines are in
high demand and low supply (it is really no different here), and carefully
moving someone’s clothes is just status quo.Also, this guy wasn’t even
from my building — why wasn’t he using his own laundry machines?And the
machines have timers on them, so you know when you should come back to get
your clothes.

I applied the Golden Rule here, that is, I wouldn’t mind if somebody moved
my clothes.In fact, I would expect it if they needed the machine and it
was clearly done, but maybe I’m wrong about laundromat etiquette.So this
is my query: Was I wrong?Should I have waited an undetermined amount of
time for him to pick up his laundry and just periodically checked to see if
he had?Am I wrong to think that he should have emptied both dryers when he
saw me there, or at least have said he was coming back right away?(He
didn’t do either.)

In short:What is the proper etiquette here?

Sincerely,
Stuck in the Spin Cycle

Dear Stuck,

I can’t imagine that this isn’t universally understood, but just in case: if you aren’t around when the cycle ends, and someone else needs the machine, you don’t get to dictate what happens to your stuff — except that whoever moves it does his or her level best to find a clean place to put your things.If you’re that sensitive about strangers touching your gear, stick around with a book and make sure that doesn’t happen.Otherwise?Shut up about it.

If you’d dumped his clothes on the floor, maybe he’d have an argument.You didn’t; he doesn’t.Most laundry rooms and laundromats have signs clearly posted to the effect that, if you don’t keep an eye on your stuff, it’s your own problem, so maybe you should consider posting one of your own.

Dear Sars,

This seems to be such a simple question, yet, having asked it of many
people, I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer.I love your site and
sense of humour and I’m just hoping that you can offer some insight.

What is the proper way to “break up” with someone you hardly know?

I’m not talking about ending a relationship.I know how to do that.I
don’t enjoy it but I have very set standards of what I think is or is
not appropriate in that situation.I feel it should be face-to-face (a
boy once IMed my best friend a break-up.Fun with technology) and I
feel you should be honest without being hurtful.Someone I’ve taken the
time to share enough of myself with to be considered a “boyfriend”
deserves a considerate explaination.I’m old-fashioned that way.

But I’m also a single girl in a fair-sized city.I date sometimes.
And, predictably, 95% of these dates don’t turn out to be men I would
want to see again.Most the time they aren’t cruel or crazy (though
crazy men do love me) or in any way heinous.I just know enough about
myself at 26 years of age to be able to gauge after 3-5 hours whether I
have a single interest in the person across the dinner table.So, after
one date, what method do you use for telling someone that?

I’ve had a lot of trouble lately with my (admittedly cowardly) practice
of just claiming I’m “very busy” when they try to nail me down for a
second date.I always kind of thought this minimized hurt feelings and
let the guy escape with his dignity intact, but made sure I’d never have
to see Mr. Boring again.But the last couple of men I’ve dated haven’t
let it calmly end there.Repeated phone calls, unexpected dropping by
my apartment (I don’t even love it when my friends do that) and
unexpected gifts (which make me nervous) have become the MO of the men
I’m trying to get rid of.

Obviously, this isn’t okay.And, even more obviously, it’s my fault.
I guess I can’t really get out of this type of situation without
wounding someone’s feelings a little.My question is: how do I “break
up” with someone I’ve only been on one date with, in the kindest and most
considerate way?Like I said, these aren’t bad guys, for the most part,
they’re just not “the guy” or even “someone I’ll hang with while
awaiting ‘the guy.'”

Just wondering.Because I’m honestly considering giving up dating at
all, at this point.

Thanks,
Socially Awkward

Dear Awkward,

The kindest thing in situations like that is to speak directly.Don’t bother with “busy” or “just friends” — tell it like it is.”Thanks for the date, but I don’t feel like it’s going to go anywhere with us romantically.Best of luck to you.Goodbye.”If he asks if he can call you, tell him you’d rather he didn’t.

“But that’ll hurt his feelings!”Yes, a little.He’ll get over it.Better to do it now when he’s not really involved than to wait until the gifts start coming and then ankle him.It’s not fun, I know, but it saves everyone time and trouble.

[11/10/04]

Share!