Why you probably owe me an apology

Idle Worship

2011-06-22T11:48:00.000-07:00

This post was started some time ago. In the duration, Ben Weasel went on to punch a girl in the face. The second half reflects that fact.

First World Manifesto. That’s the title of Screeching Weasel’s first album in over ten years. It comes out in March and I will inevitably purchase it. Shit, if Interpunk offers me some sort of deal, I’ll likely pre-order it. Though when I finally press play on the first track, it will not be with the same open mind that I did when I first heard “Kill The Musicians” courtesy of Karl Bakla. Now this bothers me, because Screeching Weasel is one of my all time favorite bands. Shit, I was wearing their t-shirt one of the times I was arrested. Things have changed though. The front man of the band who I used to sing along with as he said “We don’t believe in God or Jesus Christ anymore,” is now an out and out Catholic.

I’m not sure that this should bother me, but it does nonetheless. I mean, I would imagine it feels weird to rebel against the status quo and then take Communion. This is a man who once wrote “I Wanna Be a Homosexual” (first SW song I ever heard). How does one mentally reconcile a song like that with the Catholic oppression of all deviant sexual expression?!!? It’s absurd! Yet still, I will buy the album. What does this mean?

Well, great! Now Ben Weasel is not just a Catholic, he’s a woman beater. Now there is a time a place for beating women. Namely, when their asking for it. Of course I don’t mean “Believe me, bro! She was asking for it!” I mean when it’s consensual and actually requested. Though that’s not my thing, my kinks are no less different so I won’t deny another’s sexuality. ANYWAY, now I’m not sure I CAN even buy the album. Good thing Interpunk didn’t offer me anything or I’d have purchased it months ago. Now who can I worship in the Punk scene? Hmm, well I hear Tom Gabel is fighting with club owners and security. Is it time welcome back my wayward leader? Wait a minute! Leader?!?! I think I’ve found the problem. Time to go pick up an instrument and listen to me.

Catch Sanity-2

2010-11-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

I remember in the sixth grade when a History teacher I had told me that the political spectrum was not linear, as so often imagined, instead he claimed it was circular. I couldn’t help but recall this idea as I attended the Rally to Restore Sanity ™. Are sanity and insanity two opposites on a line, or does there exist a time where they rejoin and continue back towards themselves. As I waited for four hours to view something I could easily Tivo or download from the internet, I was forced to ponder the “sanity” of sitting bored, crowded, and cold to what wasn’t even a “political” rally. I watched the parade of attendees carrying signs and wearing costumes all to emphasize their sanity and couldn’t help but note the irony that outside of this particular type of setting, these people wandering the street in the same manner would be pitied and given handouts.

In all fairness, Jon makes a good point. Hyperbole in political debate has become too frequently used, and ultimately is divisive. Still, this rally didn’t have the same scathing critique that Jon’s amazing appearance on the now defunct CNN show Crossfire did. In that exchange, Jon Stewart lashed out with a potent venom against Paul Begalia and Tucker Carlson and the entire sound-bite oriented political pundit circus. That appearance was so effective in part, I feel, because it attacked a singular, readily identifiable entity. I think the problem with the rally was its broad aim. It’s difficult to convince any side to use their library voice when the other side is shouting through a megaphone (into a microphone, played over a stadium sound system). Throughout the rally, various clips of the media were played highlighting the often absurd and alarmist rhetoric put forth from multiple news outlets. Fox News and MSNBC were obviously featured heavily. However I’m not convinced this is a fair comparison. I mean, the conventional wisdom is that MSNBC is the liberal answer to Fox News. But people forgot that the key word in the previous statement is, answer. Fox News and more specifically Bill O’Reilly had been on the air since 1996, seven fucking years before the so-called liberal “answer” Keith Olbermann got his MSNBC show. This is sanity? The left taking a beating for years while doing nothing about it is now the epitome of reasonableness? Again, how much relentless attacking must one take before not fighting back seems insane? Fighting back with the same weaponry as your enemy is now considered unreasonable? One need only to look at the outcome of the Boxer Rebellion to see that philosophy put to the test.

Going back to the Crossfire incident, Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson a dick on live television. This was in response to Tucker saying to Jon that he “[was] more fun on your show”. Jon’s comment said what millions of people in the most direct and confrontational way. It wasn’t polite, it wasn’t timid, yet it was most certainly a venting of pent-up frustration that Jon had likely been feeling for some time. The rally on the other hand felt very cautious. It highlighted a problem that certainly exists, but offered no viable solutions. Assuming that all networks toned down their rhetoric, it still would not change the fact that there are still networks that continually reinforce falsities, and merely preach to their respective (albeit now silent in this theoretical situation) choirs. The problem isn’t the punditry, it’s the populace supporting and encouraging these pundits. Until people start delving deeper into the issues, opinion will trump fact, and emotion will defeat reason.

As I watched from the National Mall, I couldn’t help but paraphrase another great leader also sitting in the Mall that day, “You can preach sanity to some of the people all the time, and you can preach sanity to all the people some of time, but you cannot preach sanity to all the people all the time,”

Update: Apparently Maher feels the same way,

Takes One to know Juan

2010-10-24T11:12:00.000-07:00

So, the hoopla in the media these past couple days has been about the firing of Juan Williams by NPR. Apparently, Juan went on Papa Bear’s cable show and said "When I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." Now, this may not be a big deal for you, especially if you relate. However, this caused his dismissal from NPR and ultimately got him a deal with Fox News. So the big question is whether or not his firing was justified. Right now, Fox has gone on the offensive claiming that this is evidence of left-wing intolerance and calling for an ending to the government funding of NPR. Right now they’re slinging around some audio of Nina Totenberg, another NPR correspondent (on a talk show in 1995) saying "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the good Lord's mind, because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it,” in reference to Jesse Helms a former Republican Senator who opposed Aids research being funded by the government.

So essentially, their only argument is that because Nina was merely reprimanded for degrading a former Senator, Juan should have a free pass after passing judgment on an entire religion. This argument is completely absurd. From the point of view of a news organization, Nina made a disparaging comment about ONE person, whereas Juan revealed a bias towards literally millions of people. Plus, in regards to both of these admittedly ugly statements, Nina is easily capable of never covering a story regarding a former Senator (despite the fact that he remained a Senator for a decade after her comments). Is Juan equally likely to never again cover a story regarding a practicing Muslim or Islam at all? In these times, it seems highly doubtful. Thus, his public bias calls into question his credibility. After listening to any story regarding Muslims by Juan Williams, wouldn’t any reasonable person feel a little worried and nervous themselves that their listening biased coverage?

Then again, you shouldn’t listen to me, I’m one of those people that listens to NPR all the time. Well, except during pledge drive, then it’s on to Tom Leykis reruns on my Ipod.

Michael Jackson touched me. Did he touch you?

2010-10-14T00:43:00.000-07:00

I can remember listening to Michael Jackson when I was a kid. I was in the third and fourth grades and I thought Michael Jackson was the shizzle, though I didn’t know what the shizzle was at the time. Another thing that I didn’t know was that eventually, Michael Jackson would go on to fight not one, but TWO child sex abuse allegations. This kind of bothers me. Regardless of his innocence/guilt, I still feel weird that as a child, I looked up to someone who would go on to pay millions of dollars to help people think he didn’t have sex with kids! I actually spent time daydreaming about being as “cool” as a future accused child molester. Now, I’ve been dealing with this for some time and I’ve finally forgiven myself for these childhood missteps. Red socks in Penny Loafers not withstanding.

And yet, because of his death, Michael Jackson has reached out his hand and touched me in a special place all over again. Due to the immense coverage that followed his death, radio stations were falling all over themselves to play “greatest hits” and “tribute marathons” all while avoiding the subject that every single person in America had in the back of their mind. So anyway, this over-exposure has brought Michael Jackson to the attention of my girlfriends eight year old son. Now as uncomfortable I am with Michael Jackson exposing himself to such a young child, I
wasn’t overly concerned because I knew I could rely on this kid’s video game saturated 30-second attention span to wipe the memory clear. But MJ has somehow made quite an indentation on the psyche of this innocent little boy. The other night, he asked about MJ songs and wanted to watch videos on Youtube.

So we played some songs from a simpler time such as, “She’s Out of My Life, Get on the Floor, In the Closet, Wanna Be Startin’ Something, The Way You Make Me Feel, Another Part of Me, Give In to Me” Songs that were purely innocent and contained only simple and direct interpretations. So he starts really getting into it and then proceeds to start dancing in the living room IN HIS UNDERWEAR. His mom thinks this is adorable and starts cheering him on and encouraging him to mimic the moves in the videos. The problem is that I wonder what this young child will think in the future when he realizes that his parents not only allowed, but actually ENCOURAGED him to dance along with a deceased child molester. Whatever. His mom can pay those therapy bills.

On Faith Vs Spirituality

2010-07-22T09:14:00.000-07:00

A recent post on existenSHAlism got me thinking about the oft underrated importance of semantics. Sometimes semantics merely gets in the way of drunken discourse amongst friends. Sometimes though, it can impede relationships. This seems to be the case, at least in my opinion, with our friend and her personal journey. Recently she decided that in order to fill a spiritual hole she would study the various ways people attained their own small piece of peace. Coming from a conquered minority people, she turned to that which was most familiar, the Bible (the greatest selling book of all time, followed by Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book). She is initially resistant in accepting all the dogma in the Bible, reading it with a skeptical mind. Still, she’s able to find some solace and life lessons that give her turmoil a bit of succor. Emboldened and excited by her progress, she decides to share with the world a bit of herself. “I’m working on my faith!” she proudly declares. This is when the proverbial shit hits the fan (not sure which specific proverb, ask her, she‘s the bible reader).

Some friends (religious ones), offered their support and guidance. Other friends though were taken aback. She was shunned and told that if she didn’t follow the bible word for word, she was a poser (that was the term they used! Isn‘t it weird?!? It‘s like dyslexic MXPX). This caused our heroine great distress. These were long time friends. People she’d leaned on in times past were now acting like Peter right after the crucifiction. Now the question remains, why would people turn their back on a former friend who is seeking solace wherever she can find it?

And now we come back to semantics. She declared that she was “working on her faith”. To a skeptic/atheist/rationalist this a terrible, terrible thing to hear. Though they may not be fully aware most of the aforementioned people are often naturalists, meaning (very generally) they demand evidence for everything. Without evidence you have nothing. As the intellectual Christopher Hitchens has said, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence,”. Faith on the other hand is belief sans evidence. Now bear in mind that this statement of new found faith was coming from an individual with a long history of skepticism and a questioning nature. So, when she suddenly does an about-face and essentially declares that evidence is no longer necessary, it can be quite unnerving. Similar to the feeling of the followers of the Rev. Ted Haggard, or the family of George Rekers, or even the constituents of Mark Foley.

However, “Faith”, isn’t what I think she was discovering, it was in fact spirituality. Reading more into her post she says, “I started to explore the Taoist belief to find peace…It was finally at this point, through prayer and meditation, that I was able to find inner peace and strength,” This sounds to me like a personal version of the scientific method. Obviously abbreviated for personal reasons. She studied other faiths, other beliefs. She experimented with practices to find out whether they were successful in her life. This can be backed up scientifically, though prayer has not been found to aid in the health of people being prayed for, it has been found to be beneficial if one is praying for themselves. So, what she was doing is technically compatible and consistent with a skeptical background. On the other hand, faith inherently does not require the examination of different/contradictory thought systems. Therefore, she NEVER took anything in faith, (at least to my limited knowledge) every idea was applied to her life and then “experimented” with to determine it’s validity and fit in her current life. This goes entirely against the very definition of what faith is.

Therefore, the entire dispute between she and her friends is invalid because they were never talking about the same thing!

D.U.I. Didn't Do It (An entirely fictional tale) pt.1

2010-07-10T21:26:00.000-07:00

Punk.Punk.Punk. “What the fuck is that noise,” I thought. Punk.Punk.Punk. The incessant disturbance continued. The noise wasn’t alarm sounding like, but it was nevertheless alarming. I started to come out of my sleepy haze confused and irritated. It felt like those mornings when you wake to the alarm and for some reason you just know the thing has been going off for some time before actually rousing you from slumber. That feeling always forces me to snap to because I’m likely screwing up something important. This time would turn out to be no different.

Instantly, I’m aware I’m not in my own bed, and further I’m in a seated position. Punk.Punk.Punk. I swivel my head to the left, in the direction of the noise. Shit. Car window. I’m on the inside and there’s an aggravated looking cop hitting the window with the butt of his Mag-Lite. Now, I’m really awake, though no less confused. I awkwardly fumble for the automated window button mashing multiple ones in the process. The driver’s side window begins its too-fast-for-my-taste descent while the passenger side window competes in a pointless race preordained to be a tie. As the window lowers, the cop’s face, already annoyed looking, takes on a disgusted grimace. He mutters something about me smelling like a brewery and tells me to exit the vehicle.

OH FUCK.

I’m still not sure where I am or how I got there. I try to piece it together in my mind while the cop tells me to pay attention to the tip of pen. I stare at the pen while trying to orient myself. It’s difficult to get my bearings while this cop is moving the pen way past anyone’s comfortable point of view. “Where you coming from, son,” he asks in the most non-paternal way possible. Unless your dad was a fucking sarcastic prick. To be honest, I have no idea where I’m coming from. Plus, he’s asking while I’m trying to walk a line heel to toe while not doing an imitation of an amateur tight rope act. “The Crown & Anchor, Pub” I respond. This turns out to be completely false, but given the situation and my history, it seemed the answer with the likeliest statistical probability.

I’m pretty proud of my performance. Seeing the disappointed look on his face makes me even more smug. I think back to a man in black who told me to walk the line. Now this current man in black seems upset that I was able to do it. Upset that is, until he pulls out a breathalyzer. Ironically, I suddenly feel out of breath. He attaches what appears to be a miniature condom on the device and tells me to blow. I can’t help but think of old N.W.A. songs. I wonder if he’ll make me spread my cheeks too. I decide not to ask. The cop walks back to his patrol car, leaving me to determine where the fuck I am. I can see a highway sign above me. There reflected in the early morning light is the name of my freeway exit. I look a little further and I can see the road to my neighborhood. GOD FUCKING DAMN IT. You have to be kidding me, I though. Less then three minutes to go and I couldn’t push through? I must’ve pulled over on the side of the freeway and passed out. This stretch of road makes me sleepy even when sober.

I don’t have much time to ponder the shittiness of the situation as another one is heaved on me rather quickly. Namely, the officer has returned and slammed me onto the hood of my vehicle. Another patrol car pulls up as the first officer is hand-cuffing me. He walks me over to the shoulder lane road blocks and tells me not to move. I question aloud whether all this is necessary. He doesn’t respond. Must be the quiet sensitive type, I think to myself. He confers with the second officer and shortly he comes back, grabs me and guides me into the back of his car.

TO BE CONTINUED....(the story, not any alleged criminal offenses, which is obvious because this is all fiction)

Protect Marriage, Protect Children

2008-12-07T16:47:00.000-08:00

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Thanks to Sha for bringing this to my attention first, which allowed me to get credit for a post where my effort was minimal. Click here to sign the petition. Put your signature number in the comments. I'm #6382. The goal is 10,000.

How Dare You Express Yourself!

2008-09-02T01:31:00.000-07:00

“Maybe you shouldn’t be so forward with your beliefs,” he stated.

I had just finished telling a story to a friend about how some people didn’t like me simply because I’m an atheist. These people had never had any significant experiences with me. They’d never taken the time to get to know who I was. They merely were aware of my lack of belief in a deity and automatically I was relegated to degenerate status. It’s actually a story I’ve told many a time. Granted, the settings and characters change, but the theme is constant. “Oh, I’m sure he’s a nice boy and all,” they tell themselves and others, “It’s just, it’s probably best not to spend too much time with him,” Honestly, it never really bothered me before. I just felt these people were ignorant (I’m using that literally, not as an insult) and pretty much let it roll off my back.

This was different though. Now, when I was telling the story, I had someone telling me that I was the problem. Not ignorance. Not prejudice. I was the problem because I should’ve shut my damn mouth and catered to their feelings. This frustrated me for many reasons. One is that I don’t feel that atheism is something to be ashamed of. It’s not something that needs to be hidden. Still, his statement implies exactly that. “You know everyone hates your lack of belief, therefore you should expect people to shit on you,” is essentially what he was saying to me.

I suppose there is some truth to that. I do expect people to react negatively. However, I also believe those feelings are wrong. I don’t think that I should have to alter myself to make someone else’s misguided feelings better. If the issue hadn’t been atheism, I wonder if he would’ve laid the blame with the individual. If I was gay, would he tell me not be so flamboyant? If I were black, would he have suggested that perhaps I act less ethnic so as not to offend the status quo? Fuck that. The progressive moral zeitgeist is on my fucking side. Yet, the only reason this climate of change even exists is because other atheists have been willing to come out of the shadows and demand recognition. That’s the reason any cultural movement gains ground. When, people give a collective “Fuck you!” to the traditional system, the system is forced to change. I refuse to hide who I am for the sake of others comfort.

I remember attending a conference given by a lecturing professor that was touring the country. The conference was about Charles Darwin and evolution. At the time, Richard Dawkins had just published his book, The God Delusion. As a result, the lecturer often remarked on Dawkins zealous and passionate attacks on religion. At the end of the lecture there was a Q and A and a young teenager told a story. He talked about how he had recently opened up about his atheism at his high school. Though there was some support, he was also openly mocked and ridiculed. Other people had threatened him with physical violence. The only reason those that attacked this individual felt they could do that is because they are empowered by the apathy of those around them. No one will stick up for this kid; he’s an atheist for Christ’s sake! The sad part is that it’s true. However, I think that by expressing myself now, by refusing to be intimidated, by refusing to hide, maybe someday things will be easier. Maybe it will be okay to have a different belief than the majority. So until that day, I stand with my middle finger high in the air.

At the beginning of this, I said that this guy’s statement frustrated me for many reasons. I suppose that’s an exaggeration. There were really only two. The first I’ve already gone over in depth. The second reason I was so upset was that the guy that said this to me…is an atheist.

It’s Merely My Opinion That You’re Fucking Dumb.

2008-07-06T12:50:00.000-07:00

“Opinion” as defined by dictionary.com is

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Yet, when people speak on their opinion, and you question them, people act as if you’re attacking them. What people don’t seem to get is that opinions don’t mean shit. When dealing with claims of truth, your opinion is irrelevant. Plus, by its very definition, your opinion is not solidified by complete certainty, so it should be wide open to scrutiny and critical analysis. Now, sometimes opinions are merely questions of preference i.e. “Do you like Coke or Pepsi better?” The opinion on this is simply that, an indication of choice. However, when somebody posits a synthetic proposition such as, “Abstinence-only education is better than academic sex education,” Your opinion doesn’t mean anything. At this point, what one is required to do is establish certain definitions and then cross-examine all arguments. In this example, we would have to determine the definition of the word “better” (effective at lowering teen pregnancy, STD’s, more educational, more fun, better could mean any of these, any combination of these, or anything else for that matter). Once all variable definitions have been agreed upon, one would have to conduct or reference honest empirical studies to determine which method is more conducive to achieving the stated goal as defined by being “better”. Once this is complete, your opinion means squat. Once all applicable data has been amassed and analyzed, it doesn’t matter if you don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if it still doesn’t feel right. You’re wrong, and you should shut the fuck up. The real reasoning is because once something has been verified; its conclusion is no longer opinion but fact. Therefore, if someone’s initial proposition has indeed been proven true, it is no longer their opinion. Thus, it is illogical to say that you two just have different opinions. No, Person A has knowledge, and Person B has bullshit.

This whole thing is prompted because so often, I’ve been involved, either as participant or witness, to arguments wherein someone’s reasoning devolves to, “Well, that’s just my opinion,” This is deployed as a last ditch effort by someone who has been backed into corner by reasoning and logic. They throw up this pseudo-shield of opinion protection and expect not to be called out on their bullshit. The worst part is, most the time they are safe. For some reason, our societal mores have created a protective aura around “people’s opinions” and most people adhere to it. So, at the end of the argument, the person whom has been blocked by the opinion shield usually concludes with a lame “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree,” Meanwhile, the person who utilized the “Opinion Defense” makes no progress whatsoever towards any sort of truth. Without anyone with the guts to call them on their bullshit, they continue to feel that their opinion is worthwhile and that honest intellectual integrity and rigorous critical analysis is unnecessary.

In the end though, this only serves to diminish our own potential. People are unable to achieve full self-actualization when burdened with the misinformed idea that their opinion actually means something. In order to achieve any sort of personal progress, we must be willing to recognize that often our feelings are not only often inaccurate; they are sometimes even detrimental to our goals. This, in and of itself is not bad, as these things will inevitably happen. It is the refusal to accept that this will happen, and an unwillingness to amend our ideas and feelings on things that we have been shown wrong that is evil.

Ancient Capitalist Secret, huh?

2008-04-02T12:24:00.000-07:00

I’m here to talk to you about a revolutionary new cleaning tool that’s taking the detergent world by storm. First off, unlike other leading brands, our products effectiveness is 100%. However, this product doesn’t remove stains from clothing. It doesn’t remove stains from furniture. It doesn’t cut through grease, nor does it remove calcium buildup. No, this product removes stains from those really difficult to reach places. Specifically your conscience. Just imagine, should you ever find yourself in a situation wherein you’re forced to question the ethical implications of your actions, you’ll know exactly what to do. Simply take two steps.

1) Shrug your shoulders.

2) Make the statement, “It’s just business.”

Now as with all new technologies, there are some precautions you must take. First, you must take care to remember that "It’s just business," is really only effective in the workplace. Come to think of it, that’s its only limitation! In the mood to stab someone in the back? “It’s just business”, washes away the guilt! Feel like snitching on your co-workers will help you get ahead? “It’s just business”, removes all moral ambiguities! Feeling grief over stealing a colleague’s idea and presenting it as your own? “It’s just business”, gently wipes away all remorse!

The best part is, it is guaranteed to work! How can we make such bold claims? Simple, really. When you combine one part apathy, with one part blind adherence to authority, you get one complacent society! And we here at Yuppie Pricks Inc., have used this knowledge to engineer “It’s just business.” Now no longer will you have to stand for people questioning your integrity. With “It’s just business,” patented “Ethics-Shield” technology, all moral arguments are rendered obsolete!

Now I know what you’re thinking. “It’s just business,” sounds great, but I have some people in my social circle who insist on critiquing my behaviors no matter what I do. What can “It’s just business” do about them?

I suppose we have all encountered those pesky individuals who claim to have some sort of “moral compass”. So, Yuppie Pricks Inc. has decided that if you order soon, not only we will send you “It’s just business,” we’ll throw in the “Mocking and derisive laughter/Patriotic Questioner Multi-Tool” at absolutely no extra cost to you! Then, if you ever come up against those Pinko-Commie type scums, simply laugh heartily and remind them that here in America, the bottom line is in fact, the bottom line.

Now, how much would you pay for not just “It’s just business”, but the additional “Laughter/Questioner Multi-Tool”? $50? $100? What if I told you that you didn’t have to spend one single penny!? You’d say I’m crazy right! Well maybe I am crazy, but that doesn’t change the fact that you can have all these amazing products with no monetary cost to yourself. All you have to do is be willing to be a Yuppie Prick Asshole for the rest of your life! That’s right, a life of pseudo-friendships and shallow priorities is just mere fingertips away. Fingertips covered in expensive jewelry, I might add!
So come on now, say it with me!

“It’s just business!”
“It’s Just Business!”
“IT’S JUST BUSINESS!”

“USA!”
“USA!”
“USA!”

Thank you for your time, and God bless America!

I Got Yer Stimulus Package Right Here!

2008-02-19T23:32:00.000-08:00

I apologize about the lame joke, but seriously, I couldn’t pass it up. Anyway……

At work, there has been some talk about the money the government will be giving us for the “Economic Stimulus Package”. There are those who think the package will work and those that don’t. It’s those that don’t that I found the most interesting. Their reasoning, oft repeated in the media, is that the plan will do more to stimulate the Chinese economy rather than the American economy. This is because in order to fund the plan, the government (being already in debt), will have to borrow money in order to give it to us. This “borrowing” often comes in the form of selling Treasury Bonds, often to foreign countries. According to the Treasury website, China (as of Dec 2007) was the second highest possessor of those Treasury Securities. Alongside that issue, is the fact that many of the products purchased will be manufactured in China. Ergo, the government will be further indebting us to China, in order for us to buy things from China which will somehow magically help us.

Also, there is the question of whether or not the idea is fundamentally flawed. I can’t put it better than Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, so I’m just going to quote him, “The first problem with this theory: People aren't that stupid. The idea is that, if Washington gives people money to increase their consumption, it will prompt businesses to expand their production and hire more workers. Thing is, while producers might notice an upward blip in sales after the rebate checks go out, they'll know it's temporary — with sales destined to fall back once the checks are spent. Businesses just don't hire more employees or build new factories in response to temporary blips in demand…Producers wouldn't increase production, so we'd just have more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. That's the recipe for higher inflation."

Now, I’m no economist, so I have no idea if the plan will work or not. Frankly, I’m not too interested in it anyway. What captured my attention was how these people that lamented how buying things was going to ultimately aid China, were the same people that scoffed at my anti-consumerism a year prior. When I talk about sweatshops and making moral decisions about where to spend my money, I’m regarded as a freak. Anybody that would give up the convenience of shopping at Wal-Mart, must be some sort of anti-American nutjob (unless you are rich, at which point you stop buying goods from Wal-Mart and instead buy shares of Wal-Mart). Actually, now I remember, I was told I was in a cult. Yeah, I’m in the cult of Fuck You. Don’t fucking complain about how everyone’s going to buy Chinese made merchandise as you sit there in your Chinese made clothes. Plus, stop using the vague, all-encompassing word “people”. It’s not ‘The stimulus package won’t work because people are going to buy Chinese crap.” What you should be saying is ‘The stimulus package won’t work because I am going to buy Chinese crap.” Take some fucking responsibility for your actions and their consequences, Asshole.

In other news, I’ve found religion finally. This video depicts the Reverend that I follow. Godspeed, Rev. Billy, Godspeed.

Atheist Rising

2008-01-08T19:17:00.000-08:00

I've got a couple of posts knocking around in my head right now. However, I'm too lazy to put pen to pad, rather finger to keys, so I'll do the next best thing. Here is a link to a friend's post. As of a year ago this friend was really hesitant to acknowledge that he didn't believe in God. Now he proclaims his lack of belief from the rooftops. And those are southern, Bible-belt rooftops no less. Good on ya, Kev. Keep fighting the good fight against the good word.

Also, what is additionally fascinating is that Kevin posted this on his Myspace, giving his various theistic/atheistic Myspace friends an opportunity to respond. I should also take care to add that despite how this picture of him looks, he isn't gay. Though I did hear that he at one time had multiple pictures of gay love on his Myspace photos page. What was up with that, man?

Welcome to the Internet, Motherfucker

2007-12-22T10:10:00.000-08:00

Two girls and one cup. That’s all it takes to determine upon which side you stand in the digital divide. For the past month or so, all I’ve been hearing about is “Two girls, one cup”. For those not in the know, “Two girls, one cup” is a scat video gone viral. I honestly don’t know why. As far as scat videos are concerned, it’s relatively tame. Still, everyone and their grandma seems to be fixated with this video. In the last month, I have been accosted every week by random co-workers (seriously, I can name 7 off the top of my head) who are really enthusiastic about getting me to watch this video. The first time I heard about the video, I did a quick Google search and couldn’t find it, just a bunch of fake sites. I gave up after ten seconds, because frankly, I couldn’t be bothered with more than that. I went back to work and when asked about my previous day’s search I responded by with, “I couldn’t find it, but let me guess...(sigh) is it a poop video?” “YES!” screamed my over-enthusiastic poo purveyor. “Oh man,” he continued, “it is the sickest thing you have ever seen! I cannot frigging believe it’s on the INTERNET!!!!OMG,OMG,OMG,OMG!!!” He then collapsed of a heart attack from the sheer unbeliveability of a poop video on the internet.

So, I was mildly intrigued. Not enough to do anything about it, but enough to remember that I had at least had this conversation. A week goes by, and a different co-worker from a different department, begins to question me about having ever watched the video. I explain that I didn’t find it the first time I looked, and I can’t be bothered to search again. He goes on to tell me that happened to him, and the first videos he found were people’s reaction to the video. He continues to tell me that he eventually found the video, “life-altering,” he adds, but that people’s reactions videos are absolutely hysterical. Now, this I find very interesting. People are actually watching videos of other people watching videos. I immediately feel as if I’ve stepped into the worst MC Escher painting ever. It was strange though, were people actually filming themselves for the first time watching the video? I mean, they must’ve watched it on their own first, and then filmed themselves watching it again, right? So, what I am then watching, is their staged reaction and/or recreation of their initial reaction. Now this to me seems more bizarre than anything. From a sociological stand point, I decided to watch some “reaction” videos on Youtube.

Fucking lame. Here is every reaction video ever created for this stupid thing.

Scene: Random dorm room, at least three posters on wall (sports star, alcohol ad preferably with hot girl, Bob Marley poster), computer on computer desk

Reaction person: “Uh, hi, yeah...okay, my name’s Derek, and I’m....hehheheh...going to watch the 2 girls one cup video for the first time. (Pause) What?!?! Oh, no way!!! Oh man, oh man. OH MY GOD!!!! [look to either left or right in apparent inability to control your head] (pause) [resume viewing], Nononononononononononononono. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh mannnnnn!! [collapse with laughter or run to the bathroom in disgust].

I still don’t try to search for the video again. I go back to work only to once again be brought into a conversation about the damn video. This time, it’s four people all expressing their shock that such a thing could occur let alone be on the internet. This is what really gets me. I finally go back home, find the video and watch it.

Yawn.

I go back to work and confess that I’ve finally watched the video. It’s a strange scene, I’m treated as if I’m a conquering hero. Pats on the back, congratulations, they do everything but carry me on their shoulders. I question all of them on whether this is the first time they’ve ever seen something like this. All answer affirmatively. I’m confused. “How long have you been online?” I question. Everyone confirms they have been online for years. Bear in mind these people are all either twenty-somethings or in their early thirties. Now, if you fall into this age category and you have never seen scat porn online until 2007, you have not been using the internet correctly and should be banned from any further use.

I learned what the internet was for the very first time I used it. This was back in 1993 when my other classmates were chatting on this mysterious thing called “the internet”. My dad at first was hesitant to hook up the home computer lest I be corrupted. “Don’t worry,” I assured him, “I’m just going to use it to chat with friends, and do research for homework!” So he eventually caves, and hooks up the home computer. He assists me in logging on and shows me how to find everyone that was currently on the local network. I immediately request a chat upon finding one of my friends. My father stands behind me in case I have any questions. In the following transcript, you should be able to distinguish who I am by totally awesome handle.

Zero_Cool_671: Hey, what’s going on man?

Mind_Phreex1981: Alright! Your parents got you the internet?

Zero_Cool_671: Yeah, I guess.

Mind_Phreex1981: Awesome! So, do you know how to download porn?

Zero_Cool_671: I gotta go.

I then logged off and told my dad that I never liked that kid anyway.

The bottom line is we all know what’s on the internet and what it’s there for. Thus, if you are shocked and amazed by poop porn, you are also naive and lame. Seriously, the 2girls1cup video is lame, talking about it at work is lame, watching reaction videos is even more lame. In fact, the only thing possible that is lamer than all of those is reading some douchebag’s reactions to other people’s reactions. Suckers!

The Internet is for Porn

Tis the Season That Keeps Giving

2007-11-28T13:08:00.000-08:00

In the last few years, I’ve realized a most startling thing. Apparently, most television sucks. In fact, for the last three years, I haven’t even had cable. I suppose that with the prices most cable companies charge, I naively expected I’d be receiving a quality product. I mean, what with the fees and the hours upon hours squandered, I at least thought I’d be entertained. Alas, it was not to be. TV was content to waste both my time and money. So, after moving from my first apartment, I brought everything except my cable subscription. It was a good decision that I stand by. To this day, I’ve never lamented the absence of cable’s clutching grip of death. I have more free time, I read more, and any time I decide to watch TV, I watch only quality products of my choosing.

Sadly, there have been less and less quality products from which to choose. That’s the problem that seems to plague people who share my taste in entertainment. Shows that I enjoy have a tendency to end rather abruptly. “Freaks and Geeks”, “The Office (The British one)”, “Arrested Development”, “My So-Called Life (sure, call me gay but Angela with that bright reddish/pink hair was hot)”, “Clerks: The Animated Series”, “Family Guy (sure it’s still on, but originally it was cancelled”, and many others that don’t come to mind right now. Meanwhile mindless drivel populates the airwaves abundantly. Reality garbage like “Real World”, "Road Rules" or “Dancing with the Stars” not only survive but evolve, and morph into more intellectually insulting fare. Game shows that require no discernable talent or skill are mega hits. “Deal or No Deal”, I mean, come on! The show would more accurately be titled “Pick a Number between 1 and 25”.

There are some shows that I still enjoy though. “House (an amazing exercise in deductive reasoning)”, “The Sarah Silverman Show”, “30 Rock”, “South Park”, “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, “The Simpsons”, “This American Life”, “Bullshit” and just about anything on Adult Swim. However, with everything that is happening with the writers strike, I’m concerned for the inevitable upcoming dearth of decent television. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a TV Casualty. Still though, especially after a night carousing punk rock bars, or socializing the local pubs, I like to sober up with a plate of Roberto’s and a couple episodes of a TV show I actually enjoy. Sadly though, due to staggering amount of staggering around I do, I’m running through my limited quality TV budget. There are only so many times you can watch a given episode. Or is there?

As with most problems I face, I found the solution to be the one I use most frequently. I needed to drink more. Think about it. The problem wasn’t that I was going out too much and going through my TV supply. The problem was that I remembered each and every episode. I wasn’t coming home drunk enough! Now, I come home totally trashed, giddy with my Roberto’s and I turn on “The Sarah Silverman Program”. I start episode of one of season two and maybe I make it all the way through. Maybe instead though, I wake up three hours later keeled over with Carne Asada stuck to my cheek. Even if I do make it and stay awake for the entire episode, it’s unlikely that I’m going to remember very much of the episode. Thus, when I go out the next day, I can get smashed and re-watch it and enjoy like it was the first time. See, it’s kind of like Karl Bakla’s time traveling; however, I’m able to freeze time. Wow, it’s like alcohol gives us all super-powers!

Know Your Role!

2007-11-19T12:24:00.000-08:00

As of late, there has been an increasing amount of study into the effects the role birth order plays in families, and the subsequent development of the individuals in those roles. A recent Time Magazine article states that “[in] case study after case study, the simple roll of the birth-date dice has an odd and arbitrary power all its own,” The whole thing seemed odd to me, however, there are some compelling arguments. For example, according to a study out of Norway, the eldest sibling generally has an IQ superior to that of their siblings. Apparently it’s about three points higher on average. The second child then enjoys a one point advantage over the third born. It is believed that this difference might be in response to the assisting in the growth and development (i.e. mentoring, baby-sitting, and leading) that older siblings typically have to do.

The article further states that the first born child is typically linked to higher paying jobs. However, the evidence seems to support the idea that younger siblings are more often found to possess the “exciting” job such as being an artist or a comedian or some other unconventional type of occupation. This effect is thought to arise from some of the characteristics the younger child has to develop in order to compete for recognition and/or affection. When you’re younger (consequentially smaller) then your siblings, full on stances of aggression often lead to full on beatings (Sorry Garrett, though bear in mind I was older and you were are a jackass). On the other side though, passive-aggressive techniques such as charm and humor are developed more fully which thereby leads to their utilization more effectively throughout life.

So, if you’re looking to start a business, you’ll probably want a first born on your team. What about the other side though? What if you want to fight the corporate bullshit. For that, you’d best try and recruit and last or at least later born individual. This is supported by a study conducted by Professor Richard Zweigenhaft while observing labor protests. In the event that the protest became disruptive enough to results in arrests, the professor would interview those arrested. He found a disproportionate number of those arrested were lastborns or those born later.

Overall I suppose there are pro’s and con’s to all of the familial hierarchy roles. Still though, I was pretty psyched. I mean, as the first born, I statistically have a higher likelihood of having a greater IQ and a better paying job. Pretty sweet I thought to myself as I finished reading the article. Then, feeling hungry, I went to the kitchen to see if my older brother was cooking anything for lunch. Shit, wait...older brother? That’s not going to fit in with my whole first born benefits theory. In fact, I fucking have two older brothers...god damn it, I’m actually the last born, the supposed “wild child” according to Time!

I should probably explain. You see, my mother has been married two times. In her first marriage, she had two children, my two older brothers. She and her first husband divorced and she married my father. Their union produced me. Despite my precociousness, they divorced. My father went on to remarry where he sired more children, my three younger brothers. Fuck...so where does that put me? Okay, I’m the baby on my mother’s side meaning I’m the most likely to rebel and buck the system. Still, I’m my father’s first born consequently making me the eldest child on my dad’s side. So I’m both the last and first born? Wait though; with two older brothers and three younger brothers....doesn’t that make me the middle child? Damn it, now I’m confused. Come to think of it since I’m the sole offspring of my mother’s and my father’s union, I must have some “only-child” characteristics in there too.

So, I’m the First born-Baby of the family-Middle-Only child. I guess the only real conclusion I can infer from this entire ordeal is that I should change my subscription from Time to Newsweek. I hear there’s less identity crises associated with Newsweek.

What the World Needs Now...

2007-09-04T23:46:00.000-07:00

I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with the works of Nick Hornby but he is an English author who has written novels such as High Fidelity, About A Boy, and Fever Pitch. The first two were made into films starring John Cusack and Hugh Grant respectively. Anyway, the reason I bring it up is because in High Fidelity, Hornby brings up an idea that what is important in life are your preferences, your tastes. Here, allow me to quote the book, “A while back, when Dick and Barry and I agreed that what really matters is what you like, not what you are like, Barry proposed the idea of questionnaire for prospective partners… [T]here was an important and essential truth contained in the idea, and the truth was that these things matter,” The movie reworded the idea and put it like this “I agreed that what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the fuckin' truth, and by this measure I was having one of the best dates of my life”.

I bring this up because I always found this idea particularly amusing. My friends and I discussed it in relation to bringing in new peers to our social circle (Actual amount of “Friend Circle Growth”: Zero). I subscribed to this idea wholeheartedly. I mean think about it, you’re probably reading this and if you’ve never heard the idea, you’re right now cataloging your present or past significant other(s) and feeling all warm (or bitter) about how much you two have (or didn’t have) in common. That’s fine, I relate, as the idea is incredibly specious. Amazingly though, I’ve discovered the flaw in the idea. Hornby was close, but he was wrong. The truth in fact is that it’s not what you are like, nor is it what you like, what in fact actually matters is what you hate.

Okay, let’s examine this so we can all see how I reached my conclusions. Think again about your significant other. Remember how you took stock of all your common interests? Think a little deeper now, aren’t there interests that each of you have that you don’t share with the other? Take me for example. My girlfriend really, really enjoys the television show Grey’s Anatomy. Personally, I have no interest in the show. I don’t hate it, but I certainly don’t enjoy it. I merely recognize that in terms of medical shows it doesn’t hold a candle (or is it scalpel?) to House. However, the key is I don’t loathe the show. The important thing to note is that my apathy towards the show in no way diminishes the watching experience for her. Sure, she might be excited if we watched it together, but my lack of participation doesn’t negatively affect her. I’m sure that all of you can attest to similar experiences. You know what we both hate though? Fox News. And our united hate is both uniting and awesome.

Let’s look at another scenario. Pretend you’re on a date with a prospective partner. Things are going well so far, conversation is going well, you haven’t spilled any food on your clothes, and all the topics that have come up between you guys have clicked. Let’s pretend you met this person at work. Conversation turns to your co-workers as these things usually do. Now think about that one person at work that you can’t stand. You know who it is. It’s either your dumb-shit boss, or the idiot receptionist, or the kiss ass colleague that never does any work; Whoever it doesn’t matter. Imagine a conversation that goes like this,

You: You know who I can’t stand? [Name of person you can’t stand]

Them: (showing shock and disbelief) What? I love [Name of person you can’t stand].

You: (showing intentionally more shock and dismay than the other person) What? Are you kidding me? They never stop [doing thing that makes you hate them]!!

Them: (faking laughter because things are starting to get a little awkward) No, you’ve got them all wrong. They’re so sweet/funny/charming/whatever.

Now admit it. Wouldn’t that exchange plant the first seeds of doubt in your head? See, it wouldn’t have mattered if the person had said that they liked something you didn’t like (but didn’t hate), or didn’t care about, or hadn’t heard of. However, because they don’t hate something that you do, that’s when you begin to question not only their sanity, but their very character as a human being.

You see what I mean! Hate brings us together! Look at the Nazis. Some liked beer, others liquor, some liked sausage, while some preferred schnitzel. It didn’t matter though because they all hated matzo balls. The KKK was a diverse group made of people with differing tastes. Some had sex only with siblings while others were open to cousins, aunts, and uncles. Still, despite those differences they all hated crosses and could be seen uniting across the country to burn them. Simply astounding. Even more spectacular is what hate has done for the Christians. I’ve never seen hate unite different people more. I mean Christians can’t even agree on how to worship Christ. Some pray to Saints. Some speak in tongues. Some handle serpents, while others sing gospel music. None of it matters though! That’s because they are banded together by their united hatred of sex. And masturbation. And punk, (no matter what MxPx says). Oh, and gay people. And Muslims. Liberals too. Communists. Don’t forget John Lennon. Logic. Shit, Disney too. Wait…forgot women, the Jews, Bill Maher, weed, George Carlin, casinos, Christiane Amanpour, women’s freedom of choice, Richard Dawkins, children who rat on their pedophilic priests, Sodomites, the Kevin Smith film Dogma, Christopher Hitchens, Monty Python’s Life of Brian, Dan Brown, the People Against Goodness and Normalcy, curse words, South Park, reason, Sam Harris, tattoos, Charles Darwin, the Rational Response Squad, alcohol, and Jessica Simpson’s breasts. It’s truly inspiring what hate can do for you.

So, I propose that we all do our part to hate just a little bit more. I know it’s hard, but anything worthwhile always is. Oh, and for all you people that are planning on commenting about how love is the answer and we all need to get along, don’t bother because I fucking hate you people. But that’s okay, because my girlfriend does too.

The Case that Captivated a Nation

2007-06-15T14:05:00.000-07:00

Now I’m sure you’re all getting tired of the constant exposure, but as a blogger with a fondness for pop culture you all must have realized I’d have to comment. At this moment, a legal case has captured the attention of the nation, and with good cause. The ramifications of this verdict will be affecting citizens around the nation, potentially for years to come. In addition, this decision (which is ridiculous in my opinion) may set a precedent that will be referenced to in any future cases under similar circumstance. From my humble perspective, there is only one viable solution. Since the decision that has been set by the judges is final, only an act of Congress can rectify this egregious injustice. This case should have outraged females (and other minorities as well) across the country as one of their own has been mistreated without any sort of compensation.

I of course speak of Lilly Ledbetter. Since there has been so much media time devoted to this incredibly important case, I’ll spare you all the intricate details. Instead, I’ll provide a brief summary of the case and its outcome (just to make sure that everyone is on board and wasn’t distracted by any trivial matters being addressed by the media). Ms. Ledbetter was a salaried supervisor at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant in Alabama from 1979 to 1998, when she retired. For the majority of her employment Ms. Ledbetter received sub-standard wages in comparison to her peers. Her argument was that this below average pay stemmed from acts of gender discrimination throughout her career. Through a trial by jury, it was determined that Goodyear had indeed discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter due to her gender. The jury awarded back-pay and damages. Goodyear, with the deep pockets that is has, was able to appeal the decision, with the case eventually being heard by the Supreme Court. Now, the very fact that I’m writing this post probably makes it obvious where the Supreme Court sided. According to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Ms. Ledbetter was not protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) because she did not file the claim within the 180 days allotted for this type of dispute. So, she was not awarded any of the back pay or damages that the jury had found her deserving of.

Essentially, what the court holds is that under the EEOC, a grievance must be filed within a 180 day period following an act of discrimination. More than likely (bear in mind I am no attorney or congressman) this time limit is used to deter people from experiencing a discriminatory action, and then waiting too long in order to possibly acquire more in back-pay or compensation. In addition, the time limit aids the integrity of the trial by ensuring that the issue remains fresh in the minds of the involved parties which in turn, will assist the fact checkers. So, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a time limit for these issues when the issue is a blatant act of discrimination. Blatant acts are generally easier to read so they need less time to file a complaint. For example, firings, denial of tenure, denial of promotion, harassment etc. would fall under this criteria.

However, for something like a pay differential the difficulty in recognizing discrimination is tremendously increased. In normal circumstances, it is not uncommon for people within a company to have no realization of the colleague’s income. Many companies utilize confidentiality clauses in their contracts to maintain their employee’s privacy. For these reasons, I feel that when discrimination is enacted through less pay, a different set of considerations may be needed. In addition to that, often times an individual attempting to climb the ranks of a corporation will be hesitant to “make waves” despite being aware of different treatment. This is usually done in the hopes that the act was minor and will be fixed later in the career through diligence and hard-work. .

So it is clear that Ms. Ledbetter was the victim of Goodyear’s discriminatory actions multiple times. Regardless, the Supreme Court sided (5-4) with Goodyear. Justice Judith Ginsburg, the sole female Justice, wrote the dissent and in what is considered a break from tradition, read the dissent from the bench. A couple quotes from her dissent I think serve to illuminate the reason for my anger, “[the decision] is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure,” She too expresses dismay at the Supreme Court majority (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy) by stating, “In our view, this court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.”

I was able to find a quote from a law professor named Paul Secunda which I think clarifies the situation as a whole “This decision is inconsistent with the purposes of the Title VII to both make victims of discrimination whole and to eradicate employment discriminatory practices from society at large…It leads to an absurd situation where employees either must bring pay claims prematurely when there is not enough evidence that there has been unlawful pay discrimination or wait to a later time when there exists more substantial evidence of pay discrimination and be barred from bringing such claims by the statute of limitations.”

Oh yeah, in other legal news, Paris Hilton is in jail.

Clarification

2007-04-02T14:40:00.000-07:00

I think there may have been some confusion in regards to my position with so-called “religious children”. It is my goal in this post, to give some examples that may illuminate why I think religion should be treated no differently than other belief systems. The broader goal of this and the last post is to expose what I deem to be acts of irresponsibility on the part of adults, that being the manner in which children are taught to become “religious children”.

I feel that what is most needed at this point is a defining of terms. When I use the term “religious children” I am referring to children who are appointed or deemed religious by friends and family. I am referring to the notion whereby Christian parents, Muslim parents, and Jewish parents have Christian, Muslim, and Jewish children respectively. I am attacking the very idea that this is at all possible. I wholeheartedly agree that parents can produce offspring that mimic the behavioral patterns (i.e. praying, adhering to dietary rules, the wearing of ornamental clothing) of their parents or guardians. However, I disagree with the idea that children have any real firm grasp on the belief system their actions are promoting or have applied any real critical inquiry as to why they do what they do. I also strongly abhor the manner in which these children are “encouraged” to continue these practices. In regards to "self-appointed" religious children, I give them the same amount of serious consideration when I hear their religious declarations that I do when they declare that they are ninja's, pirate's, cowboys, or professional sports figures.

It makes sense to lay out at this point some examples of the dynamics in parental/child relationships and the dissemination of certain belief systems from the parents to the child. For perspective sake, we’ll also examine society’s response to the actions of the parent. In this manner, I hope to shine a light on the hypocrisy I feel is perpetuated by society as a whole when dealing with the religious upbringing of children.

For the first example, we’ll use racism. Now admittedly, for some of us, our perception of racism is that it’s in its dying throes. However, the former statement implies that for some of us, racism is not in its dying throes and could be perceived to be alive and strong. Such is the case for Prussian Blue. Prussian Blue is a band formed of two fraternal twin sisters (aged 13 at the time of the bands formation) named Lamb and Lynx Gaede. They are known for their white supremacist and white nationalistic music. They have also performed at such events as Eurofest and Hammerfest (essentially white power rallies). Now, were I to make the assertion that these two young girls came to believe in what they profess by reading up on their own and through their own personal experiences, most people would be highly skeptical. Most people would question whether or not these girls had some sort of influence from their parents that led them to behave and “believe” the way that they do. Congratulations to all perceptive people who rightly felt that there simply must be some sort of external influence on these children. The answer lays with the girl’s mother, an activist for the now defunct National Vanguard organization who has home schooled the girls for some time. On top of solving the riddle of the origin of the girls belief system, most people would condemn the actions of mother Gaede as irresponsible and immoral. It wouldn’t matter if Ms. Gaede produced books such as Defensive Racism, or Dissecting the Holocaust to justify and rationalize her beliefs. Some would condemn her merely for that and others would go so far as to say that it’s okay if she wants to believe it, but it’s wrong to force that belief system onto her kids. The opposing outrage that accompanies the Gaede’s type thinking has been thoroughly documented and was chronicled specifically towards Prussian Blue in Kalispell, MO. When the Gaede family made the move from Bakersfield, CA (“not white enough” according to Ms. Gaede) to Kalispell, MO the community took action. They produced and distributed fliers exposing the family and its racist screed. The community also plans a rally to support the “No Hate Here” campaign as it has been referred to.

So, in this example we have children who are being taught a certain belief system (racism) supplemented by pseudohistoric and pseudoscientific books (Defensive Racism, and Dissecting the Holocaust amongst other writings from various white power organizations and authors) and society’s response is to be outraged and driven to action (the exposure of the band and family in various news outlets and the subsequent activities of the Kallispell community).

For the second example, we’ll move closer to home. Let’s look at Karl Bakla’s vegetarianism and his children. This is incredibly easy as Karl has already repeatedly stated that he doesn’t force his beliefs onto his kids. He does not bring meat into the house, but he also doesn’t chastise his children should they decide to eat meat elsewhere (friend’s homes, with relatives, restaurants). I’m sure Karl has expressed his opinions and beliefs and his justifications for them to his children. However, I’m confident that Karl has explained to his kids that there are people that don’t agree with him and that he will love and accept his children regardless of what they ultimately decide. I think it’s also interesting to point out what occurs in Karl’s posts about the response’s people give when they notice he’s not eating meat. I’m assuming (possibly incorrectly) that Karl wrote the first things that came to mind when recollecting his many interactions concerning his dietary stance. In order going by the post, people question the general idea of vegetarianism (why don’t you eat meat?), they then offer what they feel is advice to ensure Karl’s continued well-being (get enough protein!), followed closely by their concern for Karl’s children (don’t push it on your kids…). So, again, we have a belief system being questioned by society, and then immediate concern for whether or not this belief system is being unfairly foisted onto children.

I’m sure by now, everyone has an idea of where this is heading, so in this example I’m going to give the least amount of effort. Also, I’m sure everyone reading this will be able to relate to the passing on of this belief system, though they may have never experienced the earlier examples. That’s right! The final example involves parents telling the children about the magic man in the sky. Now, here is a belief system, which (depending on which you choose) advocates the persecution of homosexuals, seeks to impede medical progress, and actively discourages critical thinking. Its position is defended using the circular logic applied to the Bible, Koran, or Torah. Now, if I have children, and I decide to foist this belief system onto my kids, not only will society not question it, many will look at it as a positive thing. So, for the final example, we have a belief system that children are indoctrinated to on a daily basis, and society’s response is to nod approvingly and smile.

I don’t understand the difference. I don’t comprehend why the first two examples are questioned (as they should be) and the last one isn’t. You see, I have no problems questioning anything. I encourage all form of inquiry. What I do have a problem with is the lack of intellectual integrity it takes to question the first two and not the last. If you’re like me, and you think we as a society should question whenever a belief system is forced onto a child, there is only one conclusion. There is room to question religion as well.

Consciousness Raising

2007-02-20T13:06:00.000-08:00

After just completing Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, I thought I’d force some of his finer points down everyone’s collective unwilling throats. For all my friends reading this, I offer no apologies for my preaching since, knowing me well, you would expect no less of me. For any other lurkers, I don’t apologize as I’ve had tons of religious mumbo-jumbo of various persuasions served to me unwillingly since….oh, I don’t know….birth. To any atheists, I apologize for boring you with my continuous preaching to the choir. Hold on though, if you manage to read through this whole thing, there will be a cool video at the end. That is, unless of course you’re a Christian…or a Republican.

One of Dawkins issues that I found to be the most interesting regarded the question of religion in the lives of children. As evidenced in films like Jesus Camp, video games like Left Behind, and tons of private education facilities across the globe, the attempts at the inculcation of religious dogma towards children around the globe continues unabated. Now this antiquated tradition seems like a positive thing at best or a trivial matter at worst, but upon a more detailed inspection, it becomes evident that not only is it not harmless, the very idea of children being religious is preposterous.

It seems clear that religion can be harmful to children (and adults for that matter) because the type of thinking required in adhering to a religion is one that often discourages critical inquiry and individual thought. The very idea of faith is one that must bypass all rational and empirical evidence in favor of a blind trust in what amounts to nothing but superstition cloaked in the guise of moral tradition. To an outside observer not socialized in the concept of “religion”, religious practices and mannerisms closely resemble the behavioral patters of people diagnosed with OCD. Interestingly enough the practices of both have similar effectiveness rates.

In more immediate matters it becomes clear that religion in children is not only harmful in the religious child’s life, but his/her peers can suffer as well. This becomes clear in the case of Karl Bakla’s daughter which I’m sure many people can relate to. Here is a girl who was merely attending school and is told that she’s going to burn for all eternity because she doesn’t believe in gOD (sic). Absolutely ridiculous. The idea that this religious child knows anything he is talking about is laughable. Seriously, we’ve all had conversations with kids so I’m sure you understand what I’m talking about. If you don’t, simply grab the nearest child (not like that you pervert!), and ask them to explain something to you. It doesn’t matter what....the differences between liberals and conservatives for example, or try the pros and cons of communism or capitalism, fuck try Pokemon, it doesn’t matter. Upon completion of this test you will discover two things. One, being that kid’s don’t know what the fuck they are talking about, and two that kids smell. The real point being, that as a society we have come to the conclusion that children should not be treated as adults because they do not think like adults. Children are not allowed to vote, they can’t sign legally binding contracts, and they cannot consent to sexual relations. Obviously, these are all good ideas that give children a chance to grow and learn for themselves in a controlled and ideally safe environment where the mistakes they inevitably will make will have minimal repercussions. However, I fail to grasp how we can say, “A child could never understand the complexities of government and therefore shouldn’t vote. Also, a child cannot comprehend the fine points of economic decision making so their opinion is invalid. On top of that, a child cannot consent to sex because they don’t understand the consequences or even the realities that pertain to sexual relationships. However, when it comes to knowing the origins of the entire universe and their place in relation the entire cosmos and the being that created it, well, that’s child’s play.”

Imagine for a moment that your child came home from school one day and started spewing some sort of racist screed. Naturally, you’d likely be appalled and demand to know where such gibberish originated from. If your child told you that there was another child at school that was disseminating this type of thought an uproar would surely ensue. You’d call the school and actions would be taken to ensure that this not be discussed at school. The parents of the “racist child” would likely be called in to assist in the censorship of their child’s topics of conversation. However, if racism is replaced with religion, then it’s likely nothing will happen but for an assurance at home that the child in question should not be taken too seriously. This is because religion has unfairly been labeled as above criticism. This is another topic that should be questioned.

Seriously, there is no such thing as a religious child. There are, as have always been, children simply mimicking their dip-shit parents. The circle almost always applies; children that have been abused will have a higher likeliness of abusing those around them. It doesn’t matter if the abuse is physical, verbal, sexual, or religious in nature. It is high time that rational-minded people start guarding children from the evils that pervade religion. In the words of psychologist Nicholas Humphrey in an Amnesty lecture delivered at Oxford “Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas – not matter who these people are. Parents, correspondingly have no God-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it.”

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: THIS VIDEO FEATURES A TALENTED YOUNG ACTRESS PLAYING A FICTITIOUS CHARACTER. IT IS A COMMERCIAL FOR THE BAND 'THE BASTARD FAIRIES' AND DIRECTED BY AN AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKING TEAM.

Yeah, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

Listen to N.P.R. or DIE!!!!!

2007-01-25T02:29:00.000-08:00

Most of the things I blog about are usually things that irritate me. You know...Christians, work, stupid people, asinine beliefs or opinions, just stuff that bug me about our society. Still, every now and again, we should look at the positive things in our life and be thankful for them. So, for once (probably only once) I’m going to write about something I’m thankful for. That thing is.....bumbumbumbumbumbum (that’s a drumroll people, c’mon keep up!) mainstream music. I am thankful for bands like Switchfoot, Evanescence, Creed, Nickelback, Good Charlotte, and Hoobastank. These bands and others like them have all made my life better by making me a better person.

Allow me to elaborate. You see, these bands all have one thing in common. They are all gay. Now, I don’t mean the cool man-on-man pole smoking “Let’s order some Mojitos!” gay. I mean the “Hey, let’s write the absolute worst, shittiest music on the globe and market ourselves as EX-treme!” kind of gay. However, this is actually a very positive thing because all radio plays is this kind of pseudo-alternative garbage. How does this make me a better person, you’re surely asking yourself. Well, because of it, I have no other option but to listen to National Public Radio. That’s right...the news. Now, you don’t usually have to force yourself to listen to NPR because most of the time it’s incredibly interesting. There are some times though, when the news is kind of slow, or there are no raging controversies to be debated, that NPR will do a feature on the flute playing prowess of native Papua New Guineans or the reemergence of the potpie! Now I love learning about the Sambia tribe and their kooky initiations and eating potpie’s just as much as the next man, but occasionally I grow weary and yearn for some music. So, adjusting the dial on my radio I go from station to station only to start feeling the hostility for my fellow man growing because I’m hearing what historians will surely refer to as the worst lyrics of all time. Lyrics such as “And the reason is youuuuuuuuuuuuu...” or “We were meant to live for so much more...have we lost ourselves?” Wow. How deep. Sometimes though, instead of playing shit music, they’ll be an even worse contest such as “Kill Yourself for Nintendo” or something...I don’t really remember what they called it. Regardless, the premise was almost as retarded as the music they play. Hey, that’s another point for NPR! It never killed anyone! It did come close this one time though, I should confess. NPR was reporting on Bush’s plan for Iraq (more of the same!) and I had the sudden urge to swerve into oncoming traffic. Don’t worry, I overcame that urge thanks to the 40oz of Pabst I was chugging at the time (“But Officer, I drive better when I’m drunk!”).

Sometimes, if I’m really desperate for something besides NPR, I’ll try AM radio. AM radio is usually good for a laugh. There are shows like Dr. Laura or Sean Hannity. But I really wish I could get the good AM radio like the KSFO station out of the San Francisco Bay area. I mean, they get to listen to radio hosts talk about how great it would be to dig up one of the founder’s of the global environmental movement (Rachel Carson) so that they could kill her all over again! Right...and it was Howard Stern that needed to be taken off the air.

Seriously though these are my choices? Commercial radio that either kills people for contests, or makes me want to kill myself to avoid horrible music, and AM radio that advocates the killing of other people (especially if they wanted to help the environment ). That’s it. Those are my options in this great land of freedom and opportunity. Well, I guess its back to NPR and whatever happens to be on...even if it is “The Splendid Table”. I just can’t wait to get back home so I can blast some god-damn punk rock!

Beer and Homelessness in Las Vegas

2006-11-27T01:57:00.000-08:00

Apparently, I’m an enabler. The homeless pandemic that sweeps this country is not because of an ineffective public education program. Nor is the problem encouraged by a lack of affordable health care, housing, or transportation options. Homelessness isn’t affected by a slow economy, or the outsourcing of skilled labor positions. No, homelessness is caused and maintained by me and other similar enablers. This only makes sense as I am one of those individuals that gives homeless people spare change…even when I know that they’re going to buy beer!

“How DARE he?!?!” you’re surely thinking to yourself. What can I say…I just don’t give a fuck. I know, I know…when I see a homeless person, I think the same thing as you do. "Potential.” Yup, looking at that guy with three teeth, bloodshot eyes, the bum leg, I instantly envision the next day for this individual. I’m sure that you see what I do in that vision. You see him crawling back to his box (where he keeps his Calvin Klein suit), tidying himself up a bit and proofreading his resume for the tenth time. Then, (making sure he has eight hours rest) he heads off to interview for a new job. That job he's interviewing of course is the one I currently occupy. So, the combination of my boss’ disgust of me for my punk rock/anti-authority ways, and this damn homeless guy’s people skills, I just know he’s going to replace me! Thinking quickly, I do the only thing someone can in that situation. I give him some money to buy some beer and drugs. Now, he’ll just spend his evening getting drunk and stoned on Koval Lane. Maybe he’ll even get drunk with Koval Ln. if he’s lucky. Either way, my job is secure (well, except for the constant threat of illegal Mexican immigrants).

What actually prompted this whole post is I’ve noticed that people often deal with the homeless differently than you’d initially expect. I’ve known liberals that won’t give them a dime, and conservatives that will give them the clothes off their back. Karl Bakla is one of those that is willing to give someone the shirt off his back. Most of the times, the clothes are unsolicited, and the recipient isn’t homeless. That’s neither here nor there though. As for me, I readily give homeless people money. Regardless of whether I think they’re buying booze. A friend of mine that we’ll call Asha (only one lame blog – what a douche!), refuses to give homeless people money but will happily buy them some hot food. That’s cool, I suppose...but still.

Take the other day, Asha and I were at the Koval 7-11 buying those hot dogs you see rolling on the grill. Don’t talk shit! Those hot dogs kick fucking ass. Moving on, we’re standing in line, and there’s an obvious vagrant waiting in front of me. I notice in his hand he has a 40oz and he’s waiting to pay. When he gets to the register, the cashier rings it up and it comes to like $2.20. The guy pulls out roughly $1.50 and then reluctantly admits that he doesn’t have enough. He stares hopefully at the cashier perhaps expecting him to just let the rest of the money slide. The cashier stares coldly back. In my head I’m thinking, “Fuck, I got tipped $20 today for giving a lady a suite upgrade that I actually had nothing to do with. The least I can do is give this guy a buck.”

So, I give the guy a dollar much to the amusement of my companion. Then the coolest thing happens. This bum, turns to me and just stares at me in utter amazement. He begins thanking me profusely, saying things like how that’s one of the nicest things that’s happened to him in a long time. He keeps telling me how much I’ve made his day and how I don’t understand how much it means to him. I repeatedly tell him it was my pleasure, while smiling smugly at Asha. The homeless guy leaves, and we depart shortly thereafter. As I’m pulling out of the parking lot, I happen to glance in the alley adjacent to the 7-11. Walking into the alley is the same homeless guy clutching his 40oz. He sits down beside a homeless woman who is in the middle of unwrapping a 99 cent cheeseburger from the AM/PM a couple buildings down. The hug each other and begin to share their “bounty”. It was seriously one of the coolest/saddest things I’ve ever seen. So what then, wasted dollar or not?

Buy Nothing Day

2006-11-22T10:02:00.000-08:00

Mark your calendars people! This Friday is Black Friday. For those not in the know, Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving when retailers around the country have some of their biggest sales. Most Americans will be joyously digging themselves deeper into debt for items they have no real use for. Black Friday is the day when Schopenhauer’s idea of the all-consuming “will” manifests itself in the form of Wal-Mart shoppers. “This force creates all and destroys all in its insatiable demand for ‘More!’ (More of what it does not know-it only knows that it wants more.)

Others though will be celebrating a different sort of festivity. A festival of restraint really. For all anti-consumers and culture jammers, Nov. 25 is Buy Nothing Day. B.N.D. is exactly what it sounds like. Anti-consumers utilize this day to remember that despite society’s example (or what lame t-shirts might say) we are not “Born to Shop”.

I’ve been an anti-consumer for a few years now. Simply put, I’ve reduced my spending at various vendors that I disagree with for moral or political reasons. I’ve even gone so far as to complete eliminate my patronage of some places. I never shop at Wal-Mart and I never eat what I refer to as mainstream fast food (i.e. McDonalds, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Burger King and most other fast food chains one would likely think of). In addition to all that, I try to buy American made products whenever possible. If American made isn’t readily available, I go for certified union/non-sweatshop made products. If I can’t find what I need under those criteria, I try to purchase items from second-hand stores. I buy second hand because I feel that even if I’m buying a corporate made product, none of the money I spend will benefit that corporation whatsoever. On top of that, to avoid advertising a brand for free (not that I could ever decently come across as a spokesman) I remove all tags that are visible on the outside (except for Dickies, no good justification though).

The best thing about all this is the reaction’s I get from other people. My favorite one though happened just today. While working today, my boss approaches me to inquire as to whether or not I wanted to go camping with him and some other people this Thursday night. When I asked him for the details, he informed me that he and some people were going to pitch some tents in a Best Buy parking lot so they could be first in the store on Black Friday! I awkwardly explained that I would have to decline his offer as I wouldn’t be participating in Black Friday. Of course this prompts an entire exchange over consumerism/anti-consumerism, and the merits and saving a couple hundred dollars on Black Friday. During the dialogue, surrounding co-workers began to become interested in what was being said. Most were fairly responsive to the ideas of Buy Nothing Day and reducing their individual consumerism. Seeing this, my boss fell to making jokes. He cracked that I was in some sort of “cult” and things of that nature. My natural rebuttal was that if reducing consumerism made me a member of a “cult”; what does camping all night outside a store make him? He just kind of tried to laugh it off.

Well, the whole point of this post is to remind myself and others of Buy Nothing Day. Join in if you feel like (not?) participating. If not, consider just attempting to live more consumer conscious. Here’s a couple of links you might want to check out if you’re interested in more information.

Adbusters!

No Sweat

Ron English (Culture Jam Icon) This one even has Wesley Willis in the soundtrack!

Culture Jamming

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid...

2006-10-27T09:23:00.000-07:00

Since the Halloween season is upon us, I thought I'd show a scary movie I'm really interested in seeing. This movie seriously has the makings of going down as one of the classics in the horror genre. I've haven't decided if this should be placed in the zombie genre, or just the straight horror/suspense genre.

I'm kind of leaning towards zombie movie, yeah?

Just Say No To Emo!

2006-10-17T09:25:00.000-07:00

I seem to constantly disappoint people. Actually, I mostly disappoint liberals. Not in the "I knew I couldn't count on you," way; More the "Hmm, I thought you'd be different way," When I first meet new people, I tend to gently get it out there that I'm a fairly liberal person. I also hint at my disdain for religion. I mean, I don't go straight for the jugular immediately with a "You're a neo-con and you should apologize to me for destroying America worse than Al-Queda ever had the potential to," or a "Jesus died for his own sins, not mine," stance but I make it clear how I feel. Accordingly, after only a day or so, most people are able to gauge fairly well where I stand on most issues even if specific issues haven't been brought up. Yet, being the like-minded, community-seeking individuals (is that oxymoronic?) that humans are, liberals tend to get excited upon first meeting me. Now, I realize that this blog is evidence to the contrary, but generally speaking, I'm a fairly literate person who tends to keep up on current events. That fact, combined with my propensity to proclaim my ideology with an appreciable amount of elocution and a superfluous dropping of sesquipedalian words, encourages in people an incomplete idea of who I am.
See, what first happens is liberals listen to me rant about Bush, American imperialism, current events, and organized religion. Then they think, "Hey, this guy has similar political opinions as me, I bet we're exactly alike!" So they ask me something unrelated to politics yet still completely liberal like, "Isn't the new podcast by 'They Might Be Giants' totally funny?" Sadly, this is when the liberal bonding starts to fall away. I proudly declare "Well, actually, I listen to punk." I follow with a long spiel about why I like punk and I how feel it resonates with me more than anything else. I also tack on some stuff about punk philosophy and politics in the hopes that they will see the similarities between liberalism and the anti-authority aspect of punk. Usually though, their eyes have begun to glaze over like my favorite Winchell’s donut. However, to their credit, these people don't give up completely. They then try asking me something that everyone can relate to regardless of political stripe (sports) yet they combine it with a liberal edge. "You know, I love football and everything, but don't you think the Washington Redskins should change their name? I mean, come on, REDSKINS?!" They shout that last part at me as if our mutual indignation would either get the Redskins to rename the team the Washington Native Americans or at the very least cement the bond between us. Now I hit them with sad truth that proves I'm not a worthy liberal. "Actually, I don't really follow most sports…just the UFC". This is generally where the conversation either ends, or gets incredibly awkward. They either just leave or start nodding their heads at whatever I say while surreptitiously glancing around the room looking for someone else they should be seen talking to.

You know, I used to feel bad about this. Like somehow, my enjoyment of punk rock and things like the Ultimate Fighting Championship made me a shitty liberal. I started to think, "Man, if only I wanted to spend all my days at boring art galleries discussing Alanis Morissette's acoustic album while sipping on Starbucks, then I would be a worthy Democrat," Then I thought that it shouldn't matter what I like or they like as long we have the same ideals in mind. That notion, however pleasing to believe, is somewhat inaccurate. The things we like do matter. The things we enjoy say things about who we are…to a certain extent. They don't define us, but they do describe us.

The whole thing reminded me of Thomas Frank's book What's The Matter With Kansas? The book contains points about how the neo-conservative political gain was aided in part by the encouragement of the "Latte Liberal" stereotype. Basically, the book makes the assertion that some conservatives may have been influenced to vote against Democrats in retaliation of the pompous airs that Democrats stereotypically put on. As a sometime victim of these airs, I can relate to the desire to want to put people in their place. Initially, however, I would just shut my mouth and take my seat at the back of Democrat bus, the same way I had to in high school, in order to not get caught causing trouble. Now, though, I'm starting to think I'm not the problem. I don't fit the "Latte Liberal" stereotype and I shouldn't be held accountable for the perceived weakness and cowardice within it. In fact, it was the "L.L.'s" that helped in losing the election, so I think it's time for us angry troublemaking liberals to fight back against both Republicans and pussy liberals. Now, that's not to stay we all suit up and fly over to the Middle East and kill us some Iraqis. Instead, we should start demanding what we want to happen with the war fucking happen. Instead, we should let our politicians know what we want to happen in Iraq and not them telling us what they think is happening (even though we know it’s not the truth). Instead of being out-yelled by some Bible thumping fundamentalist and instantly going into defense mode, we should be on the attack. We should assert ourselves, en masse, and tell them not to tell us what to do, how to act or what is best for us. The conservatives have not done a good job of guiding the nation and they traditionally never have. The war is going miserably, the deficit is record high, the Bill of Rights is under attack and we need to start reacting with the anger we've harbored and pushed down. We need to realize that there is a new and very real threat to the American way and that threat is Neo Conservative ideals. The very future of America is at stake. What it really comes down to is that it's time to lace up the combat boots and take the 'emo' out of Democrat.

Damn It Feels Good to be a Yuppie!

2006-09-20T18:10:00.000-07:00

So, I haven't been able to post lately due to the fact that I've moved and am currently without convenient internet access. Then, when at school or a Wi-Fi hotspot, I spend my time responding to emails, reading other people's posts, reading the news, and most importantly, updating my Netflix queue. However, some noteworthy things have occurred in the last couple weeks.

Along with moving apartments, I have also moved departments. That is to say, I have a new job. Without specifying exactly what it is I do now, I should note that I am now required to wear a suit. I take care to mention this for the fact that it has changed my life. Now I don't mean that I am any different than I was before, except for the fact that my misanthropic nature has only deepened. You see, now that I walk around in a suit, my status in other people's eyes has changed from "Avert eyes, study the floor" to "Make sure to pleasantly and insincerely greet". Seriously, everyone is fucking saying hello to me. Old colleagues, complete strangers, Republicans...this shit sucks. The whole ordeal is incredibly disorienting. What do these people want? Are they fucking networking with me? These people need to realize that the only networking I'm interested in engaging in is with Bakla, Lavey, and Kamikaze Kurt which coincidentally actually occurs on...the net.

I guess what frustrates me most is that it really confirms my long held belief that people place way to much importance on image. You know, that whole, "if you want to be successful you have to play the part" type bullshit. Not to say that we shouldn't analyze image as part of a whole individual, I just don't think it should get as much emphasis as it generally does. Besides, I get the feeling that these people don't really want to say hello to me, they just feel like they should. Combine that with the fact that I have no desire to return the greeting, and we're all just wasting our time. Not to mention the fact that we're putting completely false faces to one another. Seriously, don't think that just because I'm in a suit doesn't mean I won't pay those neo-hardcore kids at the Sick of It All show to hit you with one of their spinning windmill backfists of death!

Another aspect of the greeting thing I loathe is the psuedo-hiphop greetings management give each other and the rest of us suit-people. I'm sure many of you have been involved or at least witnessed an incident wherein a 40ish manager who wants people to think he's 30ish has approached you or a friend and jutted out his fist and said something like "What's hap'nin, bro" or "What's goin' down, 'G'?" What the fuck am I supposed to do here? Do I do the straight fist to fist thing like I see frat guys do? Or maybe I'm supposed to do the fist on top of the other fist thing? Wait then, who's fist goes on top? Does seniority come into play? For instance, if I'm outranked do I raise my fist to slightly below his and dangle it out there to allow them time to place their fist on top of mine? If I actually do that, should my self-esteem be lowered because I've acknowledged this individual's supposed superiority? Fuck that. The next time management pulls that shit with me I should just look them right in the eye and say "That's the most racist thing I've ever seen," turn and walk away.

Loser Coworkers

2006-08-25T16:11:00.000-07:00

This is a post I wrote a long time ago for Bakla's blog. However, I know there are a few people who haven't read this one yet. Plus, there are a few people that need to read this in order to assist them in remembering what's important in life.

There are so many types of co-workers that I can’t stand. However, upon further reflection, I found that I didn’t like a lot of these people for non-work related issues. Most of these people I simply do not like. You know, the over zealous Born Again, the illogical debater, the two-faced poser, people that function reasonably well in society. Anyway, this question forced me to find someone I despise that really only has the opportunity to irritate me at work. I was able to narrow my results down to “The Over-Achieving Menial Job Worker”. This is the type of person who attempts to insult me based on my job performance. I should add, for those not in the know, that I am a barista. Sounds cool huh? Well, it’s not. I fucking make coffee. Actually though, it’s a very complex process. In fact just recently, I was asked to triple my effort by adding Vanilla flavored syrup to someone’s coffee! Anyway, to explain my loathing of the “Over-Achiever”, it should be regarded as FACT that if you maintain a menial position, you should do only enough to NOT GET FIRED. Anymore than that and you take coffee pouring or burger flipping or floor mopping way too fucking seriously. Granted, there are many jobs that should be handled with care and focus. Condom durability testers and glory hole drillers (these two fields should never cross train with each other) come to mind. I mean if you’re in the medical field, or a teacher, or MC Chris, you should definitely make sure to always be at the top of your game. However, if you brag to a coworker that you make better Cappuccinos than them you are simply a loser. Oooooooohhh…..the customer complimented your Venti Chai Latte with Soy milk. Let’s call up your parents and let them know that they can rest easy knowing their parenting skills have helped to provide a random yuppie with the best Mocha Valencia this side of Italy. You see, making really smooth Frappuccinos is something that is worth celebrating only if, as a child, you often gazed with wonder at the fry cook at McDonalds and pondered whether you could ever be, with enough hard work and determination, just like him. Well guess what, you ARE just like him douche bag! And by the way, the managers don’t respect you; they just know that when they want someone to work overtime, you won’t have the spine to say “Sorry, I’ll be drunk then.”

"You shouldn't judge" is not an argument.

2006-08-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

Very often, when I make fun of people or critique certain aspects of their lives, instead of defending against my arguments, I’m hit with “You shouldn’t judge” or some variation of that “rebuttal”. However, when I question why we shouldn’t judge, I’m never given a decent response. Most often, the argument is given that I have no place to judge for I possess flaws in my life. To me though, that seems like the perfect reason to judge. We’re all fucked. Every last one of us. However, we’re not all fucked on the same level. We all have different and unique shit. Sometimes it’s best to let someone with an outside perspective give you a little shakabuku (a swift, spiritual kick to the head that alters your reality forever [Grosse Pointe Blank])

Here’s a different example of what happens right after I give someone my (admittedly unasked for) assessment of what they’re doing/saying,

Me: So in conclusion…you’re fucking stupid

Them (with condensation dripping from the words): You know, I don’t go around judging the things you do.

Me (with thoughtful respect): Wow, that’s a really good argument. However, your point would have been significantly stronger had you used that after I said something like “Hey, please stop going around and judging me!” Since I didn’t say that though, your point doesn’t have any real effect.

Them: I’m not sure you fully understand the whole concept of the “Confessional”. We’re supposed to be discussing your sins.

Me: Whatever, Father. I’m fucking outta here!

Don’t think I’m a hypocrite either. I’m all for listening to someone’s take on me and mine. In fact, very often unsolicited advice has led to the betterment of my life. I can’t count how many times I’ve been doing my own thing when someone jumps in with a “Hey, you know sheep aren’t really for fucking.” Or “By the way, no one’s interested in your opinions, you really shouldn’t be publishing them online.” Granted, I don’t necessarily agree with or follow all views of my life (I still keep a lamb in the closet) but I appreciate the fact that someone cares enough about me to give me their perspective.

Anyway, isn’t “You shouldn’t judge” a judgment on the very institution of judging? Perhaps what these people mean is that it’s okay to judge ideas/thoughts just not human behavior. Yet, if you exhibit negative human behavior it usually results directly from flawed ideas/philosophies. So let me get this straight, I shouldn’t critique your actions in their full manifestation, only when they lie intangible in the realm of metaphysics? Fuck that! I will critique and criticize wherever and whenever I see bullshit. If you say something stupid, you’re getting called on it. If you do something retarded you’re definitely getting called on that too!

Uncle Sam Wants You.....To Arrest Your Children

2006-07-31T15:37:00.000-07:00

The other day, during my work break, I was lucky enough to catch one of my favorite comedians, Bill O’Reilly. He was performing one of his newest and most side-splitting bits with another outstanding comedian, Michelle Malkin. During this exchange, which I think may have been improvised (my favorite kind of comedy); they were trading quips about SUV’s, terrorism, and America’s dependence on foreign oil. Here’s a sample of their witty repartee…

O’Reilly: You're not cutting back your driving. You've got that SUV. You're whipping around there. You're not cutting back. And why? Why aren't Americans cutting back?

Malkin: Well, look. I think it’s human nature…and if you are going to try to change the behavior of mothers all across this country who have got young kids, that they’ve got to pack into SUV’s and minivans to take them to the pool, you’re not going to convince them that they should cram those kids into a Prius to get this country, the gas prices down. That’s not going to happen!

O’Reilly: We could do it. But we don’t. We choose not to do it, which helps the terrorists, Michelle. It helps them.

Man, oh man! Classic, classic stuff! I’m just fortunate that my employers play it on four separate televisions in the break room. If they didn’t I might have missed O’Reilly’s newest skewering of world events that was broadcast last Friday. Here’s O’Reilly giving his insight on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict.

“Talking Points has been telling you all along that these jihadists are joined together by hatred of Jews and Americans. The World War III concept is that Islamic fascism has to be confronted in all its forms. But many Americans do not yet get that, as the CBS poll demonstrated. If anybody thinks we can sit out the jihad, they're wrong. Right now, Israel is doing us a favor by attacking Hezbollah. We Americans are fortunate we have an ocean between us and the Islamic killers. If we didn't, we'd be facing this in the good old USA. So bottom line, whoever is fighting the terrorists is our friend. Whoever is helping them is our enemy.”

What I want everyone to appreciate is comedy’s ability to not only make us laugh, but to illuminate real concerns for our society. I will assist the humor-impaired by shedding light on what Mr. Bill is really saying here. Basically, we as Americans need to take the children of the nation into custody for aiding and abetting various terrorist groups throughout the world.

Look, I realize that this may come as a shock to some people. Yet if you stop to look at the facts it all becomes clear. According to O’Reilly, driving around in SUV’s and minivans creates a huge demand for foreign oil. This demand in turn creates higher prices which in turn creates higher profits for the producers of said oil. Who are these producers you ask? Terrorists of course! And who, in the end is demanding they be shuttled to and fro in these Terrorist Utility Vehicles? America’s children. Now, now, now, hold on, you’re saying. It’s the mothers and fathers of these children that need to be stopped. Yet, Mrs. Malkin reasons that we can’t change the parents behavior because “it’s human nature,” She’s exactly right. It’s human nature for a mother to want to please her children. That’s why it will be so difficult to convince these terrorist raising mothers to place their babies under citizen’s arrest. So, what I’m suggesting is that we all arrest our neighbor’s children. This will prove difficult as well, but really though, unless you hate both freedom and America, there is no other logical conclusion.

Now the only real problem I can’t seem to solve is the logistics of everything. Namely, where to put the children. I’m sure Mrs. Malkin would love to put them in some sort of internment camps, but the country just doesn’t have the finances to build and run them. My first thought was to use the kids’ natural flexibility and tie them all together along the Mexican border. You know, a killing two birds with one stone sort of thing. However, that won’t work because we also need to reeducate these John Walker Lindh wannabes. So, I’m thinking we fire (and deport) all the illegal immigrants currently producing those “Support The Troops” ribbons, and use these kids instead! That way, we can also pump pre-approved segments from Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh through loud speakers all over the factory 24/7.

Any other suggestions for what to do with these "Little-League Terrorists" are welcome.

Terrible Tragedy

2006-07-28T15:39:00.000-07:00

I've just found some unfortunate news everybody. According to various news outlets, Dianne Feinstein has just been the victim of a robbery in her own home. Now instead of linking to the various articles like usual, I'll just cut and paste one of them for you since I know you guys never click on the news links anyway.

Senator Seeks to Turn Misfortune into Positive Legislation
By: Jimmy Olson (AP)

According to San Francisco Police Commissioner Jim Gordon, two armed men broke into Sen. Feinstein's home at approximately 11:13 PM on the night of July 23. Both Sen. Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum were in their bedroom when the attackers first entered the home. From the hotel where she is recuperating Sen. Feinstein told the following harrowing tale, "Rich and I were just relaxing in bed when we heard a loud crash from the first floor. I leapt up, naturally frightened, and pushed Richard towards the closet where we keep our weapons. You know, the ones I have my concealed weapons permit for? Anyway, being a supporter of capital punishment, I had no qualms about blowing these ne’er do wells away with my pre-ban assault rifles!"

According to Lt. Mark Pillow, Sen. Feinstein and her husband first called local police then slowly crept downstairs where they could clearly detect sounds of ransacking occurring. However, despite the both of them being armed, their weapons would prove useless against the ingenuity of the intruders. Flicking on the lights of their downstairs family room the Senator and her husband were confronted by what is being described as a couple of American Ninjas.

"Well, despite our obvious trepidation," Sen. Feinstein said, "we turned on the lights with our weapons raised. Yet once I saw what we were up against…I really didn't know what to do!" According to Sen. Feinstein and various witnesses, the two intruders were dressed head to toe in "ninja outfits" tied together with multiple American flags. "We just froze up, I studied their outfits thoroughly and I noticed the use of clever folding and knotting, however, I could see no damage to our sacred national treasure." continued the Senator "Richard cocked his weapon and demanded the intruders leave but I shouted to him that he had better NOT desecrate the monument that is the American flag or he'd have to deal with me! So, we stood there, rendered completely helpless, while those two incredibly patriotic intruders placed our valuables into sacks made from the American flag! Despite my shock I couldn’t help but notice that they were very careful never to let those flags touch the ground!"

By the time the criminals were through deciding what items to take, the police had arrived on the scene. Already having constructed a police barricade around the perimeter of the Feinstein home, police were ready with guns drawn and were waiting for the thieves to attempt their escape. To the surprise of the various officers, the intruders calmly approached the main entrance of the home followed closely by the Senator and her husband. After being told repeatedly by the police to stand down, Police Sergeant Karl Bakla (A recent transfer from Los Angeles) gave the approval to Officer Adam Lavey to fire upon the culprits despite the fact that they were unarmed.

“I shot one in the leg," states Officer Lavey "simply to immobilize him. Suddenly, Sen. Feinstein starts shouting out 'You're what's wrong with this country! I can't wait to see you behind bars!' At first I think she's shouting at the criminals, but then I realize she's [expletive deleted] screaming at me!" During the commotion, the bandits were able to slip into a diabolically disguised vehicle. They had previously took care to cover the vehicle, including the license plates, with more American flags.

Sen. Feinstein did not file a complaint against the robbers and had this final comment, "I hope now through this tragedy, the nation can clearly see the dangers of what can happen when we allow desecration of this kind. That is why I will be drafting the Lavey-Bakla Bill which seeks to prevent any government enforcement agent, state or federal, from using their position of authority to make political statements." The senator then shed a single tear while humbly kissing her American flag lapel pin.

Big Brother would be a great name for a retail chain!

2006-07-18T00:21:00.000-07:00

So, a couple of articles (here and here) have been written in regards to the information gathering that is being pursued by various corporations (and the Defense Department). Now I was sure that this alarming practice would be one of the main topics of conversation with mainstream America. Silly me though, while worrying about what havoc this practice could potentially produce, I forgot that the new Wayan's brothers movie Little Man hit theaters! Sadly, I was unable to attend the opening of the film due to the fact that I dislike voluntarily lowering my IQ.

Anyhow, while the rest of the country was listening to Paris Hilton's newest pop single, corporations like Wal-Mart, Proctor & Gamble, Gillette, and Prada have been embedding their products with various tracking devices. The device that really caught my eye is called an RFID. RFID stands for radio frequency identification. Essentially what happens is that a given product is embedded with on of these small RFID, then when you purchase one of these items your information is stored in an electronic database. At this point, someone has the ability to use an "RFID reader" and cross-check the ID's with the database. Katherine Albrecht, co-author of the book "Spychips: How Government and Major Corporations are Tracking Your Every Move", paints this chilling scenario, "So let's say you go to a First Amendment-protected event-depending on your politics, maybe a peace march, a gun show or a labor organization meeting. It would be inappropriate for government agents to storm the event at gunpoint and demand to see everyone's IDs. What would be possible, though, would be for a government agent to go into that event with a handheld RFID reader in his backpack, mill around the crowd for ten minutes, capture all the ID numbers associated with the people at that event and go back and cross-reference them in a database to determine who was there,"

That is an extreme scenario. I mean the government wouldn't spy on us using sinsiter techniques like that. Of course not! They use grocery store loyalty cards instead. Much easier and cost efficient than tracking meetings and protests while sending agents in the field, simply access grocery store customer databases. Already, according to an article I found on CorpWatch, a major grocery chain gave up its customer loyalty information to the government after 9/11. I mean, even if you feel like something like this is excusable, don't you think retailers are obligated to inform their customers what their personal information will be used for. Oh, that's right, they already do. On most applications, the corporations state that they will never divulge customer information to a third-party. However, what most consumers fail to realize is that when a corporation teams up with another corporation, they form an alliance thereby negating the new "partners" third party status. Those sneaky bastards! I can't believe a corporation would screw us over like that!

Well, it's clear that the only thing to do is to avoid purchasing products from privacy stealing vendors and producers if you don't want your personal information being stored. On the flip side (that joke is for you Lovie), we should only shop from vendors we trust. One company that I know I will always trust can be found here (Bakla and Lavey are required to click on previous link). On top of their concern for my privacy, they make one hell of a quality product. Trust me. Unlike the corporations, I won't lie to you.

Minimum Rage

2006-07-04T02:57:00.000-07:00

Democrats are poised to make the minimum wage a key issue for the upcoming elections. Rightly so, since the minimum wage hasn’t changed since 1997 and inflation has “eroded its value to its lowest level in 50 years”. However, there are of course people that are opposed to this possible change. Some of them reside in the Republican controlled congress that has seen an increase in their pay in the last ten years by $31,600. The blatant hypocrisy would be revolting were it not so predictable. Anyhow, other people, such as some small-business owners argue that increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment by making employment unaffordable. Yet a study published by the Economic Policy Institute refutes this. According to them, “following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates)” Other people insist that this issue is of no real importance because the individuals employed at minimum wage levels are young teenagers making side money. Yet as of 1999, roughly 70 percent of those employed at the minimum wage are aged 20 or older according to a study done by a member of the University of Maine System.

Everyone against raising the minimum wage should check out the first episode of Morgan Spurlock’s “30 Days”. You may remember this guy from the film “Super Size Me” (that’s the fast food flick, not the homo-erotic epic of the same name, but you might want to check that out too!). In the episode, Morgan and his wife work for minimum wage for 30 days. I haven’t even seen the actual episode, but I don’t need to in order to recommend it. That’s because I make more than minimum wage and yet my finances still pretty much suck. I can only imagine what it would be like were I to only make minimum wage.

What I find most amusing is that these people against paying workers more than five bucks an hour don’t even flinch at handing me that much for a coffee with vanilla flavored syrup. Yet, perhaps I find it amusing because I don’t truly understand the mind of the minimum payer. Maybe I should try living my life with the minimum mindset. Fine, until the minimum wage is increased, I too will do only the minimum. When taking your order, I will give it only the minimum of my attention. Maybe I remembered that you wanted soy milk, maybe your lactose intolerant (and living wage intolerant) ass is cramping the rest of the day. I will also only do the minimum when making sure I don't overcharge you. When I have the flu or go the restroom, I will not wash my hands before preparing your food as this takes more than the minimum effort. This is my pledge to stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters of the minimum mindset. Just kidding!! Maybe.

Look, I could go into some long-winded moral grand-standing here or explain how this is all class warfare but I’m tired. Bottom line is, if your business can’t afford to pay workers a decent wage, it’s because you’re not making enough revenue. If you’re not making enough revenue, you’re probably selling a piece of crap product or are producing inefficiently. If this is true, then that’s your fault, not the workers you would deny a living wage. Don’t deny someone else a decent life because you’re a shitty leader. That’s the President’s job.

Proflagity is only two letters away from Profanity but is much more vulgar.

2006-06-23T16:02:00.000-07:00

Senator Dianne Feinstein recently wrote an editorial in USA Today. The title for everyone that won't follow the previous link was "Flag needs Protection". From the title alone you must already have an idea of what it's about. God damn these fucking neo-cons, I thought to myself. However, after doing the most minimal amount of research; I suprisingly discovered that this woman is a Democrat from California. Not only that, she was once mayor of one of my favorite liberal cities, San Francisco. Another stunning example of how labels don't dictate behavior. Anyhow, I thought I'd tackle some her key statements in her editorial.

"In 1974, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote that: "(T)here would seem to be little question about the power of Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or to prevent overlaying it with words or other objects. The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection."

Dianne uses this quote to support her argument. However, I think there are a few fundamental differences between monuments and flags. A monument by definition is a structure, such as a building or structure, erected as a memorial. A flag by definition is a piece of cloth, usually rectangular, of distinctive color and design, used as a symbol, standard, signal, or emblem. Nowhere in either definition do the terms overlap. Another major difference is that monuments are the generally the only of their kind and often funded by taxes. They are paid for by all of us and should therefore be respected by all of us; We're sharing. A flag on the other hand is generally manufactured through private funds (often in sweatshop like factories in China, the irony is amazing) and then purchased by an individual. Once purchased it rightfully becomes the property of the purchaser. So what we're proposing is to legislate what people can and cannot do with their own property. So, if a flag isn't a monument, what is it? Let's go back to the definition, shall we? Right in the definion the term symbol is mentioned. That's what the flag is. It's a symbol. It's not a monument. The flag is a symbol of the United States of America; And the Untied States of America is a monument to the ideas written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Still don't believe the flag is just a symbol? Fine, let's get someone with a little expertise in the issue.

"[O]ur flag remains a vibrant symbol of our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice, and our eternal memory of those who have sacrificed to defend these principles,"

Who could have stated that concrete interpretation of what the flag is? Did I find some crazy left-wing person to support my arguement? No, I just re-read Dianne's editorial. That's right. Dianne's words ver-fucking-batim. Flag remains a vibrant symbol.

Finally, Dianne hits us with this, "There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner,"

This argument rings true doesn't it. That's because she's right. There are many other ways to express certain ideas associated with flag-burning. Yet, that's not the point. Just because a message can be conveyed in multiple ways, doesn't mean one of the ways should be banned because is offends some people's sensibilities. Essentially, you'd be restricting the rights of individuals for the comfort of others. Furthermore, I could express my opinion of Dianne Feinstein by saying that she has taken on the resemblance of a container of flexible material, such as paper, plastic, or leather, that is used for carrying or storing items which in this particular instance is used for the purpose of holding a stream of water, often containing medicinal or cleansing agents, that is applied to a body part or cavity for hygienic or therapeutic purposes. Really though, I'd rather just say she's acting like a douche bag. I don't think I should go to jail for that, do you?

[Insert Label Here]

2006-06-20T15:07:00.000-07:00

So, throughout the course of my life, I have encountered many types of people. For classification purposes, I often attribute labels to these individuals. These labels run the full gamut from conservative to liberal, intelligent to imbecile, religious to atheist, and heterosexual to Jason. Obviously (at least to me) it goes without saying that people are not locked in by these labels. I know conservatives who at times will take on a so-called “liberal” stance. I know many of my intelligent peers who have said or done the most idiotic thing. I’ve also experienced times where those whom I wouldn’t consider particularly bright have let slip a surprising little nugget of insight and wisdom. I’ve even seen Jason check out a girl …once. Therefore, most of us are aware that labels exist merely to assist in the determining of where everyone stands and not to cage us.

However, I meet many people who refuse to accept a label. When I come across these people feel free to label me irritated. Perhaps I’m just being ignorant, but I just cannot fathom what the motivation is behind “I don’t want to be labeled”. Personally, I think it comes from two sources. One, being a fear of confinement by non-empirical ideas i.e. words. The other, a simple lack of self-awareness. However, I think these two motives are somewhat entangled. It’s likely that the fear is not fear of confinement, but more likely a fear of being called on non-label behavior. For example, we’ll take Zell Miller. For those unaware Zell Miller was a retiring Democrat senator who in 2004 campaigned for none other than Republican George W. Bush. Now as expected, there was a backlash against Zell Miller from the Democrat camp. He was ostracized from the party and referred to as Zig Zag Zell for his apparent ability to flip-flop on various issues. For most people, this would be an experience they would prefer not to have to endure. One way of ensuring that something like this never happens to you is to never allow yourself to be labeled. Yet isn’t that kind of cowardly. It’s basically akin to saying, “Well, I don’t like losing, so I just won’t play.” I thought most of us grew out of that in adolescence. Going back to the lack of self-awareness issue, I’ve come to that conclusion based on my observation of the “Non-labelers”. You see, generally, these people have no problem telling you what they aren’t. It’s what they are that is the problem. These individuals never have a problem telling you what they’re not. “Are you a Muslim?” “No” “Are you a Communist?” “No” “Are you an atheist?” “Definitely not!” It’s what they are that seems to be the most difficult. It seems only logical to conclude that if you don’t know what you are, you don’t know yourself.

For example, in my 25 years I have come to the conclusion that I am a punk, an atheist, a submission wrestler, and a P.A.G.A.N. There are many other labels that could apply to me; those were just off the top of my head. I’m not confused in my beliefs and I act according to what I feel is right. You know what though, I occasionally listen to Japanese Pop, and does that mean I’m not a punk. Fuck no! Do I read up on various religions to inform myself of what other people believe? Yes. Does that make me a theist? Fuck no! I’ve even been known to punch people in the face, does that make me a boxer. Fuck no! Have I engaged in some forms of goodness and normalcy? Well, no…but you get where I was going with all of this.

Finally, there are those that use the all encompassing type labels. You know the types, the “dabblers”, the “experimenters”, the “student’s of life”, the “try-sexuals”. Hmmmmm…..how fucking clever. Really though, the all-encompassing label people are agnostics of the self. They are the ones who unwittingly claim that the self is too complex to ever be known. And like all specious arguments, there is a little truth in there. Your identity is incredibly complex. It grows and changes when new information is given. However, no one is asking that you stop this growth to conform to the label you’ve already accepted. We understand that people change. We understand that people make mistakes. We allow for this. We are usually only hostile if the change is a hugely radical departure from a long-time established position. So please don’t feed me this I’m too complex shit. Because then I’ll just assign you a label at random. Most likely, that label will read as “douche bag”.

A lot of people will be asking, “Well, what’s the point of labels anyway?” For the answer to that, I’m going to refer you to the words of those great Canadian punks Propaghandi from the song, “Head? Chest? Or Foot?” which I listened to while writing this.

I’d rather know my enemies and let you know the same.
Whose windows to smash and whose tires to slash
And where to point the fucking blame.
One future. two choices. oppose them or let them destroy us

"Dyslexic Clue" The board game where you figure out who the victim is!

2006-06-18T19:42:00.000-07:00

I was bored at work today, so I decided to find some entertainment. Luckily, I had a Born Again Christian co-worker nearby who is always good for some inexpensive amusement. Today was no ordinary day though. Little did I know that today this B.A.C. was going to shed light on my constant attacks and how I'm really just a pawn of the godless, liberal cult whose sole reason for existence is to act as the unrelenting and shameless persecutors of Christians. Anyway, I had recently just watched The Da Vinci Code and was eager to hear the official B.A.C. take on the entire controversy.

So, with an evil glint in my eye, I questioned "Have you seen the Da Vinci Code yet?" secure in the knowledge that no self-respecting Christian would ever view such blasphemy.

"Not yet," she replied, "but I do plan on watching it just to see what the big deal is. But you know what I really wonder? I wonder why Christianity is always being attacked."

Admittedly, this response threw me for a loop. She had such an open mind and was only concerned with why I took such joy in messing with her faith! Still, I didn't waver....yet.

"What the hell are you talking about?" I asked, "No one's attacking you!" However, the wool had been pulled over my eyes, and she was about to lift it.

"Oh yeah," she rebutted, "Look at what we're discussing; the Da Vinci Code. What about the Last Temptation of Christ? The Simpsons, Southpark, and Bill Maher all often make fun of Christianity. I mean, didn't you once show me a shirt that said 'What Would Judas Do?' Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about."

This is where I began to crumble. She was right! What a horrible person I had become. Despite being bullied so much in High School, I had taken the route of the tormentor! I couldn't believe it. It took all my strength to keep from breaking into tears. I slowly turned away from her, dejected and ashamed. As I walked home that night from work, I couldn't help but reflect on my previous life as bully. In the desert heat, I removed my outer work shirt. As I looked at my undershirt I experience an epiphany. Earlier in the morning, during my atheistic heathen life, I had put on my "I am the Anti-Christ" shirt. The shirt featured that quote boldly atop an upside down cross. But what was cool was that I realized that when I looked down at the shirt while wearing it, the cross was right side up! This observation gave me hope that maybe my life could also be turned right-side up in a similar fashion. I gaily skipped the rest of the way home basking in the nocturnal warmth the Lord had provided for me while contemplating my new life as a Christian.

Don't fret kiddies! This story has a happy ending because whoever said "Thank God for good friends!" is wrong. There isn't a god to thank, so you should probably thank your friends for being so cool right this minute before you're no longer able. So a big bear hug and a thanks go out to Mr. Bakla and his P.A.G.A.N. manifesto. You see, as I sat at my computer that night to figure out when the next bible study session I could attend was, I decided to check my friend's blog. That was when I saw it. The document that single handily saved me from the death of being Born Again. As the Gospel of Karl Bakla cleansed me of pureness, I felt as if a weight was being lifted from me. This weight, of course, was the weight of ignorance. It's the incredibly heavy weight that forces crap like "Christians are always being attacked," or "God created the world in seven days," to come out of people's mouth. Suddenly rational thought came flooding back into me. Movies and stupid jokes aren't attacks! They're just movies and stupid jokes, nothing more. However, actively trying to make someone's lifestyle illegal despite the fact that it does not affect you in any harmful way is an attack. Still, Christians have no problems pushing for an amendment to the fucking Constitution to make sure homosexuals NEVER have equal rights. Wait though, that's probably just them retaliating at us for buying shit like this.

But what about when they deny rape victims assistance. I mean, if a pharmacist has the right to deny people emergency contraception based on religious beliefs, can I refuse to do certain aspects of my job for political/cultural beliefs. For example, can I refuse to give overweight people frappuchinnos (yes I work at Starbucks and can't spell the drink's names). Or, if I was still in slots, could I refuse to pay Republican's their jackpots because I think they'll use that money to harm me through legislative means. Fuck no, I can't! You know why? Because my beliefs are easily justifiable and I'm able to prove their negative effects through sense datum and simple research. And here in George Bush's America, we don't give a flying fuck about facts and figures. Yet if you're Christian pharmacist and you say that your friend who lives in the sky told you not give out certain kinds of pills well gee golly goodness, you got me there. There's not one thing I can say that would rebuff that stunning piece argumentative logic. And don't you dare ask how these Christians can be so sure in their beliefs that they're willing to risk other people's lives for them!! Fuck, fuck, fuck...I'm pissing myself off here.

It's just when I think about the ridiculous stances on health care that Christians take I start losing my mind. I think about the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and remember that it's all caused because we don't want intelligent design taught to our children in school. Oh, well, you say, that's stuff all over done with. Christians aren't attacking people anymore. I wish it were true but in fact, Christians have just gotten sneakier in their attacks. For example, just the other day, I turned on the radio only to hear Creed being played. What the fuck?!?! Quickly I changed the station when on came Evanescence. Dear God, I prayed, save me from your followers! The Christians had hit me with a double whammy! It truly was a one-two punch. I had one ace up my sleeve though. I threw my stereo out the window and made a dash for the television. I turned on the power ready to witness filth and violence and degradation. Instead, I got 7th Heaven.