Ebolaville

Irony

2007-08-15T08:03:00.001-07:00

Okay, let's discuss irony.

I was watching the news this morning as I was getting ready for work when a story about the Mattel Toy company came on. If you've been in the dark for the last few months, Mattel Toys is having to recall millions of toys from American homes and retail stores because of possible threats of lead poisoning.

The broadcast showed plenty of angry parents who voiced complaints about their children's lives being in DANGER!

"Little Tommy loves to chew on things with lead paint on them, and now he might die!"

What frustrates me about this entire situation is how Americans want cheaper products, thereby forcing American Corporations to out-source labor, which in turn send jobs over seas to places like China where CHILDREN work in very dangerous conditions just to pump out shitty toys to lazy Americans. Come on! Am I crazy or does anybody else notice the problem with this situation?

American parents couldn't care less about the Chinese children who lose their childhood because they're forced to work for cheap just so American children can enjoy their own childhood more and their parents can buy the fucking toys for next to nothing.

Excuse me for my lack of empathy, but America is getting all she deserves with this recall situation! From pet food to toys to tires, we are getting our comeuppance. It's our want and "need" to have the cheapest product possible that has treated us to the tragic full-circle of irony.

We make other children, people, and families suffer because we want cheap things, and we're fine with that. So, I say, instead of blaming the government, Mattel, or China for such hazards, we should begin blaming ourselves.

2007-08-15T08:03:00.000-07:00

She Wants a Thesaurus

2006-08-16T11:50:00.000-07:00

This link of the 32 Worst Lyrics of All Time has been making the rounds of the intarwebs for the last couple of weeks. It's a pretty good list, and pretty entertaining. The songs they lampoon were all submitted by their users; I wish I'd known about the list beforehand, as I have a doozy.

Theres this band I loathe called She Wants Revenge. They're one of those new bands that seems to think that 80's New Wave was the be all end all of musical expression. They sound like an even more boring version of Depressed Mode. For some reason the rock station here adores these guys, and plays them at least 5 times a day (which is why I've gone back to only listening to CDs during my commute home). Putting aside the fact that I'm not sure if they actually have a drummer or just use the presets on a circa- 1980 Casio keyboard, and that the "singer's" 3 note range (yes note, not octave) makes him sound sort of like Paul Lynde trying to rap, it's their asinine lyrics that really got me.

(For those of you too young to remember Paul Lynde from Bewitched or Hollywood Squares, he was the voice of Templeton the rat in the animated classic Charlotte's Web.)

Their first single "Tear You Apart" had juvenile, sophomoric lyrics, but since the song is about a high school love affair I thought it might have just been done on purpose. I thought the song sucked, but it wasnt until their second single that I really started to hate this band.

So, for your viewing displeasure, I present "These Things":

There is nothing to see here people keep moving on
Slowly their necks turn and then they're gone
No one cares when the show is done
(The actual cliché is "nothing to see here, just move along" and it still rhymes you asshats. Also, does your neck actually turn, or would that be your head? I'm just askin'... I dont remember the doctor ever saying "Turn your neck and cough", do you?)

Standing in line and its cold and you want to go
Remember a joke so you turn around
There is no one to listen so you laugh by yourself
(Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're standing in line, aren't you surrounded by people? How can there be no one to listen? Yes, you could be last in line, but then you wouldn't turn around to tell a joke, now would you?)

[Chorus:]
I heard it's cold out, but her popsicle melts
She's in the bathroom, she pleasures herself
Says I'm a bad man, she's locking me out
It's cause of these things, it's cause of these things
(This chorus is what really got me. Is she outside in the cold with a mysteriously melting popsicle, or is she inside in the bathroom pleasuring herself? Which is it? Maybe she's in a port-a-potty pleasuring herself WITH the popsicle! While that might be someones idea of a hot fetish, it does not good song lyrics make.)

Let make a fast plan, watch it burn to the ground
I try to whisper, so no one figures it out
I'm not a bad man, I'm just overwhelmed
It's cause of these things, it's cause of these things
(It's 'cause of WHAT things? WHAT'S because of these things?? You're overwhelmed because she's locking you out of the bathroom? She thinks youre a bad man because you whisper arson plots? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?)

The crowd on the street walks slowly, don't mind the rain
Lovers hold hands to numb the pain,
Gripping tightly to something that they will never own
(Okay, no complaints here, I actually think these three lines are pretty good.)

And those by themselves by choice or by some reward
No mistakes only now you're bored
This is the time of your life but you just can't tell
(What about those by themselves? FINISH ONE GODDAM THOUGHT YOU GODDAM WINDOW LICKERS! You can't start the sentence with "And" and then not go anywhere with it. And you're only entertained when you make mistakes? Does anyone have ANY idea what the hell this song is actually supposed to be about?)

I hate it when bands are so lazy with their lyrics that they throw two lines together for no other reason than that they rhyme. I'm looking at you, Blink 182! (I wrote a note, then tore it up / remember the time that I spilled the cup / of apple juice, in the hall / please tell mom this is not her fault). The song is about suicide, and yet it was important for the narrator to mention that traumatic apple juice spillage.

Now I'll be honest, I find their music so lame and derivative that I wouldnt like She Wants Revenge even if they were poet laureates, but give me a break here folks. I know people who like this band. They're gaining popularity every day. I have friends who sing along with these songs without a trace of irony! If this kind of barely coherent nonsense is really the kind of lyrical content that gets your motor running, I say you should just stop pretending to any vestige of hipness, and just start listening to country.

Movies About Dancing Are Even Gheyer

2006-08-11T12:28:00.000-07:00

Have you folks heard the commercials for the "new" movie 'Step Up'? (I used scare quotes on "new" because when this movie came out earlier this year, it was called 'Take the Lead', and five years ago it was called 'Save the Last Dance') Here's the plot summary from IMDB if for some reason you're interested (you know, brain tumor, developmental problems, masochistic tendencies...)

So I don't know if these are national spots or are only being played in my market, but here's the line that almost made me crash my truck into a tree: "Once every ten years or so, a movie comes along that defines the voice of a generation. At recent screenings, audiences have declared that 'Step Up' is that movie". Are you fucking kidding me? A warmed over, pointless, saccharine teeny-bopper movie about a dancing janitor is the voice that defines a generation?!? Sweet bleeding shitballs people, if I were a member of the generation this movie claims to be speaking for I'd be so offended that I'd be out in the streets tipping over cars and lighting fires. Not to mention the fact that no one over 16 probably attended these screenings, and if you show me a teenager who says things like "this movie defined the voice of my generation" I'll show you an adult criminal who's evading the law by pretending to be a high schooler a la Jon Cryer.

But then I really thought about it, and figured maybe they're not far off. We live in a country in which the populace feels a sense of entitlement yet no sense of personal responsibility. Where how you look is much more important than who you are. Where we're all victims. Where individuality is frowned upon and political correctness is held up as the ideal. Where technology has replaced spirituality (and no, I don't mean religion... don't get me started!) So maybe they're right. But I'll tell you something...

If 'Step Up' truly is the voice of this generation, then this generation is a tone deaf mongoloid with a severe speech impediment.

Dancing is Teh Ghey

2006-07-19T15:41:00.000-07:00

I was at a party semi-recently, and I ran into an ex-girlfriend whom I hadn't seen in a couple of years. She stopped by my table to say hello, and asked me to save a dance for her later. I have never been good at keeping my face from reflecting my feelings, and the look I gave her must have been extremely telling. She got a little huffy, as I think she took it as a personal offense; it was as if she thought I was rebuking her instead of the act of dancing. "What, you won't dance with me?" she asked. My natural response was "What, did you just meet me??"

You see, I dont dance.

I honestly just dont see the point. I dont begrudge people who enjoy it. For a lot of people dancing is just about the best time that they can conceive. It just holds absolutely no interest for me, and never has. I think the main reason has to be dance music itself.

Although I was a late bloomer in regards to getting into music, once I discovered it for myself it was more than just a passing fad or an enjoyable distraction. Music is important to me. But it wasnt always that way. I remember being on the playground in 3rd grade or so when another kid busted out AC/DCs "Highway to Hell". I looked at the album cover with mild interest, then went off to play kickball. Music was something that didnt appeal to me yet. According to my ex-stepbrother, I knew all the words to Beth by Kiss when I was three years old. I dont remember it, but see no reason to doubt it. But he played them all the time; it's not like I was seeking out Kiss as a toddler. However when my parents divorced, the only music I ever got exposed to was what my mom listened to, and even as a young kid I knew I didnt care for Barbra Streisand or Julio Iglecias. I owned a couple of cassettes (remember cassettes??), but they were generally given to me by relatives and considered innocuous and safe for children: Billy Joel, Abba, the Beach Boys... I think the "rockiest" album I owned at the time was Styx's "Kilroy Was Here".

And then the summer I turned 13 it all changed for me. As much as it shames me to admit it now, the band that changed everything I felt about music was... Motley Crue. My friend Tony came over one afternoon after school, and busted out their second LP (remember LPs???) "Shout at the Devil". I had never seen anything like it. These guys all had long shaggy hair, and crazy superhero like outfits, and there was a pentagram on the cover. I had been a fan of horror since I was about eight or so, and as such I was ripe for something that seemed so, well, dark. So he puts on the record, and the first track is an effects-laden spoken word intro talking about evil and the perils of mankind and whatnot. (Its been over 20 years, cut me some slack.) Then the first song started there was this nasty, almost tribal beat, and heavily distorted guitars, and screaming vocals. I was instantly smitten. It was like a horror movie expressed in music!

Thus started my downward spiral. I spent the next couple of years picking up everything by Motley Crue, Ratt, Twisted Sister... anything that looked like it would scare my mother. A year or so later I finally discovered Iron Maiden, and thats when I realized that not only could rock music be more intricate, but that some bands wrote about more than just sex, drugs and Rock 'n Roll. This was the first time that lyrics started becoming almost as import to me as the music itself.

And then in 1985 there was a bomb threat at my high school, and while everyone was standing around in the parking lot a friend and I decided to ditch. We walked over to the mall, and I went into Sweets and Sounds, the only music store around for miles. My friend pointed to an album that he'd heard a lot of good things about by a band I had never heard of. I took a chance and picked up the album, little knowing that once again my world was about to be rocked (no pun intended). The album was "Master of Puppets" by Metallica.

I can't adequately describe my reaction to hearing this for the first time. It was the loudest, heaviest, dirtiest, angriest music I had ever heard. At the same time, it was beautifully arranged, and as intricate as any orchestra. And the songs were about drug abuse, and religious hypocrisy, and the folly of war... it was as if I finally found real music about real life. Suddenly no other music was worthy of my attention. Thrash metal was the be all end all as far as I was concerned. It didn't hurt any that I was now in my mid- to late teens, so this angry aggressive music held massive appeal for me while I was going through my standard teen angst bullshit (thanks Veronica Sawyer).

For a long time I would listen to nothing but speed metal and a little punk. If it wasn't pissed off and loud, it bored me. I joined a metal band my junior year and was convinced I had found my calling. As soon as I graduated high school I moved out to California (at the time L.A. was THE place for bands to be discovered) and got a job at Tower Records. Obviously the band thing never took off, as I'm not currently a rock star fighting off Hollywood starlets with a pointy stick. Eventually I grew up a little and expanded my musical horizons, and actually took the time to seek out other kinds of music that I enjoyed. I was finally able to appreciate jazz, blues and early soul (before it became cookie cutter R&B pop) and was able to admit that sometimes I enjoyed a song just because it was fun, regardless of lyrics or anger level.

But for the most part I still sought out talented musicianship. It didnt always have to be the fastest or the loudest anymore, but it had to at least be skilled.

And gentle reader, that at long last brings me back on topic: dance music. The reason I see dancing as so pointless and something I will never enjoy is mainly the music. I think the best reason to dance is that the music itself makes you want to move your body. It actually affects you physically. Dance music just doesnt do that for me. And the music that does affect me physically, you cant really dance to. I've moshed. I've skanked. But I've never danced. (Okay, I think I've slow danced exactly twice in my life, and Im 34 years old). I think the music is boring, repetitive and vapid. It seems like the songs that have lyrics are all about love, sex, or dancing itself, and little else. And to me there's very little musicianship in it. Instead we have samples, and computers, and songs generally not even written by the person performing them. It's not music, it's product. It in no way makes me want to move my body, unless it would be to run screaming in the other direction. And dont even get me started on electronica.

One of the main arguments I get is that if I went dancing, it would be a great way to meet women. The problem there is that even if it were true, it would mean I would meet women who wanted to go dancing. Talk about a vicious circle. Okay, maybe I can see the attraction of basically being allowed to dry hump a total stranger in public, but do it at the supermarket like I do, and do your jail time like a man ;)

Now Ill be the first to admit that I'm a music snob. My friends are all probably sick of how often I bitch that almost every band that has come out in the last two years sounds like someone who came out 20 years ago. There's so little originality in music today it is depressing. But what can I say? I like what I like. I like people who write their own songs and can actually play their instruments well. I like socially conscious lyrics. And although I really do listen to a wide variety of music now, I still primarily enjoy loud, aggressive stuff the most. I think dance music is boring, and the music I find interesting you can't dance to. Could you imagine if I went to some hot nightclub and snuck some Tool or Pennywise into the DJ booth? Thered be a riot. Never the twain shall meet, I suppose. Besides, I'm about as white as they come. We're not supposed to be able to dance anyway, right?

2006-04-20T22:00:00.000-07:00

I noticed the clock yesterday morning... at 4:20 AM, on 4/20... I thought to myself... I feel a great disturbance in the Force.... as if millions of bags of cheetos suddenly cried out in terror and were silenced.

Suggested new mottos for South Dakota:

2006-04-12T20:00:00.000-07:00

Rape? Relatives? Ready? We just don't care!

South Dakota: Where babies are as plentiful as the rights we ignore.

South Dakota: Coat hangers aren't just for closets anymore.

South Dakota: We don't really approve of incest, we just want to see what happens.

South Dakota: You're a whore, and you deserved it anyway.

South Dakota: Clogging the child protective services, one unwanted baby at a time.

South Dakota: The Forerunner for trampling women's rights.

South Dakota: You're gonna push that sucker out.

South Dakota: The Uterus in Chains State.

South Dakota: Civil Rights are for Pussies

South Dakota: No liberty, yet welfare for all.

No... I was watching porn, I swear!

2006-04-11T12:07:00.000-07:00

The other night I got out of school a little early, so while I was waiting for Futurama to start I was surfing the cable channels looking for something to watch in the meantime. I came across Independence Day, which I had watched just a few days earlier in its entirety, and decided to leave it on. This got me thinking about guilty pleasure movies; I freely admit that I enjoy this flick every time I watch, but I admit just as freely that it is basically a giant steaming turd. Although I thought the effects were pretty good, and the concept itself pretty interesting, the story is completely predictable, the dialogue hammy and riddled with clichés, and the acting about as engaging as a scorching case of crotch rot. So why do I continue to watch it when it comes on?

One reason may simply be that to me there is a difference between a film and a movie. Films are artistic and have messages. Movies are fun. That doesn’t mean that artistic message films can’t be fun and movies can’t have messages, but in general I think most motion pictures fit into those two categories. Although I consider myself a movie buff, I’m not enough of a snob that I can’t enjoy a crappy movie purely on the basis of entertainment. This would explain my fascination with 70’s Blaxploitation flicks. In my collection are such gems as Shaft, Blackbelt Jones, Blacula, Coffey, and the Dolemite boxed set. Where else can you find such wonderful dialog such as “Get out the way and let me pass, before I break off my Hushpuppy in yo’ muthafuckin’ ass”? Some movies are just SO bad that they actually end up being good.

Another of my guilty pleasures (and coincidentally another Sci-Fi flick) is Starship Troopers. This movie is bloody awful. The acting is atrocious, the story downright silly, and there’s a plot hole at the end that you could drive a semi truck through. Still and all, I simply love this piece of shit. For one thing, it is incredibly gory, which I didn’t expect upon first view. It also was slightly reminiscent of the wonderful series of books about Ender the Xenocide by Orson Scott Card. It’s another one of those where the concept is pretty damn cool even if the story doesn’t quite live up to the potential. And to top it all off you get to see Doogie Howser playing a psychic colonel with no moral compass. Make no mistake, I would never force or even suggest that any of my friends actually watch this movie, but if I’m at home and it comes on cable, I know what I’m doing for the next hour and a half.

So what are some of your guilty pleasure movies?

Yes, Those are His Real Numbers

2006-03-23T06:26:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.minimumsecurity.net/

Rock on Raskin, Rock On.

2006-03-15T10:20:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

In Case You're Wondering How I Feel About South Dakota These Days...

2006-03-15T07:24:00.000-08:00

Written by Mike of The Infinite Cat Project:

If you believe in the 100% sanctity of life then I want to see your evangelical ass raising holy hell in front of the Children's Hospital the next time a pair of conjoined twins go under the knife...especially when one is doomed to die as a result of the operation.

Hard choice? You're damned right it is.

If you believe in God's perfect plan for all of us, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses, then protest maniacally the next time some poor bastard thinks the 30-pound cyst riding next to his liver ought to be excised surgically.

Can some of those of a religious nature be too blinded by their own imagined divinity to miss the forest for the trees? You're damned right they do.

If you really think that every person deserves the right to live a full meaningful existence then quit supporting wars fought for the benefit of weapons manufacturers and oil companies. Think of all the retroactive abortions you can prevent just by setting your thermostat to 60 degrees. It's a start.

An 8-week-old blastocyst isn't much different from that little white globby thing attached to an egg yolk, yet you'll happily gobble them Grade A suckers up by the dozen. The only difference is sometimes that little glob of goo grows up to be a South Dakotan senator who thinks he speaks for all eggs. Just not this one.

Bon appetit', America.

The Attack on Choice

2006-03-02T13:09:00.000-08:00

For anyone living in South Dakota, Mississippi, Missouri, or any other backwater, bible-thumping, dark aged states, please pass this around to everyone you know:

Herbal Abortions - most of the herbs needed should be available at natural food stores.

How to use Regular Birth Control Pills as Emergency Contraception - including the amounts of hormones necessary.

Since certain states think that these women are nothing but breeding machines, let's try to educate them, and give them back the control that the government is trying to take away!

Black Tuesday

2006-02-14T10:10:00.000-08:00

I know you’ll be shocked… shocked I say! … but I’m not a big fan of Valentine’s Day. Oh sure, on the surface it looks like a good thing. Not only is it supposed to a time for love and romance, but it’s the one time of year when guys are actually rewarded for dressing their women like cheap French harlots. From my experience most guys simply don’t give a shit anyway, but figure if they play their cards right, buy enough shiny trinkets and act as if they’re not actually thoughtless testosterone factories, maybe they’ll get a little something special. Hell, if he gets her drunk enough, maybe he can even ask for anal.

I am once again single on Valentine’s Day, and let me tell you I’m grateful for it. I think males really get the short end of the stick when it comes to this Hallmark holiday. Think about it: just because the calendar says it’s a “special” day, we’re expected to do something nice, thoughtful and romantic for our significant other.

Personally, I have always been the type to instinctively rebel if you tell me I have to do something. Is it really romantic if the only reason you’re getting the flowers and candy is because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t? Wouldn’t it be more thoughtful if you got the little gifts and roses on say April 7th or June 16th, when it is truly a surprise and done out of caring and desire and not fear of reprisals?

Besides, flowers and candy are just tacky. There’s absolutely no imagination involved. So let’s say that somehow you do manage to think of something truly special and unique to celebrate Valentine’s… that just means that you’re screwed next year. You can’t now rely on the fallback of flowers and candy, because that is so much less effort than before, and it shows you don’t care anymore. You actually have to find something even more special and more romantic than the previous year. Otherwise it will fall short by comparison, which of course once again shows you don’t care anymore. It’s a lose-lose situation my friends.

Just so there aren’t any misunderstandings, I am not a misogynist. Nor am I a bitter old hermit. Well, I’m not bitter anyway. When I’m actually in a relationship, I sincerely try to go out of my way to let my girlfriend know that she is special, and loved, and desired, and needed. But I do so whenever it occurs to me; when it’s random and heartfelt. I don’t do it because the calendar says February 14th. That’s just bogus. Obviously you weren’t paying attention to all the cheesy xmas movies that are on television every year. The whole idea apparently is to hold on the feeling for the entire year, and not celebrate peace on earth and goodwill towards men only for the last week of December. The same should be true of the people you love. Tell them how you feel often and loudly. Don’t wait for an arbitrary date when you’re “supposed” to do it. Where’s the love in that?

Groundhog Day

2006-01-31T07:34:00.000-08:00

This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fall on
the same day.

As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, and the other involves a groundhog."

Rollin' Rollin' Rollin', Keep Them Geniuses Rollin'

2006-01-20T13:59:00.000-08:00

So the other night I was lying in bed thinking of Stephen Hawking. Not like that ya perv. I haven't suddenly developed a homosexual wheelchair fetish. I was watching one of the Futurama DVD box sets for the umpteenth time, and there's an episode where Professor Hawking is a member of Al Gore's "Vice Presidential Action Rangers", who's job it is to protect the space-time continuum (and cast they tie breaking vote in the Senate). Anyway, I was impressed yet again with the fact that Hawking would appear on Futurama (he also guest starred in an episode of The Simpsons, could he be any cooler?), especially in such a self-effacing role.

I know I generally only post here when I'm pissed about something or someone, but thought it might be nice for once to write something positive. Here you have a man who is considered to be one of the smartest people... you know... ever... yet takes the time to appear in tongue-in-cheek roles on animated t.v. shows. This is a man who wrote a book to explain things like time and the nature of the freaking universe to us lowly monkeys, who spends his time on the daunting task of trying to unravel the nature of existence, yet even with such heady pursuits and having a terrible disability, he still has an incredbile sense of humor. Not only about the world, but about himself in particular. In this day and age, heroes are pretty damn few and far between, but I can say in all honesty that Stephen Hawking deserves that title more than most. Get down with your badass wheelchair ridden self, Professor. And thank you.

...

2006-01-18T07:42:00.000-08:00

Why is it that billions of Iraq rebuilding funds have disappeared without a trace? Billions worth of no-bid contracts were given to Haliburton, yet they have no records of how they spent it and where the money went. While the Justice Department is working on a criminal fraud suit against Haliburton, what has the Pentagon decided to do?

Give Haliburton more money, of course.

Some Humor for the New Year

2006-01-03T17:02:00.000-08:00

One night, George W. Bush is tossing restlessly in his White House bed. He awakens to see George Washington standing by him. Bush asks him, "George, what's the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did," Washington advises, and then fades away.
The next night, Bush is astir again, and sees the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moving through the darkened bedroom. Bush calls out, "Tom, please! What is the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Respect the Constitution, as I did " Jefferson advises, and dims from sight.
The third night sleep is still not in the cards for Bush. He awakens to see the ghost of FDR hovering over his bed. Bush whispers, "Franklin, What is the best thing! I can do to help the country?" "Help the less fortunate, just as I did," FDR replies and fades into the mist.
Bush isn't sleeping well the fourth night when he sees another figure moving in the shadows. It is the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. Bush pleads, "Abe, what is the best thing I can do right now to help the country?" Lincoln replies, "Go see a play."

10 Things to Ponder for '06

2005-12-20T08:42:00.000-08:00

Number 10 - Life is sexually transmitted.

Number 9 - Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Number 8 - Men have two emotions: Hungry and Horny. If you see him without an erection, make him a sandwich!

Number 7 - Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.

Number 6 - Some people are like a Slinky... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

Number 5 - Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.

Number 4 - All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.

Number 3 - Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars and a substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents?

Number 2 - In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

AND THE NUMBER 1 THOUGHT FOR 2006:

Number 1 - We know exactly where one cow with mad-cow-disease is located among the millions and millions of cows in America but we haven't got a clue as to where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are located. Maybe we should put the Department of Agriculture in charge of immigration!

Christ's Nuts Roasting on an Open Pyre?

2005-12-12T09:02:00.000-08:00

I wanted to briefly weigh in on the supposed "War Against Christmas" that the Right has been blathering about for the last couple of weeks. Just when I think that those who claim to be Christians in this country couldn't get any more arrogant (remember, these are the folks who call their god "The One True God") they go right ahead and prove me wrong. They're pissed off about everything from the White House sending out "holiday" cards instead of "Christmas" cards, they're pissed off if a city, town or municipality calls it a "holiday tree" instead of "Christmas tree", and they're even threatening to boycott stores who's employees wish their customers "happy holidays". They've even started one of those annoying bracelet campaigns, calling it "Operation Just Say Merry Christmas". I'm sorry Christians, but really, you need to grow up and get the fuck over yourselves.

How dare a secular institution like a public school or a place of business have the balls to include others in their holiday wishes? I mean, if there was one thing Jesus stood for, it was excluding those who are different and browbeating everyone into believing the exact same things, right? Who cares that America is supposed to be a cultural melting pot, and that there are other holidays in December like Chanuka, Kwanzaa, the Winter Solstice, and depending on the Muslim calendar, even Ramadan. Fuck those people. If they didn't want to toe the line and worship the same Invisible Father Figure in the Sky as Christians, then they shouldn't have moved here, right?

That's what I really don't get about these people. You always hear about Christian love, Christian charity, and the like. Yet these people use the banner of Christ to do their very best to specifically exclude anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. Don't you asshats realize that "Happy Holidays" means Christians too? A poor clerk working retail during December has enough hectic bullshit to worry about without having to add your self-righteous semantics about the greeting they give you. Believe me, I know. I worked retail for 9 years and after the 23rd nervous breakdown I finally had to get out. When a customer comes into Target (one of the companies threatened with boycott), the minimum wage cashier doesn't automatically know your religion. They don't know if you're a Jew or a Christian or whatnot. So they wish you a friendly "Happy Holidays", which covers all the bases, and you get pissed at them for it?

The number one argument I hear on this subject is that 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, and that justifies their anger. Well I hate to break it to you Jebus freaks, but I celebrate Christmas and want abso-fucking-lutely nothing do with you or your religion. To me xmas (which I prefer to use, so I don't have to keep typing your imaginary friend's last name into my holiday) means family, friends, food, togetherness, gift-giving, and an overall attempt to be kind and generous to my fellow man. That's it. I don't need to add anything else into it to make myself feel better, and I certainly don't need to exclude people who think differently to make myself feel superior. Most of my family are Christians of one sort or another. Two Christmases ago I had to sit through a bible reading by one of my uncles, even though I think it is utter bullshit. I didn't get up and storm out. I didn't boycott my grandma's house. Yet Christians want us to think that they're being persecuted, that there's a "war" on Christmas, and that somehow "happy holidays" is offensive to them. But "Merry Christmas" to someone who doesn't believe in Christ is totally acceptable. The brilliant Wonkette had this to say:

The truth is, anytime someone starts talking to you about how Christians are persecuted in the United States, you are -- right then and right there -- talking to a retard.

So get over it Christians. When you're doing your Jesusmas shopping this Jesusday season, and you've had to circle parking lot for 2 hours in your Jesusmobile just to find a parking spot, don't bite off the head of the employee who wishes you Happy Holidays. Be grateful that you're being included, and that someone wants you to have Merry Jesusmas even if they don't say it on those exact words. Maybe if you tried to act a little more like your holy man rather than reacting in knee-jerk fashion to every perceived slight, we'd all be a little merrier this December. I'd like to leave you now with the words of Mr. Garrison from South Park, who sums up the attitudes of these wacky Christians best in the lyrics to the following song:

MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS

Pictures worth... well... you know the rest.

2005-11-29T10:56:00.000-08:00

What's the Sound of a Small Mind Snapping?

2005-11-15T23:23:00.000-08:00

If it keeps on raining, the levee's going to have a psychotic break, and maybe go postal in the oval office. Word is that Shrub is really starting to lose it. I mean, more so.

This entertaining example is from Capitol Hill Blue:

Bush, however, has dug his heels in on Rove.
When a GOP strategist suggested last weekend that the President fire Rove, Bush exploded.

"You go to hell," he screamed at the strategist. "You can leave and you can take the rest of these lily-livered motherfuckers with you!" The President then stormed out of the room and refused to meet further with any other party leaders or strategists.

Bush's escalating temper tantrums and his intransigence on political issues increase Republican worries about the long term effects on both his presidency and the party's prospects in upcoming elections.

Like the child who proclaimed that the emperor had no clothes, the American public and even the GOP seem to finally realize that our own emperor has no fucking clue. Or any ethics. Wasn't this the guy was going to "bring integrity back to the oval office"? Instead he brings petulance, arrogance, and the rank scent of spiraling madness. And wonder of wonders, people are finally starting to notice!

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two crucial pillars of President Bush's public support — perceptions of his honesty and faith in his ability to fight terrorism — have slipped to their lowest point in the AP-Ipsos poll.
[snip]
Almost six in 10 now say Bush is not honest, and a similar number say his administration does not have high ethical standards.

Good times, people. Good times.

One Down, An Administration To Go

2005-10-28T10:32:00.000-07:00

From CNN.com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, resigned on Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on charges related to the CIA leak investigation.

Ding Dong, the Dangerously Unqualified Crony is Dead!

2005-10-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

Okay, so she's not actually dead, but her nomination is. Harriet Miers has withdrawn her supreme court nomination, and Shrub has "reluctantly" accepted the withdrawal.

The White House said Miers had to withdraw over concerns that senators wanted documents of privileged discussions between the president and his top lawyer.
[...]

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said in the statement.

Kinda makes you wonder what the White House was afraid would get out, doesn't it? I'm choosing to see this as a positive sign, although of course that means that Shrub still has a nomination to pull out of his ass. Since he seems to only know about 20 people total, I'm guessing his next nomination will be the court clerk who managed to hide Bush's DUI for so many years, or maybe someone from the White House cleaning staff. Either way, it's a happy day for progressives, and as Twiggy said to me this morning in instant message: "My reproductive rights live to fight another day". Huzzah!

Attachment Parenting

2005-10-26T08:37:00.000-07:00

Let me give a caveat here and say that, yes… I’ve read about some forms of this “Attachment parenting” that actually work. Anything in moderation is better than nothing, however, the variety I am about to talk about are obviously those who not only carry it too far, but take a flying leap away from too far and land somewhere in the vicinity of fucking insane.

Apparently, this is all the rage now with the trendy types. From what I understand, it largely involves co-sleeping, breastfeeding (nothing wrong with that normally, but I’ll get to the way they do it), unschooling (gods, I wish that was a typo), some bizarre other things, and generally leaving your child as emotionally fit as three year old. Classy. Let me go point by point here.

Co-Sleeping

This isn’t necessarily mind blowing—I understand sharing a bed with a newborn to keep it calm and warm and suchlike (and by understand I mean, see the logic in it). However, since this is Ebolaville, you must realize that I wouldn’t be making this post if there was any logic in what these people do. These types do this co-sleeping business well past the newborn years. Some of them keep the children in the bed with them up until they are seven or eight years old. I understand a child having a nightmare and wanting the comfort of sleeping with Mommy every now and again. Hell, I had the nightmare where the devil was climbing up a ladder into my brain more times that I can recall growing up, which sent me straight for Mom and Dad’s room, but I had my own bed and preferred sleeping in it. Maybe I am just missing something, but I see no way that co-sleeping with Mommy every night is healthy for a child. What I can see is how this will emotionally stunt the child’s growth by not setting what I would call ‘growth boundaries,’ not to mention the negative effect this would have on the parents (and here I am assuming that both are still in the picture). Then again, those who subscribe to this philosophy usually don’t care much about their husbands aside from their precious “baby batter” (their term, not mine… it burns the brain) and wallets.

Breastfeeding

By no means do I want to get into the age old breast milk versus formula war here (personally, I like to view my tits as funbags rather than milkbars, but that is neither here nor there), but these types think that formula feeding a baby is a crime against nature itself. Lordy, I saw an icon from one of these attachment parents that had a picture of Mary holding the Baby J with W(hat) W(ould) J(esus) D(rink) down the side. The religious nutjobs strike again. Ready for the kicker on this one? They breastfeed their kids until they are five or six years old. I read one account a forum of theirs where the mother was birthing a new child while her seven year old was sucking her tit for milk. Christ on a crutch people… the health effects of breast milk only last so long. Here is a good little tip: if the kid can ask for the breast, maybe it is time to look into solid foods. Or maybe it is something else… maybe these psychos actually get off on this. Another forum-ite was talking about how her four year old flicked her nipple with his tongue while feeding and about how erotic it felt. Jeebus McSweeny, it’s your damn toddler woman! Get your damn husband to suck your tits if that’s what you really want or is he too busy diddling the secretary because of this psycho-attraction to your child? Much like the co-sleeping, I see zero benefits to long term breast feeding. Again, what I do see are serious long term sexual and emotional issues developing.

Unschooling

I will say it again—I wish to gods that was a typo, sadly though… it isn’t. This is a new bright idea come up with by these “geniuses” who cannot stand having their child off their tit for more than a microsecond. Unschooling is a completely informal system of “education” where the “parents” teach the kids what the kids decide they want to learn. Still with me, or has your head exploded yet? This is not homeschooling. There are no state mandated syllabi or target goals. There is no degree to be had from unschooling for twelve years. The parents who do this keep little Jaiydien (or whatever the trendy name with too many vowels is at the time) at home and let them read what they want (if they want to read) and learn about what interests them. This would be a great growing experience for a child, if properly directed (and supplemented with real education). Sadly though, most of these kids are unable to see past Momma’s floppy milkbag and have zero interest in anything (they are also largely the spastic, wailing crotch monkeys that careen into your shopping cart in the grocery store due to lack of discipline). Speaking of lack of discipline… I think that this is a side effect of this unschooling nonsense. These kids have no boundaries and are allowed to freely “express themselves” without ever being reprimanded or taught proper social boundaries and respect.

Let me go further into this with two personal experiences. This first one happened in Target about a year ago. I strolled through the store, collected the necessary cleaning supplies, underwear, new DVDs, and whatnot then made my way up to the checkout. It should be said that I had a pretty badly fucked up ankle then, and it was bandaged up so I could hobble around. Well, my poor ankle and I were standing in the checkout line when a cart slams me in the back and ankles. I assume it to be an accident until it happens again. I growl and turn only to look into the vacant stare of a mother with child in tow, said child being the one who found it amusing to ram me with the cart. I asked her, rather politely considering the pain I was in, if she would rein in her yard-ape (no, I did not word it that rudely). She looked at me like I had grown a second head, kicked a puppy, and threatened to string up her hyperactive brat by the toes.

“How dare you tell me how to parent my child! He is just being a kid!”

“That may be the case, ma’am, but he just rammed me in the back and ankles with your cart. Twice.”

“You’re just being mean! You don’t understand!”

At this point, I gave up intelligent reasoning with this vacuous ninny and turned back to face the register. I glance off to the side and notice that Sproggy McCartpusher has toddled away from his oh-so intelligent mother figure and is sucking on a pack of Rolo candies like a damn pacifier. Mommy eventually finds him and drags him back to the cart. Does she reprimand the little shitbag for sucking on the candy and purchase said candy? Oh no… she giggles at how cute her precious little angel is, takes the candy from him, and puts it back on the rack (baby drool and all). Marvelous job raising the next generation there.

The second tale of woe comes from a visit to the grocery store. It was late, and I had been on campus all day (probably a Monday last semester, when I got to campus at 730am and left at 9pm). I was exhausted and stumbling through the grocery store to find some grub. While debating over the merits of cooking bbq chicken or chili for dinner, someone grabs my ass. “What the blue bloody fuck is this?” I think while turning preparing to slap the bastard, only… there is no bastard within direct eye sight to slap. I glance down into the drool and crumb encrusted face of a small child who just grins, giggles, and runs back to his mother further down the aisle who has witnessed this whole spectacle and is, I shit you not, laughing. This child was easily older than age seven, an age where I feel that personal boundaries should be well established. I walked over to the lady and asked her if she was happy raising a future sex offender. She turned bright red and was likely preparing to spout off some more of the ‘just a child’ rhetoric at me until I cut her off: “Your child grabbed my ass and is lucky I didn’t slap him into next week. I suggest you teach him some boundaries before he runs into someone with less self control than myself.” She spluttered and stammered for a bit, so I just wheeled my cart around muttering something obscene no doubt and headed for the checkout with my meager cart of groceries. For those wondering, I went to Taco Bell for dinner that night

Bizarre Other Behaviour

As though the co-sleeping, breast feeding, and unschooling weren’t bad enough, a large portion of these attachment types are anti-immunization. Aha! Their first good idea, at least from my point of view—after all, it will weed out the sickly and stupid from the herd (a girl can dream, can’t she?). These types think that the government puts mind control agents into the vaccines required for most children. Now, not only does this jeopardize their kids health, it also sets them up for a really dim future. Think about it… combine this unschooling nonsense with no degree with a lack of immunizations and there isn’t a higher learning center in the country who will take them in. I recall not so long ago (six years) when I was heading off to college for the first time, the school I was set to head to mailed back a list of about three vaccinations I needed to update before I was allowed in. God only knows what will happen to the poor creatures raised by these hovering momzillas.

This kind of shit honestly makes me want to weep for the next generation while at the same time taking a rusty spork of sterilization to these idiots. Congratulations, you are raising a generation of children who will never be able to function on their own. I certainly hope you enjoy supporting your thirty year old while s/he lives in your basement simply because you couldn’t cut the umbilical cord.

Damn I need a drink.

The Hummer That Broke the World

2005-10-25T13:04:00.000-07:00

There's an article out of Springfield, Missouri talking about a recent study that said that "more than 50 percent of American 16- to 19-year-olds have had oral sex. A group interview with several teens revealed that this behavior is considered less intimate than sexual intercourse, that it doesn't really equal having sex and that it doesn't require protection from STDs." Fine, no problem so far. I've read about this study in several different places, and while it's frightening if true that adolescents think blowjobs can't give them STDs, a little education beyond "abstinence only" should clear that up quicker than a shot of penicillin. But here's where it gets wonky: guess who they blame for this shocking, I say SHOCKING lapse of morals? Yep, the conservative's favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton. I shit you not.

In 1998, these teens were children watching nightly TV news reports of our president's impeachment. Just as we adults did, over and over they heard him defend himself with: "It depends on what you mean by 'having sex.'" They also saw the rise to near-stardom of the young intern complicit in the Oval Office misbehavior.

Let's say you're 15 in good old 2005. That means in 1998 you were around 8. Now I don't know about you, but I know that when I was 8 nothing gave me more pleasure than sitting around with the folks watching the nightly news. And if it was political news? Well then my prepubescent boner knew no bounds! Screw playing video games, some guy with white hair was in trouble for doing something icky with a girl! (And according to Bart Simpson, girl's butts are where cooties COME from!) And near-stardom? Puh-lease. What she became was the punchline to a myriad of jokes that I'd bet my left nut no 8 years olds would understand anyway. Please Susan Hom, show me a child who actually enjoys sitting around with his parents watching the nightly news, and I'll show you a sneaky midget with a diaper fetish.

STOP THE MADNESS!

2005-10-24T21:02:00.000-07:00

PETSMART, which is actually a great chain, is holding their second annual Howl-O-Ween costume contest. What this means is that "pet parents" (wow, I actually gagged a little bit while I typed that) dress up their respective animal companions in adorable (read as: masochistic) little costumes and take pictures to send in to the website.

Let's make no bones about it folks, this is a form of animal abuse.

Look, I'm a bona fide dog person. I love my doggie Rookie like you wouldn't believe. I'm not above a little baby talk if there's no one in earshot. I allow myself to labor under the delusion that he actually understands more than a few simple commands when I speak to him. But I recognize the delusion for what it is, and at the end of the day I accept the fact that he is and always shall be nothing more than an animal. Loyal, trustworthy, affectionate... all words I would use to describe my dog. But let's face facts: dogs are pack animals. I'm the alpha male, the leader of his pack, I control the food supply, I take him outside when he needs to do his business, and I scratch his belly when he presents it. But he doesn't stay with me because he chooses to, because of my sparkling personality and rapier wit. And do you know why not? Because he can't. BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING DOG.

Quit treating your pets like they're fuzzy little foreign children who just haven't picked up the language yet. I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, but your dog DOES NOT LIKE wearing the costume. "Oh, he likes it! He wore it all day!" Yeah, because the poor bastard doesn't have any opposable thumbs to assist in removing the travesty you've wrapped around him. He doesn't have the power of speech or he'd be telling you to "get this crap off of me before the neighbor dog sees me or I'll never live this down". Listen, if you really have the overwhelming need as an adult to play Barbie dress-up with something small and furry, get yourself knocked up by a hirsute Italian man (the vast majority of these pet parents are women; let's face it, most men can barely dress themselves). Personally I think that's just as cruel, but at least the child will eventually be able to take off the ridiculous outfits on his or her own, or even tell you to pound sand when you hold up the precious little sailor suit that Aunt Mildred sent for Christmas. Not so with these poor abused animals.

You know how I know they don't like wearing costumes? I mean besides the fact that most of them them jitter and squirm like an Iraqi in Gitmo with his genitals hooked up to a car battery? Because if they really, truly enjoyed dressing up in costumes, they'd do it in the wild. Until I see a Discovery Channel special on rival gangs of wolves killing each other over their shoes and leather jackets I'm going to assume that animals prefer to be animals.

Keep in mind that when you dress up little Bobo as a pirate or a cowboy, you have surrendered not only your own dignity but also that of your pet. And he really didn't have a choice in the matter.

A Light at the End?

2005-10-02T21:36:00.000-07:00

You can't lie to, cheat, and steal from all the people all the time. Well if you're the Republicans, you can, but eventually it's going to catch up with you. At least that's the feeling that I get when I read this great article from Newsweek.com:

Indeed, polltaker Frank Luntz, who helped develop the "Contract With America" message that swept Republicans to power in 1994, was on the Hill last week warning the party faithful that they could lose both the House and the Senate in next year's congressional elections.

No, I'm not yet riverdancing on the grave of the repuglican party, but I'm at least limbering up. I'm cautiously optimistic that at least some of these criminals are going to be called on their bullshit. Maybe America is finally waking up? Only time will tell.

To Every Indictment, Spin Spin Spin

2005-09-28T22:16:00.000-07:00

One thing you have to give Republicans credit for is their outstanding ability at spin. As I mentioned a couple of days ago, a grand jury has returned an indictment against house majority leader Tom DeLiar... I mean DeLay, for conspiring to violate political fundraising laws. The guy has already been under been under investigation by the House Ethics Committe three times recently. What's that old adage about "where there's smoke"? Still, according to DeLay's spokesman Kevin "Pinocchio" Madden, who took a break from sucking the GOP's wart-ridden cock long enough to release a statement, this is nothing more than a Democrat misusing his office in order to take partisan revenge on poor innocent Mr. DeLay.

He mentioned two other other instances (once in the 80's and once in the 90's) where prosecutor Ronnie Earle brought charges against Republican politicians and was unsuccessful. This he holds up as proof that Earle is nothing more than a sour grapes Dem using his office to push a personal agenda.

Tellingly Madden forgets to mention that in his 27 years with the Public Integrity Unit he has prosecuted 15 elected officials, 12 of whom where Democrats.

EARLE HAS PROSECUTED FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS: “Over Earle’s 27-year tenure, his Public Integrity Unit has prosecuted 15 elected officials, including 12 Democrats.”

It also turns out that he has something of a reputation as a goody-goody Boy Scout type, whereas Mr. DeLay has a somewhat different public mien. Read the whole thing over at Think Progress, and the next time you hear a Republican defending DeLay or badmouthing Earle, ask them why their nose is growing and if they wouldn't mind closing their mouth, as the rank stench of bullshit is overwhelming.

Slow and Steady Wins the Race

2005-09-27T20:33:00.000-07:00

First off, let me apologize to the 3 people who actually read this blog for my recent lack of posts. I have been ill and unable to sit in my computer chair (henceforth known as the Torturous Seat of Doom) and doped up on painkillers besides. Not exactly conducive to essay writing. And there’s been a ton going on out in the larger world… you know, beyond my keyboard.

3 days ago there was an anti-war demonstration in DC that was 100,000 strong. Even though the stumbling demented child king that is our President wasn’t there, the large turnout gives me hope that this country is finally starting to wake up. I am also pleased that only a "few hundred" people showed up to support Bush. Smirky Q. Fuckup was "monitoring" the hurricane Rita situation from Colorado. Wonder what costume he was playing dress up in?

Ol' Brownie spent six hours blaming FEMA's feeble response after Katrina on the Democratic leadership of New Orleans with absolutely no mention of his own magnificent incompetence. I guess he didn't see how the media bent over and begged to be reamed again after Bush sorta kinda in a roundabout way took responsiblity for the clusterfuck... as much as the federal government was responsible anyway. The fact that the arrogant fuckwad who couldn't think of even one mistake he'd ever made offered up this meaningless nerfed mea culpa shocked the media stupid. Or more so than usual.

Speaking of stupid, those Intelligent Design asshats are once again getting press, this time because a school board in Pennsylvania is trying to defend the teaching of this "theory" in public schools. They don't see this as a problem, and just love to imply that there's a fierce debate among scientists as to the veracity of evolution. News flash... there isn't. ID proponents know they don't have one minimal scrap of proof for their theory, so instead do their damndest to poke holes in evolution and then consider this "debate". In another school district in PA (what the hell is in the water there?) it is now a law that science teachers must discuss the inspirational poem "Footprints in the Sand". Let me repeat that... science teachers are being told they must discuss an inspirational poem. As if our country wasn't dumb enough. Rational, reasoning thought was unavailable for comment, as it was curled into a fetal ball and screaming in pain. I found it amusing that while these wastes of sperm are busily trying to theocratize our country, a recent study is saying that "religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide".

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it now: if there's anything in this country that needs to be regulated, if not banned outright, it is religion.

And lastly, one of the plethora of criminals in the Bush camp has got his nuts in a ringer. Tom Delay, a blight on society if there ever was one, has been indicted. Of course, even though he's been warned by the House Ethics committee 3 times already in the recent past, this is nothing more than the Democrats being their sneaky snarky selves, and wasting honest Texas Repuglican's tax money.

DeLay has denied committing any crime and accused the Democratic district attorney leading the investigation, Ronnie Earle, of pursuing the case for political motives.
[...]
DeLay, 58, also is the center of an ethics swirl in Washington. The 11-term congressman was admonished last year by the House ethics committee on three separate issues and is the center of a political storm this year over lobbyists paying his and other lawmakers' tabs for expensive travel abroad.

I can't remember the last time I have so fervently wished for someone to be sent to the proverbial "pound me in the ass" prison. Keep your fingers crossed.

Marital Rape Laws and Their Evolution

2005-09-24T08:01:00.000-07:00

As requested by Joe in this post, I am finally posting the research paper I wrote about the Marital Rape Laws (or lack thereof) in most states.

In the criminal justice system, rape has always been considered a crime. Recently, laws involving marital rape have started to surface and evolve. The current laws in place exist with a higher frequency than in previous years. How have these particular laws evolved since their introduction, what are the causes of this evolution, and has their introduction led to stricter enforcement?

Presently in the United States, the rape of a spouse is a punishable crime in every state due to stricter sexual offense codes passed in 1993. However, even though marital rape has been criminalized, there are still at least thirty-three states that grant exemptions to the perpetrators of marital rape in certain cases. This reluctance to prosecute offenders could be linked to the history of marital rape laws within the criminal justice system and within society itself. As far back as the nineteenth century, issues of marital rape were addressed by legislators of the time. Chief Justice Hale of England was reported as writing, “[t]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot retract” (Russell 17). This early view of the nonexistence of marital rape was largely based on other marriage laws at the time which legally stated that wives were to be subordinate to their husbands. The idea of subordination of wife to her husband resulted in the first organized women’s movement which met and campaigned in Seneca in 1848. Primarily, they sought for equal status to men in society, however feminists of the time stated that “a woman’s right to self-possession [was] the foundation of her equality” (Hasday 1). The views and ideals sought by the women of this time established a foundation for the beginning of the reformation of marital rape laws, even if it would take almost one hundred and forty years for the definitions to begin to change.

Hale’s view of the impossibility of marital rape was carried into the United States and is easily seen in their initial formation of rape laws where the traditional legal definition of rape is stated as “sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her consent” (Barshis 383). Laws and statements such as these diminished any claims a woman sought to make if raped by her husband; she was his property according to the law, thereby giving him rights which overrode her own. This idea was first challenged with the beginning of the various women’s and feminist movements of the seventies. To these movements, the idea that being married excluded a woman from being raped was ludicrous. They argued that the exemption of husbands in the case of spousal rape failed to grant equal protection to all women from being raped. With women’s rights being brought to the forefront of the political scene in the seventies, the lack of protection of women with regard to marital rape was finally brought to light. While no major changes were immediately made to the previously standing definitions of rape at the time, continued movements in favor of women’s rights have led to the passage of the current marital rape laws held today.

Throughout the nineteen seventies, as the feminist and women’s movements advanced, several things occurred to further the move of marital rape into an acknowledged form of rape. The first of these was the increasing independence of women at home and in the work place. As many more women became financially secure through their own means, they began to separate from the norm of settling down with a husband simply to be a housewife. This time period also saw a spike in the divorce rate as many women finally felt capable of leaving their husbands to support themselves. The sudden increase in the divorce rate combined with the decline in the economic authority of men led to an undermining of the principle of marital unity (Ryan 956). With rising economic self sufficiency and less reliance on marriage, feminists began to see the country’s rape laws as serving only in the interests males. According to the feminists, the rape laws of the time favored the protection of a male’s sexual right to have female property as opposed to protecting women and their sexual integrity (957). With the increasing independence of women, both in the job market and in societal life, women’s rights groups began calling for an end to the marital rape exemption.

Various methods were used in revising older marital rape laws to bring them up to current standards and attempt to do away with the exemption. Some states simply removed the clause relating to the exemption, while others changed older laws which had made marital rape a lesser crime (if even a crime at all) than rape. In Pennsylvania, one law that made marital rape a lower level offense than spousal rape was repealed and removed any language that suggests the relationship between the victim and the offender was relevant. North Carolina and Washington DC both “amended their laws to specify that marriage [was] not a defense to certain crimes” (NCVC 1). Other states have taken steps to separate marital rape from rape, providing separate definitions and penalties for each. For example, in West Virginia marital rape is defined as sexual penetration or sexual intrusion without consent of the perpetrator's spouse whereupon the perpetrator must use forcible compulsion or a deadly weapon or inflict serious bodily injury upon anyone (1). This law specifically states the qualifications which must be met for a marital rape to occur, however, the penalties for rape and marital rape to occur differ. Both are felonies, but marital rape incurs a two to ten year term of imprisonment while rape carries a heavier ten to thirty-five year term. Differing penalties can also be seen in the California rape laws where “a person who commits non-spousal rape by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury may not be sentenced to probation or suspended sentence” (1). Currently, only seven states classify marital rape separately from rape, yet even in doing this, the lighter sentencing shows that they still fall back on antiquated views of marital rape somehow being less severe than rape.

Though all states currently have marital rape laws in place, many still have not revised exemptions which provide for the lack of accountability on the part of the husband. Many of these exemptions allow the husband to avoid prosecution even if he forcibly rapes his spouse while she is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, or even asleep. This exemption gives rise to another problem with marital rape laws: even though they have been implemented, are they enforced? In many cases, victims of marital rape are often treated with an air of dismissal by authorities when reporting the crimes against them. A series of interviews conducted by Bergen found that police officers in some cases will not allow the victim to file a complaint against her husband and in some cases will refuse to collect medical evidence. This lack of enforcement by police officers has roots in the societal notion pre-nineteen seventy that there was no way a wife could be raped by her husband. Some existing precincts have taken steps to offer programs which seek to train officers about the realities of marital rape and how to properly question victims. While these measures may help increase police understanding of the existence of marital rape, they do not assure an increase in enforcement. Many police officers hold long-standing sexist or religious beliefs that wives cannot be raped by their husbands and no amount of training or programs can get past these.

Lack of enforcement from police officers is one problem when dealing with marital rape laws, but what about obstacles faced from legislators? While attempting to revise marital rape laws in Maine, one legislator remarked, “Any woman who claims she has been raped by her spouse has not been properly bedded” (1). Attitudes such as this at the level of law making slow the enforcement of new implemented marital rape laws further down into the criminal justice system. If the person at the top of the chain holds to the idea of a woman being unable to refuse her husband, then why are the members of law enforcement under this legislator going to attempt to enforce a law which is passed off more as a joke than something serious. Even with laws in place, if those who implement them lack a strong belief in their enforcement, then the laws truly are ineffective at prosecuting those who commit marital rape.

Another problem faced by law enforcement in understanding marital rape is that making and enforcing relevant laws and policies becomes increasingly difficult because marital rape shares no causal factors in common with domestic violence (Frerichs 2708). Domestic violence is often believed to be a precursor to marital rape, but some cases of marital rape show incidence of previous domestic violence, while others do not. This makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to find patterns between cases of marital rape and establish a behavior pattern based on offenders. Without a definable pattern of behavior or a common thread between victims and perpetrators, it becomes increasingly difficult for law enforcement officials to determine who the victims are likely to be. It also creates problems when attempting to predict who is likely to offend based simply on a history of domestic abuse. The lack of previous domestic violence can also lead to bias when an accusation of marital rape occurs. A study conducted by Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling found that in cases of reported marital rape where a given history of physical abuse did not exist, participants in the study were more likely to place blame on the victim or minimize the seriousness and severity of the rape (Langhinrichsen-Rohling 945). If this is the attitude facing marital rape victims, is it possible for the criminal justice system to implement unbiased enforcement of marital rape laws?

The sociological implications of the enforcement or non-enforcement of marital rape laws is vast. By granting women the ability to refuse sexual advances from their husbands, it gives women a small degree of power. While being able to report spousal rape may not seem to hold any importance to a society, it actually grants women standing within a marriage as equal and willing participants: something the women’s groups struggled to earn for years. The implementing of stricter marital rape laws also erodes the hold of some extreme conservative views which have been in place since the founding of the country. When these laws are enforced with a degree of regularity, they show a society that a woman has a higher standing in a marriage than in previous decades: she is no longer property; she has marital rights as well. The trends of non-enforcement of these laws hold different sociological implications. By ignoring victims who report marital rape, law-enforcement officials are stepping backwards to the more traditional views handed down through this country. Refusing to prosecute or follow through with charges only serves to make the man feel justified in his actions, knowing that he can get away with marital rape with little or no fear of reaction from law-enforcement officials. Marital rape, in its current form within the written law system has added to and expanded the rights a woman holds within a marriage. Within the acting arm of the law, enforcement of existing rape laws is selective at best. For the most effective stance to be taken against marital rape, programs need to be implemented within law enforcement to effectively investigate and prosecute reports of marital rape. Written laws without a physical body to back them up offer nothing to victims who may need to use them.

Presently, America is drifting back into a more conservative stance. It is possible that this shift could result in an erosion of the progress made with regards to marital rape legislation. Much of the progress made to improve upon older laws was made in the seventies when women’s rights were a top issue, yet current government has taken a more regressive stance in its views on women (with particular regard to their sex lives and procreative abilities). If such a regressive stance against women continues it is possible that marital rape laws could slowly lose what standing they have gained as fewer and fewer law enforcement officials are pressured to take action.

Marital rape laws presently exist in a variety of forms. Some of these forms are strict and leave little to no room for exemption to the offender, while others still have exemptions which hold the potential to allow women to be victimized by their own husbands. The laws that are in place today are largely a result of nearly two hundred years worth of feminist and women’s movements pressuring government to make changes to allow a woman to be more than property to her husband. Though they have been implemented nationwide, the current marital rape laws lack enforcement for a variety of reasons from personal biases to lack of knowledge about dealing with victims.

Barshis, Victoria R Garnier. 1983. “The Question of Marital Rape”. Women’s Studies International Forum. 4: 383-393

Caringella-MacDonald, Susan. 1988. “Parallels and Pitfalls: The Aftermath of Legal Reform for Sexual Assault, Marital Rape, and Domestic Violence Victims.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2:147-189

Daane, Diane M. 1994. “Level of Violence in Marital Rape: Policy Implications”. Society for the Study of Social Problems.

Frerichs-Rebecca-Lynn. “Domestic Violence and Marital Rape: Intra-relationship Correlates of Intimate Partner Abuse.” Dissertation Abstracts International. 63-07A: 2708.

Harman, John D. 1984. “Consent, Harm, and Marital Rape.” Journal of Family Law. 3: 423-443

Hasday, Jill Elaine. 2000. “Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape.” http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/maritalrape.html

Kirkwood, Mary Kay. 2001. “Marital Rape: A Student Assessment of Rape Laws and the Marital Exemption”. Violence Against Women. 7: 1234-1253.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Jennifer. 1998. “Marital Rape: Is the Crime Taken Seriously Without Co-occuring Physical Abuse?” Journal of Family Violence. 4: 433-443.

National Center for Victims of Crime. “Spousal Rape: 20 Years Later” Victim Policy Pipeline. http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701. 2004.

Russell, D. E. H. 1990. Rape in marriage. New York: Macmillan Press.

Ryan, Rebecca M. 1995. “The Sex Right: A Legal History of the Marital Rape Exemption”. Law and Social Inquiry. 20: 941-1001.

Withers, Nancy A. “Marital Rape”. North Central Sociological Association. 1988

X, Laura. 1999. “Accomplishing the Impossible: an advocate’s notes from the successful campaign to make marital and date rape a crime in 50 US state and two countries”. Violence Against Women.

Morals Test

2005-09-21T19:44:00.000-07:00

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.

THE SITUATION: You are in New Orleans to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are photo journalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.

THE TEST: Suddenly you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's the President, George W. Bush. At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under forever. You have two options - you can save the life of the President, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most famous men. Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

THE QUESTION: Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Ladies and Gentlemen...

2005-09-09T08:04:00.000-07:00

The media finally gets something correct.

Any Questions?

2005-09-06T21:52:00.000-07:00

Quick Question

2005-09-01T14:07:00.000-07:00

I am short on time today, so I just have one question I would like to ask:

Tell me, how prepared are we for another massive terrorist attack?

There Are No Words

2005-08-31T12:23:00.000-07:00

Bush took New Orleans disaster funds and used them for the Iraq war and for his tax cuts
by John in DC - 8/30/2005 09:57:00 PM

An amazing late-breaking article from Editor & Publisher. Bottom line: Experts knew this was coming, and all the preparations ground to a halt because Bush stole New Orleans' disaster preparation money so he could use it for his Iraq debacle:

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

...after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming....Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: “It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.”

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don’t get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can’t stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn’t that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can’t raise them."...

About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said.”

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late

Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Retards

2005-08-28T21:33:00.000-07:00

The pro-war hatemongers down in Crawford Texas prove once again that for all their militaristic hardons, they never learned not to fight a battle of wits whilst narmed:

In one heated moment, members of the pro-Bush crowd turned on what they mistakenly thought were a group of anti-war protesters, cursing them, threatening them and tearing down their signs. A police officer rushed the group to safety.

Um. That would be Move America Forward kicking The Protest Warriors asses.

Read the rest at TBogg

Couldn't Have Mocked It Better Myself

2005-08-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

TOPEKA, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

read the rest of the article at The Onion

Who Would Jesus Assassinate?

2005-08-24T22:57:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson, the hate-filled, intolerant slimy "man of god" who is the spiritual leader of the conservative Christian "700 Club" calls for the assassination of a democratically elected leader of a foreign country on national television, and our government clucks its collective tongue and calls it "inappropriate". What?!? Belching in public is inappropriate. A religious leader (and staunch supporter and friend of our president) calling for the murder of a national leader on television is fucking outrageous.

Janet's boob causes a national uproar and millions in fines, and this terrorist statement was deemed "inappropriate"? And where's the unholy retribution of the FCC? Oh, that's right... they're busy "protecting" us from Howard Stern again. As I mentioned in an earlier post, sex is considered much worse than violence in this back assward country. Where are the protestors with signs reading "You Don't Speak For Me, Pat?" Fucking hypocrites. Just one more reason I'm so happy to be an Agnostic... if I were a Christian I would be extremely ashamed to be in any way associated with this love-thy-neighbor (as long as he's a conservative American Christian... otherwise kill-thy-neighbor) Jesus freak. Emphasis on the freak.

Although I do believe that Robertson has the right to say whatever the hell he wants as free speech, I was under the impression that inciting violent acts in public was illegal. Or at least worse than inappropriate. Shameful works. Deplorable. Despicable has a nice ring to it, plus it makes me think of Daffy Duck. But I think the best term is monkeyfuck crazy. If he wants to stand behind his pulpit and preach hatred and division, that's his right. In reality, that's what he's been doing for years anyway. If his brain dead followers keep coming to listen to his vile bullshit, that's their right too. But requesting a government sanctioned hit on Hugo Chavez on NATIONAL TELEVISION? It boggles the fucking mind. We are at a point in history when a large portion of the world has turned against or away from our country because of our foreign policy of "might makes right/show me the money", and someone who calls himself a religious leader, has millions of followers and even ran for president has the audacity to say something like this? Jebus must be rolling over in his grave.

Battle of the Sexists

2005-08-22T23:36:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting article on Alternet today:

Transition House, New England's first battered women's shelter, has always been known for its cutting edge work helping women and children escape abusive homes.

Recently, however, the Boston-based 30-year-old organization has set a precedent that makes some feminist activists uncomfortable. The board has not only hired a man as the interim executive director, but they are doing a gender-neutral search for a permanent hire set to conclude August 30th.
full article

What I'm curious about is if the feminist activists quoted in the article as saying that the director has to be a woman are doing a disservice to the shelter. The first two people who posted responses to the article were female, and they actually supported the choice of a male for the position. I posted the following response to them: "Although I can empathize with the desire to have a woman run this organization in deference to the victims themselves, I would like to thank the last two posters for pointing out that not all men are inherently violent and/or greedy. I was raised by a single mother (my father was abusive until she left him) and find violence against women to be one of the most disgusting and purile practices imaginable. It seems to me like this organization is looking for the best person for the job, regardless of gender. I commend them for that. "

I guess I was curious if this is really about what is best for the shelter, or if it is sort of a case of reverse sexism. I do understand that this is a male dominated society, and that no matter what liberal lip service is paid to sexual equality, women really aren't yet completely equal. (Just one example: Twiggy wrote an excellent paper on the lack of marital rape statutes in most states; as if a woman can't be "raped" by someone she's married to. I'll see if I can get her to post it) But I also believe that two wrongs don't make a right. It is well known that it goes the other way; I imagine every day highly qualified women are overlooked for jobs in favor of a less qualified man. This is neither right nor fair, especially in this "enlightened" day and age. But in this example, say that a man was the most qualified applicant for this position... would it be any more right or fair to overlook him just because of his sex? Isn't that staring into the abyss and then becoming it?

To me, the most persausive argument against hiring a man (which I opened my post with) is that the victims might be traumatized by a male in a position of authority. But the article points out that the postition is primarily administrative with very little interaction with the residents. I reiterate my closing remark: the best person for the job should be the ultimate goal, regardless of gender. Be that as it may, in my heart of hearts I think this job probably should go to a woman. I think a woman would have a better understanding of the problems facing the residents of this shelter, whether or not that's a correct assumption. I am mostly playing a bit of devil's advocate. I personally was raised by a single mom who is an intelligent, successful, extremely strong person, so my view of women is maybe a little different than most. There are a couple of digs in the article saying the only reason men want to be involved in the Domestic Violence community is because they can make money. This bothered me a bit. I often find myself trying to defend my gender against this sort of stereotype. Believe it or not, not all heterosexual males are greedy, misogynistic, skirt-chasing assholes. Some of us fully and totally believe in feminism, gender equality, and women's rights in general. So all I'm really trying to say is don't automatically write us off. Some of us are actually on your side.

I blame my mother. Thanks mom! =)

The Republican Dictionary (S-Z)

2005-08-17T07:38:00.000-07:00

The final installment of the Republican Dictionary. I certainly hope we have learned something today.

Senate n: Exclusive club, entry fee $10 to $30 million.
Southern States n. God's country. A region where military traditions, guns, and the threat of gay marriage can be used to convince poor people to vote for Republicans, against their own physical and financial self interest.

Shock and Awe: A classic com-bination like "surf and turf"; special effects produced by the U.S. military at great expense with bright lights, and very loud noises. It is not to be confused with an effective military campaign or rational policy (See, State Terrorism).

Simplify, tr. v. To cut the taxes of Re-publican donors. This is done in such a way that other taxpayers thing they will be included in the tax cuts.

Slave, n. A person without legal rights, (See also Democrat, poor).

Small Business Owner, n. rich donors

SEC, n. 1. (archaic) A government agency to prevent corporate executives from deceiving investors.; 2. (current) A government agency to aid corporate executives in deceiving investors.

Security, n: Something to be applied to the homeland but not to the social.

Social Security: 1. A good idea except for two problems: Social verges on socialism and guarantees of security violate a free market.; 2. A potential source of new investment capital for the stock market.

Social Security Reform, n. Leave no Wall Street broker behind.

Spreading Peace, v. Preemptive war.

Stay The Course, v. To relentlessly pursue a disastrous policy regardless of how far conditions deteriorate. Antonym: "To cut and run."

Staying The Course, v., The act of being stubborn and unable to admit glaring policy mistakes; being wrong and sticking with the wrong idea regardless of the consequences.

Strategic Competitor-China branch: Providing a former enemy an incentive to maintain good relations while using it as an industrial park for outsourcing low-paying and often polluting Industries.

Strict Constructionist, n. A judge with extremely conservative beliefs, who interprets laws in a manner that fits his/rarely-her own belief systems, while maintaining that this was the original intent of the law.

Stuff Happens: Official DOD response presented by Donald Rums-feld to questions regarding unantic-ipated problems in Iraq.

Support the Troops: A mandatory mantra which need no longer be mouthed since full "support" can be offered with a simple $1 investment in a magnetic yellow ribbon to affix to the back of your SUV.

Support The Military, v. To praise Bush when he sends our young men and women off to die for no reason and without proper body armor.

Tax Reform, n. The shifting of the tax burden from unearned income to earned income, or rather, from the wealthy elite to the working class.

Tax Simplification, n. A way to make it simpler for large US corporations to export American jobs to avoid paying US taxes.

Tort Reform, n. Corporate immunity and impunity.

Townhall Meeting: A meeting in a hall in a town where all the participants have first been vetted for loyalty to the Bush administration to insure no embarrassing questions are asked.

Torture, v. 1. (archaic) An abuse of human rights.; 2. (modern) An accept-able interrogation technique for in-dividuals we define as "enemy com-batants to help them see the error of their ways. (See also Abuse)

Torturer, n. 1. White House Counsel.; 2. Attorney General. ; 3. Secretary of Defense.

Unions, n. Organizations founded to make outrageous demands upon corporations for wages and fringe benefits.

Uniter, n. A Leader who brings to-gether his followers by fomenting hat-red for anyone who disagrees with him.

Very Clear, adj. Modifier used immediately before any preposterous explanation or rationale.

Wal-Mart: The nation-state, future tense.

Washington Press Corps: Extension of White House and Pentagon press offices. A group of easily intimidated writers working for large corporations with senior executives who support the Republican Party.

Wilderness n: 1. Publicly owned former habitat for wildlife, often endangered, where private corporat-ions go wild drilling for oil and gas, grazing cattle, logging, and building roads.; 2. Off-road vehicle theme parks characterized by abundant stumps, oil slicks, tire tracks, flattened owls, and coughing caribou.

The Republican Dictionary (M-R)

2005-08-16T07:35:00.000-07:00

Now, on with part three of this lovely little dictionary. I hope by now everyone is beginning to understand our elephant bretheren a bit better.

Mandate, n. 1. What a Republican claims to possess when only 49 percent of the voting public loathes him instead of 51 percent.; 2. The opinion expressed by about a quarter of the eligible voters.; 3. The opinion reflected in an electoral-vote margin smaller than in any 20th century election other than 1916 and 2000.; 4. The opinion expressed by the smallest popular vote margin obtained by a sitting president since 1916.
Media (The) n. Immoral elitist liberally-biased traitors who should leave Republicans alone so they can complete God's work on Earth in peace and quiet, behind closed doors.

Moral Values, n. Hatred of homosexuals dressed up in Biblical language. (See also Family Values)

Modernize, v. To do away with, as in modernizing Social Security, labor laws, etc.

Mullah n: 1. (archaic) Religious teacher or leader, a title of respect in Islamic countries, pronounced "mull-a." 2. (informal) In the modern pres-idential vernacular, a title of dis-respect (pronounced "moo-lah") in ref-erence to Muslims deemed too fan-atical to be bought-off by American "moo-lah."

Neoconservatives, n. 1. Nerds with Napoleonic complexes.; 2. Individuals eager to send the sons and daughters of the poor to fight even though they dodged real military service when they could have fought.

Nationalism n: How foreigners love their country (when they do). A very dangerous phenomenon that can lead to extremes of passion, blindness, and xenophobia. (See, Terrorism)

Nonpartisan Judicial Nominee, n. An active member of the Federalist Society.

Northeast n. A region of the country that should be avoided at all cost. Government officials are known to challenge our great leader, George the Lesser, but they can be neutralized in our base (see Southern States) by a rousing chorus of "Dixie".

NRA n. Acronym for the National Rifle Association. An organization that believes its mission from God is to preserve the right to take and Uzi or a fully automatic M-16 out to hunt deer. Our kind of people.

Obstructionist, n. Any elected representative who dares to question Republican radicals on the issue of the day.

Office Of Faith-Based Initiatives, n. 1. Christian Right payoff. ; 2. Used to violate Constitutional separation of church and state.

Oil n: 1. Black gold. 2. (defunct acronym)

Operation Iraqi Liberation or OIL (name changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF, without explanation). 3. What the Bush ad-ministration wasn't after in Iraq and isn't after in Iran. (See, Democracy)

Ownership Society, n. 1. A society in which no one ever needs to own up to their mistakes or the consequences of their actions.; 2. A society in which Republican donors own the rest of us. 3. A strategy to improve stock prices.; 4. A society where you're on your own.; 3) The euphemism used by Republicans to promote or justify the elimination of Social Security which their powerful supporters don't need. Synonyms: PLUTOCRACY, CORP-ORATE FEUDALISM.; 5. You no longer own your national parks, your public transit, your commons, your government, your Bill of Rights, or your future, but you may purchase a Burger King franchise or stocks with your WalMart earnings.

Patriotism n: How Americans love their country. A trait so positive you can't have too much of it, and if you do, then you are a super-patriot which couldn't be better. (Foreigners cannot be patriotic. See, Nationalism)

Partial Birth Abortion, n. 1. A non-medical term invented to demonize a broad class of abortion procedures; 2. A strategy to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Peace n: What war is for.

Pentagon n: Currently, the official headquarters of the Defense Department, located in northern Virginia near Washington, D.C. This positioning had been strategically un-successful because of the close proximity to Congress. Since Congress insists on questioning the senior DOD team and thus interfearing with their work, The Department of Defense is soon be relocated. Management functions will be moved to a new complex, to be known as the Rumagon, that will be located in Texas adjacent to Halliburton headquarters. This will allow for the installation of a conveyer belt between buildings, permitting more rapid overpayment for no-bid contracts. Operational command will be moved to the new Global Forward Deployment Department or GFDD (Ge-Fudd). Its headquarters will be established in a building now being constructed in Bahrain out of sand imported from the beaches of Texas by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. From there, it can effectively manage world oil supplies.

Philosophy, n. Religion.

Political Capital, n. What a Republican president receives as a result of a razor-thin margin of victory in an election.

Press Conference, n. A rare event designed for the President to brag about his prowess as a leader while simultaneously dodging difficult questions.

Privatize, v. To steal the resources of the national community and give them to private business.

Public Opinion Polls: 1. Progress reports for spin-doctors.; 2. Formerly, validation of President's policies used to intimidate opposition and press.; 3. Current, irrelevant because questions were leading resulting in slanted data.

Reform, n. 1. Rollback of New Deal reforms, laws, standards and social protections. ; 2. To eliminate, as in tort reform (to eliminate all lawsuits against businesses and corporations) or Social Security and Medicare reform (to eliminate these programs altogether).

Republican Party: 1. (archaic) A party that values fiscal constraint and social moderation.; 2. (modern) A party that wraps itself in the flag and the Constitution while it assails the foundations of the Republic, attacking the balance and separation of powers (See, Assertions of Untrammeled Presidential Authority -- to violate do-mestic and international laws for-bidding torture); habeas corpus (See, Assertion of Right to Lock Away "Enemy Combatants" Forever - with-out due process of law); and fed-eralism (See, Legislative and Exec-utive Rampage -- to overturn state court decisions in the Terry Schiavo case).

Resolute, adj. Pig-headed.

Rummy slang: 1. (archaic) A person so drunk he can't recall a thing.; 2. (modern) A SECDEF so drunk on power that he refuses to remember anything.

What if we Threw a War and Nobody Came?

2005-08-15T07:17:00.000-07:00

This post was made by my friend Syreene in her livejournal and is reposted here with her permission.

Do you suppose that someone should Tell the President the War Is Over? The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. He's losing his support base, and troop recruitment is so bad now that neither bonuses nor fudged standards nor the faking of high school diplomas has solved the recruitment shortfall. Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that the armed forces are so eager for bodies they will flout "don't ask, don't tell" and hang on to gay soldiers who tell, even if they tell the press.

The cronies are even fighting amongst themselves...Bill O'Reilly is trashing Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter is trasing O'Reilly for being a defeatist, and Robert Novak actually walked off a CNN set rather than answer questions regarding the Plame Affair.

We were so close here in Ohio...I am still ashamed of how we "gave" the Shrub his "win" in the election...but now Paul Hackett, an Iraq vet, Democrat, and staunch Shrub hater was 3% of the vote off from a win here after Portman left for his trade position. The Shrub won't come to Ohio to honor the fallen soliders from Cleveland or Cincinnati that died, and he disrespects the mothers who now rally in ditches outside his ranch waiting for a non-scripted response to their sons sacrifice.

It's been four long years since he swaggered in that pilot outfit and taunted the insurgents to "Bring it on." Four long years of death, destruction, greed and ignorance.

Voice your frustration...let them know what you are thinking about this fiasco...and remember what Tony Blair seems to have forgotten: What You Can't Say Will Hurt You.

The Republican Dictionary (F-L)

2005-08-14T07:33:00.000-07:00

I bring to you now the second installment of the Republican Dictionary (and before that I just want to add a bumper sticker I saw whilst on a road trip this weekend: Save the Country: Abort Liberals!)

Faith, n. The stubborn belief that God approves of Republican moral values despite the preponderance of textual evidence to the contrary.
Faith-Based Initiative, n. Christian Right Payoff.

Faith Community, n. Evangelicals, because they are saved, and hawkish conservative Jews, because they are useful. Israel is the bait-on-the-hook just waiting for God to take that Rapturous bite.

Fairer, adj. Regressive.

Family Values, n. 1. Oppression of women & gays.; 2. Preventing access to sex education (See also Sex Education).

Fiscal Conservative, n. A Republican who is in the minority.

Fox News, n. White House Press Office. Syn. Faux news.

Freedom, n. What Arabs want but can't achieve on their own without Western military intervention. It bears a striking resemblance to chaos.

Free Press: 1. Government propaganda materials covertly funded with a quarter of a billion dollars of tax-payer money but given out for free to the press and then broadcast without any acknowledgment of the govern-ment's role in their preparation. 2. Newspapers that obscure the truth on behalf of corporate and government interests for free.

Free Speech Zone The area to which those who differ from the administration are confined should they be so audacious as to wish to exercise their right of free speech.

Girly Men, n. Those who do not grope women.

Global Warming, n. A concept developed by tree hugging scientists (see Alarmist) to try and force us to give up our Hummers. It is claimed to be based on a century of weather data and computer models (see Junk Science)

GOD, n. Senior presidential advisor.

Growth, n. The justification for tax cuts for the rich. What happens to the deficits when Republicans cut taxes on the rich.

Hard Work, n. What Republicans say when they can't think of anything better. anything better.

Healthy Forests, n. 1. No tree left behind.; 2. Forests made safe from the ravages of nature, i.e. bugs and fires, by removal to pulp mills and lumber yards.

Hollywood, n. A city focused on fantasy. It is populated by people who obviously are suffering dementia from smoking funny cigarettes and spending too much time in the sun. (see also California)

Homeland n: A term successfully used by the Germans and the Soviets in World War II, less successfully (and in the plural) by Apartheid-era South Africa. It means neither home, nor land, has replaced both country and nation in American public speech, and is seldom wielded without the companion word "security." It is used today in a quasi-religious chant when negative news or embarrassing quest-ions call for a change in topic.

Homeland Security: synonymous with Homeland insecurity.

Homeland Security Department: The new Department organized to limit union strength of government employees while transferring Federal dollars to the red states to "improve security. After all, you never know when Montana is to be attacked by al-Qaida. It is best known for its "alert" system, declaring bridges yel-low and the Statue of Liberty orange.

Homeland Security Advisory System: 1. Color-coded program for emotional destabilization and confusion.; 2. A tool to distract America when negative stories are being broadcast.; 3. A system to diminish the electability potential of the opposition.

Honesty, n. Lies told in simple declarative sentences such as: "Freedom is on the march."

House of Representatives, n. Exclusive club, entry fee $1 to $5 million.

Humble Foreign Policy, n. The invasion of any sovereign nation whose leadership Republicans don't like.

Humbled adj. What a Republican says right after a close election and right before he governs in an arrogant manner.

Insurgent, n. Armed or unarmed, violent or non-violent Iraqi on the receiving end of an American rocket blast or bullet spray, regardless of age, gender or political affiliation.

Intelligence n: Assessment of "the bad guys" used by Dick Cheney to justify a preconceived policy. The CIA must provide this on request and if the CIA does not comply, it can be invented and attributed to the CIA. (See, Iraq, weapons of mass destruction)

Job Growth, n. Increased number of jobs an individual has to take after losing earlier high-paying job.

Junk Science, n. Sound science.

Leave No Child Behind: A program to provide "concern' for schools while cutting funding. (See also unfunded mandate)

Liberal adj: Used to vilify opponents, characterized as effeminate, immoral, and un-American. Widely used after the words progressive, radical, left, revolutionary, and insurrectionary were banned from the mainstream media, having the double benefit of making moderates seem vaguely dan-gerous and making revolutionaries seem vaguely embarrassing and in-effectual.

Liberal media: Ted Koppel and anarchist magazines.

The Republican Dictionary (A-E)

2005-08-12T07:26:00.000-07:00

In my last post I mentioned how much the Republicans hate Liberals, at least that is what I gather from that wonderous google image search. In light of this, I decided that perhaps I should post a Republican dictionary so that we can work to understand our elephant bretheren. Since this gets a bit lengthy, I am going to break it up over several posts (all of the big words have been hypenated, since we know how tricky reading can get).

Abuse n: Modern word for what was once referred to as torture. An interim term, soon to be replaced by "tough love" (which, in turn, is expected to be replaced by "freedom's caress").

Activist Judge, n. A judge who at-tempts to protect the rights of min-orities--most especially homosexuals--against the tyranny of the majority.

Accountability, n. Buck? What buck?

Advise and Consent, n. A process to validate the nominations to key pos-itions made by the President. In the rare occasions where the will of the President is thwarted, this can be dispensed with since it would be inappropriate for him to change his mind or, worse, to submit to the will of the Democrats.

Alarmist, n. Any respected scientist who understands the threat of global warming.

Allies, n. Foreigners who do what Republicans tell them to do.

Alternative Energy Sources, n. New locations to drill for oil and gas.

Balanced, adj. 1. favoring corp-orations (a more balanced approach to the environment.); 2. favoring con-servatives (fair and balanced re-porting).

Bankrupcy, n. A legal proceeding designed to help airlines and other companies reduce labor costs. Re-cently this process has been abused by individuals who did not plan prop-erly for catastrophic illness or divorce.

Bipartisanship, adj. 1. When Dem-ocrats give in.; 2. When conservative Republicans work together with mod-erate Republicans to pass legislation Democrats hate.; 3. Our way or the highway.

"Burning Bush": A biblical allusion to the response of the President of the United States when asked a question by a journalist who has not been paid to inquire.

California, n. A state to be avoided. Populated in most regions by people who obviously are suffering dementia from too much time in the sun.

China: See Wal-Mart.

Civil Liberties, n. Unnecessary privileges that you aren't afraid of losing unless you are a God-hating, baby-killing, elitist liberal who loves Saddam Hussein more than your own safety.

Clarify, v. Repeating the same lie over and over again.

Clean, adj. The word used to modify any aspect of the environment Re-publican legislation allows corporat-ions to pollute, poison, or destroy.

Climate Change, n. Global warming, without that annoying suggestion that something is wrong.

Checks and Balances. 1. The system whereby the campaign checks of the few balance the interests of the many.; 2. An antiquated concept put forward by the Founding Fathers that impedes governmental efficiency for branches under Republican control (see also REFORM). ; 3. A system that, in the unlikely event that the milk toast democrats should ever again control anything, will prevent them from implementing any programs such as raising minimum wages, improving health care, fully funding schools, or raising taxes on the upper brackets that could negatively impact our base.

Class Warfare, n. 1. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage. ; 2. Any attempt to thwart tax cuts for the rich.

Coalition, n. One or more nations whose leaders have been duped, pres-sured or bribed into supporting ill-conceived, unnecessary, underplan-ned and/or illegal US military op-erations.

Conviction, n. Making decisions before getting the facts, and refusing to change your mind afterward.

Culture Of Life, n. A reduction of reproductive freedoms. This should not be confused with concerns for criminals on death row, even if they received an inadequate legal defense, or non-Christian foreigners who might be in the way when freedom is on the march.

Death n: An increasingly rare phenomenon, no longer occurring among soldiers of the U.S. army or civilians in affected countries. How-ever, the media reports that death is still caused by lone gunmen and over-consumption of saturated fats as well as natural disasters.

Death Tax, n. A term invented by anti-tax zealots and referring to a tax used to prevent the very wealthy from establishing a dominating aristocracy in this country.

Democracy n: 1. A product so extensively exported that the domest-ic supply is depleted.; 2. A country where the newspapers are pro-Amer-ican.; 3. When they vote for us. (See, tyranny: When they vote for someone else.)

Democratic Ally, n. Any democracy, monarchy, plutocracy, oligarchy or dictatorship--no matter how ruthless--that verbally supports American dip-lomatic and economic goals.

Democratic Party n. A group of girly men and lesbo women who advocate such subversive ideas as environ-mentalism, progressive tax codes, gun control, or corporate accountability.

Deregulate, v. To pursue greed and exploitation.

Detain, v. Hold in a secret place without recourse to law and treat in any manner one wishes.

Economic Progress, n. 1. Recession; 2. Rising unemployment; 3. Minimum-wage freeze.

Economic Recovery, n. When three out of five software engineers who lost their jobs to outsourcing are able to find part-time work at Wal-Mart.

Education, n. A dangerous process where students are trained to read, to reason, and to critically evaluate what they are told. Many people cling to the quaint idea that education is critical to the success of the nation, so it must be suppressed without being overtly critical. (see No Child Left Behind)

Election Fraud, n. Counting every vote.

Environmental Protection Agency: Economic Predators Inc.

Environmentalist, n. A subversive individual who works against the interests of America by demanding that corporations be responsible for the normal by-products of healthy industries.

Ethics, n. A standard of behavior to be applied to Democrats as a means to discredit them. Ethics never apply to a Republican, as our candidates are granted "Ethical" status as a result of membership in the party.

Liberals Are So Intolerant!

2005-08-11T09:50:00.000-07:00

Well, I was trying to find a graphic to go with this entry, but the sheer amount of utter shit I came across in several google image searches is enough to put me off hunting for political images for a long, long time. Go do a google image search for liberals, go ahead... Ill wait... .... .... back yet? Are you utterly disgusted yet? Save a Seal, Club Liberals? Liberals, I Want YOU to Move to Canada? You shut the fuck up, we'll protect america? This is just pathetic. We have differing views on various political issues, so apparently we all suck and should be clubbed/maimed/move to Canada?

That said and vented, I'll get on with this entry. I found this article through another evil, liberal friend of mine and decided it deserved a spot here in Ebolaville. Here is just a small quote from it to spark your interest.

"I love diversity, religious pluralism, peace and love and pacifism and good drugs and open-mouthed sensuality, happy to let you believe in any god you like and marry any gender you like and let you love how you will and be in full control of your sex and your body and your mind.

This, to me, is the America worth fighting for. These are the laws I support. Don't believe in abortion? Don't understand gay people? Sexuality make you rashy? Think Harry Potter teaches kids evil and witchcraft? Don't marry a sexy gay witch abortionist. But don't you dare, based on your limited understanding of God and life, make laws declaring that I can't. "

-From Mark Moford's Liberals Are So Intolerant!

Those Pesky Anti-Choicers: Redux

2005-08-09T23:12:00.000-07:00

Planned Parenthood touts itself as "the world's oldest and largest voluntary reproductive health care" and some conservative fucktards are scared silly of them as a result. There was a great article on Alternet about them: Family Planners Stand Up To Right-Wing Boycott

I love the idea of using this boycott list against these sleazy self-righteous assclowns, it just smacks of karmic justice. But I sure as hell didn't want even $15 of mine to go to them. Luckily, someone who no doubt has a little silver fish on the back of their car posted it for us: "The List"

There are some pretty great companies on the list, and it makes me happy that some of the money I have given to these companies has gone to Planned Parenthood. I think I should even write to the companies that I don't know or use, and tell them I support their support of Planned Parenthood.

You know, if groups like LDI were just against the abortion and referral services offered by Planned Parenthood at least I could understand it. I wouldn't agree with or condone it, I think it's ignorant and sexist (in LDI's case the president and chairman of the board is male, as are 6 of the remaining 7 board of directors), but I do comprehend their beliefs and why they feel as strongly about abortion as they do. I just wish that they could comprehend that their beliefs are just that, beliefs; they are opinions that these people are trying have made into laws. Look, no womb, no opinion. A woman's reproductive rights and health are between the woman and her doctor (and not her fucking pharmacist), and NO ONE else's business. I have a penis and I can grasp that concept. Why can't they?

And they couldn't stop there. They are against birth control. They are against sex education. They are more turned off by fucking than a Catholic priest in a room full of naked women. (see The Fight Against Fucking) I can't help but laugh at how repressed, thin-skinned and easily offended these organized idiots are. On their "What's wrong with Planned Parenthood" page, LDI has the following warning:

WARNING: Some of the text included on this page is offensive. It comes directly from Planned Parenthood. The text in red type below in recommended for adults only.

Any frank and open discussion of sex or sexuality freaks these people out. Any option other than abstinence for preventing pregnancy or STDs is wicked and wrong! Even their imaginary friend Jebus hung out with hookers, how did his followers get to be so uptight and hung up on sex? And who the hell do these people think they are that they should be making intimate personal decisions for the entire country? Arrogant fuckholes much? It boggles the mind.

Although LDI claims to have no political affiliation, they certainly demonstrate the Repuglicans' flair for spinning and distorting language. They refer to "committing" abortions rather than "performing". They claim Planned Parenthood is anti women's rights because they don't support the "women's right to know" act. It's actually called the "Parents Right to Know Act", and it is "...legislation would require that local clinics receiving any federal funds notify parents of a minor's request for contraception five days prior to dispensing it to her." Call me crazy, but I think I'd agree with oh, the International Women's Health Coalition when they say:

Parental notification laws don't stops teens from having sex—they stop teens from having protected sex.
Decreasing contraceptive availability leads to unsafe sex.
Confidentiality is key in providing family planning information and services. Leading medical and public health groups stress the importance of confidentiality—especially for young people—in healthcare provision. The American Medical Association, the National Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Women's Association all oppose mandatory parental notification requirements for minors seeking family planning services. (I had to put that whole bullet in... pretty good recommendations, no?)
Adolescents have a right to comprehensive, confidential healthcare.

And check out these "outrageous" and "offensive" statements by Planned Parenthood themselves (Dun DUN DUN!!)

"We've got to be more concerned about preventing teen pregnancies than we are about stopping sexual relationships." -- Faye Wattleton, then-president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
Los Angeles Times, October 17, 1986

"The solution [to negative early sexual experience]...is to teach young people how to experience sexual pleasure, instead of teaching them to not have sex." -- Bulletin, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, Summer 1996

"When [teen] sexual activity is respectful, responsible, and healthy, it can be a positive, life-enhancing
experience." -- "A Matter of Fact," Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, circa 1994

...ABOUT ABSTINENCE EDUCATION
"[Teaching only abstinence] is a great disservice to young people." -- Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, The Inquirer, May 4, 1997

"[U]rging abstinence while condemning all nonmarital sex is unrealistic and irresponsible." -- INsider, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, September 1994
"Abstinence-based education...programs also include information about non-coital
[sex]..." -- "A Matter of Fact," Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, circa 1994

The horror... the horror... Is it just me, or is every one of these statements, logical, sensible, pragmatic and caring? Quite simply LDI needs to shut the fuck up. These unwanted self-appointed saviors of the moral fabric of America, by denying women's rights and health care and education to the young have crossed the line from a pimple on the ass of society to full blown colon cancer. And make no mistake, they're just as deadly.

He's Out of his Mind, Please Leave a Message

2005-08-04T22:28:00.000-07:00

Some interesting figures from Daily KOS:

49 - the number of vacations that Bush has taken since he was inaugurated in 2001
5 - the number of weeks that Bush will spend on vacation, starting yesterday. It is the longest presidential vacation in at least 36 years.
319 - August 3, 2005 was the 319th day Bush has spent on vacation since his 2001 inauguration.
20% - the fraction of Bush's presidency that he has spent on vacation
(source)

Now:
23 - the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq in August alone. That's right. In three days, 23 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
1,822 - the total number of U.S. troops who have died in Bush's illegal Iraq war, as of August 3, 2005. Fourteen soldiers were killed today.

If America were a corporation, and we the people were the stockholders, and Bush was our CEO, wouldn't we have fired this unrepentant fuckup by now?

Cloetus the Slack-Jawed President

2005-08-02T22:52:00.000-07:00

That’s right folks, our village idiot of a president thinks that “Intelligent Design” should be taught alongside evolution in our country’s public schools. For those of you who don’t know, “Intelligent Design” is the bullshit scientific-sounding term that Christians have given creationism in an effort to sneak religion into public schools. Sweet bleeding shitballs people, are we really going to stand for this?

Their argument is that life as we know is too complex to have evolved randomly. There must be some sort of creator involved. That’s it. That’s their entire argument. Anything that is too complicated for them to understand must be God working in his mysterious ways. What sort of primitive bullshit superstition is this? No study, not one shred of scientific evidence, just their belief in god as creator of the universe.

faith (fāth) n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

And let’s be honest here people. That’s all we’re talking about here: faith. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support “Intelligent Design”. Of course, evolution has a little something called the fossil record going for it. And you know, that whole carbon dating thing. But proponents of ID have 2000 years of belief in a book written by men. Give me a fucking break. Admittedly, the fossil record is not perfect. There are occasional gaps. But that’s the problem with fundamentalists; they believe that every single word of the bible is true. As such, they see the world as black or white, good or evil, with no wiggle room in between. They don’t understand that a scientific theory is very different from a best guess. The accepted theory of evolution is based on well over a hundred years of intensive scientific study. The joke of a sham of a “theory” of Intelligent Design is based on wanting to believe in god. IT HAS NO PLACE BEING TAUGHT AS A SCIENCE IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

ID supporters will tell you that they’re not trying to push a religious agenda. Yeah, and I’m not masturbating, I’m massaging a cramp in my penis. Saying that molecular systems are too complex to have happened by chance, and inferring from that belief that they must have been designed or created by some higher intelligence with a specific purpose… how is that not god? How is that not a back door to forcing your personal religious beliefs upon school children? How fucking dumb do you think we are?

ID is a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific but is in fact metaphysical. It is based on several philosophical confusions, not the least of which is the notion that the empirical is necessarily scientific. This is false, if by 'empirical' one means originating in or based on observation or experience. Empirical theories can be scientific or non-scientific. Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific. Jung's theory of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical but not scientific.

On the other hand, if by 'empirical' one means capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not empirical. Neither the whole of Nature nor an individual eco-system can be proved or disproved by any set of observations to be intelligently or unintelligently designed. A design theory and a natural law theory that makes no reference to design can account for Nature as a whole and for individual eco-systems.

Robert Todd Carroll

I’m not sure which is scarier: the fact that the leader of arguably the most powerful country in the world doesn’t believe in evolution, or that he’s willing to push this religious agenda on our country. I have to say though, the people who tell Georgie boy what to say are in fact fucking brilliant. The White House is under a ton of scrutiny right now, BUllSHit’s approval ratings are down, and the media is finally starting to talk about what a mess Iraq truly is. So much as he did during his first term when things got sticky, Bush attempts to cloud the waters of political discourse with religious zealotry that by its very definition should have nothing to do with matters of the state. Remember his proposed gay marriage constitutional amendment? This is the same damn thing. Throw the religious right wingnutters a bone, bring up an emotional issue to confuse the masses, then continue to do whatever the fuck he wants while the voters are busy arguing about the origin of the species. And his fervent supporters don’t even care that he’s simply using them as political chess pieces. He’s using them in a way they want to be used.

It’s the old divide and conquer routine, but the right loves him for it. You see, as far as they’re concerned, it doesn’t matter if the country is falling apart, it doesn’t matter if our safety is actually more at risk now than before we illegally invaded Iraq. They think he’s doing the Lord’s work, and that’s all they care about. Am I the only one who is becoming increasingly ashamed to be called American?

The Joys of Driving

2005-08-01T18:55:00.000-07:00

This isn't so much a post as a simple rant. I live in California, where our freeways and highways are not-so-affectionately referred to as parking lots. Here are some of the reasons I'm THIS fucking close to being an 11 o'clock news road rage item:

1) Turn signals: I simply love it when you're in front of me, and you SLAM on your brakes... and THEN decide to grace me with your turn signal. I would very much like to hit you upside the head with a baseball bat... and THEN yell "head's up!" And FYI, a turn indicator does just that: indicates your intention to turn or change lanes. It does not give you free reign to cut across three lanes of traffic expecting that everyone will stop for you. A little blinking light is not the best defense against 2,000 plus pounds of metal moving at high speed, dumbass.

2) The freeway: When there's 20 fucking car lengths in front of you, and I'm so far up your ass I know what you had for lunch, and all the cars on your right are passing you... GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE FAST LANE! You do not belong there! It's called the fast lane for a reason.

3) Pay attention: Listen you self-important prick in your shiny luxury sedan, hang up the goddamn cell phone and DRIVE. And Jane you ignorant slut, here's a novel concept for you... how about getting up 10 minutes earlier and putting your fucking lipstick and eyeliner on BEFORE you get in the car, hmm?? That first one really chaps my ass. We managed to go about a hundred years operating motor vehicles without being on the phone. Now it seems like most of you can't conceive of one without the other. So really, which is more important... talking to your vacuous friends about your pathetic lives blissfully unaware of the carnage you're leaving behind you on the roads, or actually having a free hand with which to use your turn signal? Jackass.

4) On surface streets... listen you imbecile, window shopping was meant to be accomplished while walking, NOT WHILE DRIVING DOWN A MAJOR THRU WAY!

5) Window shopping of another color: Look Sparky, I appreciate attractive women as much as the next heterosexual male. But do you really need to slow down to check out every woman driver that you pass? Seriously, what do you think is going to happen? Are your eyes going to meet across the smog laden tarmac, and a string quartet begin to play, and she'll decide there and then to pull over for some hot monkey sex in the back seat? If you want to shamelessly ogle females, go to a tacky singles bar. Don't do it on the friggin' highway.

6) Elderly Asian women driving minivans. 'Nuff said.

All I know is that our intrepid scientists better hurry the fuck up and perfect the Star Trek teleportation technology. Otherwise I just can't be held responsible for my actions.

Tilting at Windmills

2005-07-27T20:09:00.000-07:00

A quickie for ya:

"Now...will you hear any mention of this pardon in the mainstream media? Don't hold your breath. They will continue to advance the lie that somehow Karl Rove actually did something wrong and should be fired. They will continue to try and convince you that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, and that Rove actually used her name, none of which is true. "

More Denial...

Excerpt from testimony presented by former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson on July 22, 2005 in hearings held by Senate and House Democrats on the national security implications of the Rove CIA leak:

"We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover, then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department. Some reports, such as one in the Washington Times that Valerie Plame's supervisor at the CIA, Fred Rustman, said she told friends and family she worked at the CIA and that her cover was light. These claims are not true. Rustman, who supervised Val in one of her earliest assignments, left the CIA in 1990 and did not stay in social contact with Valerie. His knowledge of Val's cover is dated. He does not know what she has done during the past 15 years."

More...

As far as Rove's having never "actually used her name", what utter bullshit. Tell ya what Mr. Boortz, I have an experiment for you. Why don't you leak to the New York Times that you sincerely want to kill Laura Bush's husband. And when the Patriot Act storm troopers drag you screaming into the night for a crash course in the Abu Graib diet plan of torture and humiliation, you can simply tell them to let you go. You did nothing wrong. You never actually used Dubya's name, right? There's your non-story, you asshat.

The Fight Against Fucking

2005-07-27T19:33:00.000-07:00

So I was reading about all the furor brought about by the hidden sex scene discovered in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that has since caused the makers of the game to give it an “AO” or “Adults Only” rating. What I find most amusing is that this game actually came out in October of last year and these groups didn’t really have that much of an issue with the content. Don’t get me wrong; I’m a big fan of this game and the series in general. But then again, I am an adult. I can separate fantasy from reality. I understand that just because my character does it in a game, that doesn’t give me the right to run around stealing cars, shooting cops, and mugging and/or killing hookers after I bang them. Although there’s always a few folks who scream about video game violence when one of these titles come out, there was nothing like the flurry of media-fueled outrage that we are seeing now when the game was released. That to me points out one of the basic inconsistencies I see in American society: violence is okay (for the most part), war is actually good, but sex is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!

Why are Americans so hung up about sex? How did we get so repressed? Are our Puritan roots showing? Maybe it’s time for a dye job. I hate to break it to you folks, but every mammal fucks. That’s what we do. And for a lot of us, watching fucking is entertaining and exciting. Why exactly is this so wrong? It seems that once again I’m going to have to pick on you religious types. Yes, I know I do it a lot, but you’re really asking for it. See the thing is us wacky “liberals” actually believe that it’s okay to agree to disagree, and that somehow we should all be able to “all just get along”. The problem is that you wacky “conservatives” think that the only way we can all get along is if we all disagree with everything you do. Well I’m sorry, but just because you think human sexuality is dirty and sinful doesn’t mean that I should have to.

Think about the ridiculous amount of coverage that Janet Jackson’s nipple received. Oh Your God! A NIPPLE! Run for the hills! Cover the children’s eyes! So let me get this straight… when a baby is born, the most natural and beautiful thing in the world is for a mother to breast feed. But once the baby starts eating solid food, breasts are suddenly verboten? At least until the kid is an adult… and then only behind closed doors with the lights out. Jebus Harold Keerist. This may come as a shock to you, but everyone has nipples. They’re really not as scary as you seem to think they are.

Which brings me to another double standard. Men’s nipples don’t freak anyone out. We can walk around all day without a shirt and no one bats an eye. But if a woman bares her breast in Starbucks to feed her child, the customers are uncomfortable and complain. If a woman goes topless on a beach that is not specifically characterized as “nude”, it’s indecent exposure. Why exactly? Why do boobs have so much power? The irony is that it’s the religious types who give them so much power. They’re so uptight and ashamed of the human form (even though they believe we were made in God’s image) that they build up this huge air of mystery around breasts. I often see articles about a group in Podunk U.S.A. trying to block a strip club in their neighborhood because it’s such a negative influence. Well think about this Mr. and Mrs. Repressed… if you actually demystified the breasts, and Joe Schmoe could walk down to the beach and see all the boobs he wants, why would he waste his money in a strip club?

The problem of course is men. Men supposedly can’t resist temptation. If men see naked breasts, it will invariably lead to fucking. And fucking is even more evil than breasts! Unless of course it’s for procreation. Give me a break. Again it all comes down to each individual’s personal moral system, and a group of individuals who think that their morals are better or more correct than everyone else’s. They have to save us from sex. Lord forbid their children should grow up with a healthy attitude and understanding of sexuality. You’d prefer they know only fear and shame?

Personally, I think the human female form is more beautiful than any work of art, than any concerto. I think it is the very essence of perfection in nature. It gives me great pleasure just to see it. I refuse to be ashamed for feeling this way. Sex is natural, and it happens all around us. If some programmers want to throw a little fucking into an ADULT ORIENTED game, who is it really going to hurt? (FYI, before the “AO” rating, GTA San Andreas carried the “M” for mature, which is the equivalent of an “R” rated movie. "AO" is analogous to an "NC-17" movie.) As an adult gamer, I actually think they should be putting more fucking in video games. I know that I appreciate games that treat me like an adult who can make his own decisions. Another irony is that I have a feeling all this hullabaloo is actually going to increase the sales of this game, even if some retailers have now decided not to sell it. (See, we were okay selling the murder and robbery... but pixels bumping uglies is where we drawn the line!)

So get over yourselves America. Sex is natural. Sex happens every day. Nudity is natural. The human body is natural (well, until we start getting surgeries). You would actually be doing your children a favor if you were open and honest about sexuality rather than making it into some sort of sinful taboo. Think about it: if you tell a kid he can’t do something, he automatically wants to do it 10 times as badly. If you tell him that nakedness is wicked… how long before he’s riffling through dad’s underwear drawer trying to find the Playboys? Just chill the fuck out. You know, I think I’m going to start an organization that lobbies for sexual rights. I’m tired of you religious bastards getting all the cool names and acronyms. Expect my newsletter and website in the very near future.

Joe Ebola, founding member
Americans for the Advancement of Boobs, Butts and Boners (AABBB)

Those pesky anti-choicers

2005-07-27T06:06:00.000-07:00

As this is my first post here at Ebolaville, I'll take a brief second to introduce myself: I'm Twiggy, the Joe Ebola sans Y chromosome (for all those of you out there who know nothing of genetics, that means I am female).
That said, being the resident female poster for this blog, this scares the everloving shit out of me...

From NARAL:

It's official: Americans can no longer take prescription birth control for granted. Yesterday, Monday, July 25, anti-choice representatives in the U.S. House made it clear that they support pharmacies that refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions - and that women have no right to birth control.

The radical right's campaign to stop birth control
The House Small Business Committee held a hearing on whether pharmacies should be allowed to refuse to fill women's prescriptions. Anti-choice Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a witness, who had been denied birth control and emergency contraception by her pharmacist, that she had no "right" to her prescriptions - she only believed she did. Anti-choice Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) told a witness whose prescription had also been rejected by a hostile pharmacist, that her "minor inconvenience" - that is, risking an unintended pregnancy - was nothing compared to the "conscience" of a pharmacist.

The right's anti-birth control campaign doesn't stop in Washington, DC. Across the country, the radical right has engaged pharmacies in its campaign to block women's access to birth control. Women like Julee Lacey, a 32-year-old married mother of two and first-grade teacher from Texas, are being turned away by vigilante pharmacists who think it's their job to dispense morals instead of medicine.

Now, as many as 20 states officially protect pharmacists like Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who says she'd lecture women customers to get off the pill. Other states are pursuing an even more aggressive strategy. Just last month Wisconsin passed a bill to block state universities from filling birth control prescriptions.

--

Once my seething, seething rage has subsided a bit, I will add personal opinions to this entry. If I were to do such a thing now, they would consist largely of profanity and very little else. Goddamn anti-choicers.

Hypocrisy Much?

2005-07-26T01:41:00.000-07:00

I love it when one of these tools get caught not practicing what they preach. Sherwood voted for the so-called "Defense of Marriage" act. Seems to me like if marriage needs to be defended, it's from heterosexual assholes like this:

Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., admitted in court papers filed
Thursday that he had a five-year affair with a Maryland woman, but he denied
abusing her, as she claimed in a $5.5 million civil suit.

Full Story

A Rose by Any Other Name...

2005-07-25T19:27:00.000-07:00

...would smell just as fucking bugshit.

“…We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honor, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling… You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator… You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom…”

The above sounds like it could be a stern chastising from the “Family Resource Center”, the “American Family Association” or some other conservative Christian website doesn’t it? In actuality it is an excerpt from a “Letter to the American People”. It was penned by Osama Bin Laden.

I find it sadly amusing that the Bushie’s core “support group” the Religious Right and their biggest bugbear Islamist Terrorists, are at the deepest level about as different as night and later that night. When you get right down to the crux of the biscuit as Frank Zappa once said, the only real deal breaker between these two camps is that they each worship a different Invisible Father Figure in the Sky. (Hereafter referred to as IFFS)

I can already feel any Christians who might happen upon this post cringing. How dare I equate those murderous heathen bastards with honest, IFFS-fearin’ folk here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.? I would retort with a question of my own: How can you not see the similarity? Extremism is extremism.

You both yearn for a theocracy. In this country the movement is much more subtle and insidious; rather than Bin Laden’s outright demand for such, we have the Dominionists and calls for an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage in a biblical way. The Founding Fathers may in fact have based the American system of law and justice “on the Judeo-Christian ethic”, but they also knew that in a truly free society religion and politics simply can’t mix. You take the logical, broad generalizations (Hmm, right to exist… yeah that makes sense… let’s say murder is illegal) and make them into laws. You leave the subjective, the outdated, and the just plain silly (Hey, that whole thing about not suffering witches to live… if we regulate them then we have to regulate werewolves, vampires and the boogey man) right where it belongs… between you and your IFFS.

You just can’t legislate morality. It is by its very nature your personal sense of right and wrong. As such it won’t work for everyone. Saying that it is wrong to kill someone seems like it should be common sense and really has nothing to do with religion. Trying to make it patently illegal for two consenting adults to marry one another has everything to do with religion, and has no place in law. Legalizing murder could definitely affect you personally. Gay marriage won’t.

Speaking of killing, that’s where you Christian fundamentalists think you have me. We didn’t fly those planes into the World Trade Center you say. We aren’t murderers. Tell that to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy McVeigh considered himself a Catholic. A lapsed Catholic to be sure, and I know born again Christians think of Catholicism as the retarded uncle you hope doesn’t come to Sunday dinner, but you both worship the same IFFS. You both arrogantly believe that you’ve cornered the market on the will of the One True God and that those who don’t believe as you do are damned. Tell it to the doctors who have been murdered for performing legal abortions. Tell them that your God is the God of love.

If the situation were reversed, if we were a third-world Christian dictatorship and there was an Islamic economic superpower that we felt were debauched, corrupt and bent on world domination, how long do you really think it would be before a radical minority declared a Jesus-had against the Muslim infidels and started blowing shit up? True, we probably wouldn’t go the suicide bomber route, as our IFFS says that’s a sin. But so is killing, and humans have never had a problem with the hypocrisy of killing in the name of God.

Just so we’re clear, I am in no way trying to justify acts of terrorism. I’m not saying I sympathize with Al Qaeda or understand their motives. What I am saying is that trying to run this insane science fair project we call the earth based on any book, or any God just isn’t going to work. It’s ignorant and arrogant to think differently. As the cliché goes, more people have died in the name of God than for any other reason. If the governments of the world really care about people and value human life, maybe they should declare a War on Religion.

Same Old Song and Dance

2005-07-21T19:03:00.000-07:00

I posted a little while back about the disturbing trend of making feature films out of old television shows. I didn't even mention the equally alarming practice of remaking old classic films "for a new generation" (Psycho, The Longest Yard, Bad News Bears, etc.) which to me seems just as pointless. Even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which from everything I've heard is actually an excellent remake, just feels sort of unnecessary to me. I wonder how many movies by up-and-coming writers and directors never get made as a result of studios trying to reinvent the wheel. And I wonder if Hollywood truly is out of ideas as I so glibly stated in the earlier post.

I've also noticed a similar trend in music. Now I do understand the appeal of nostalgia. When VH1 runs their "I Love the ::insert decade::" shows I eat 'em up. As a child of the late 70's/early 80's, I love seeing the commercials, television shows and ridiculous hairstyles that I remember from my youth. But that's where it ends. I certainly don't want to go back to those days. But there's a whole crop of new bands that seem to.

Interpol, Hot Hot Heat, The Killers, The Bravery, Franz Ferdinand, and Jet are examples of this. Any one of these bands could have come out in 1983 and fit right in with the contemporary music scene of the day. (Although Jet might have to go back a bit further; they're more like AC/DC when Bon Scott was still alive). Personally, I don't care for any of these bands. I hated crappy new wave music in the 80's, and it turns out I hate crappy new wave music here in the 21st century as well. I instead listened to crappy heavy metal, which pretty much precluded me from enjoying the wimpy new wave of the time. What bothers me about these bands isn't that I think the music is really that bad or boring (although in some cases I do) but rather that it's so painfully unoriginal.

I remember reading an article when I was in high school (In Keraang or Metallix or Metal Edge... my favored reading at the time) which interviewed Scott Ian, guitarist from Anthrax. He stated something along the lines of "there is only so much you can do with six strings and a limited number of frets. Pretty soon every single guitar lick will have been written. Everything will be derivative of something else, if it isn't already." Please note this is not an exact quote. It was a looong time ago people.

Anyway, I remember at the time this scared the hell out of me. Would there really be a day when there was truly no new music? Even though I was for the most part incredibly closed-minded to any music that wasn't metal (and real metal too, not that pretty boy, hair-farming cockrock poser crap) I was always within that genre looking for the next, different twist. Did rock and roll rebellion really have a limited shelf life?

Over the years as I grew up and my musical tastes expanded I sort of forgot about this fear. There were enough different styles and sub-genres of music that it seemed like I could find something new (at least to me) every day. Occasionally a band would come out that reminded me though... when Bush's (the band, not the psychotic president) first album came out, there were 2 or 3 songs where I could actually sing the lyrics from the Nirvana song it was based on right over the top. But it seemed like these bands were few and far between.

Unfortunately lately it seems to be the rule and not the exception. The biggest rock station where I live is KROQ, and they absolutely ADORE these bands. True, I tend to only listen to their morning show and switch to CD's when I want to hear music. But with so many of the bands that they play sounding like refugees from I Love the 80's, it's made me wonder again about the future of rock. I look back on the last 10 years or so and try to think of the truly original sounding bands that got to me. I think Primus, Soul Coughing, Cake, Morphine. They were weird. They were kind of different. When someone would ask me "what kind of music is it", I couldn't really answer them. And I loved that I couldn't. These bands were freaks. Even new bands that I really do like, like Thrice, I can relate to other things. If asked, I would say Thrice are very eclectic, sort of old school Metallica meets Bad Religion and Lagwagon. With a little emo/screamo on the side. Maybe that's the secret; if you're going to be derivative, take lots of different styles and cram 'em all together.

Is this just a trend? Are these bands consciously imitating 20 year old music, or is it the retro fad simply ingrained in their psyches? Is rock music as out of ideas as Hollywood?

Left Wing Humor

2005-07-20T22:23:00.000-07:00

Q: How many telemarketers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Wouldn't a more relevant question be "How many pounds of cocaine has Bush snorted?"
- - - -
A doctor, a lawyer, and an accountant all die and go to heaven on the same day. When they get to the Pearly Gates, they are greeted by St. Peter. St. Peter says, "Scott McClellan is a lying sack of shit and I'd tell him so myself if he weren't going straight to hell when he dies."
- - - -
Q: What do you get when you cross an elephant and a rhino?
A: I'm not sure, but if the answer is "A cure for Parkinson's disease," then Bush will try to stop scientists from breeding them. Because he likes it when people get Parkinson's
.- - - -
This guy walks into a bar carrying a small poodle in one hand and a bowling ball in the other. The guy says, "I'd like a glass of milk for me and a whiskey for my poodle." The bartender says, "Yeah? Well, I'd like an impartial and independent judiciary, but try telling that to Bush, Frist, and the rest of the GOP!"
- - - -
Q: What do you get when you cross a giraffe and a monkey?A: I'm sorry, I can't think about that right now because I'm too busy wondering why Congress hasn't launched an official investigation into Bush lying to the American public about WMDs and leading us into a war under false pretenses. Tell you what... as soon as I solve that little riddle, I'll get to work on your little genetic experiment.
- - - -
Q: How many eggs does it take to make a good omelet?
A: Three. By the way, Tom DeLay is a hypocrite of the highest order
.- - - -
Did you hear that Bill Clinton hired a new intern? It turns out that his old intern had to go home and spend time with her family after her brother was killed in Iraq.
- - - -
Q: How many golf players does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: The answer may be locked away in the minutes of Cheney's secret energy meetings. However, conventional wisdom says that the meetings were probably about finding a Cabinet-level position for a pre-scandal Ken Lay or about doing business with the Taliban.
- - - -
Knock-knock.
Who's there?
Under the Patriot Act, we don't have to tell you that.
- - - -
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its condition is improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are illusional spin from the liberal media. Illuminating rooms is hard work. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effort. Why do you hate freedom?

Sit in the Corner & Think About What You've Done

2005-07-07T20:44:00.000-07:00

Hello Kettle, you're black! I couldn't rant about the shitty job our clueless leader is doing without also mentioning the shitty job our clueless citizens are doing. Consider this your probationary review.

According to our Founding Fathers:

“The chief duties of the President are to diligently uphold the Constitution and administer the laws enacted thereunder, to inform the people, maintain their confidence, protect their rights and adhere to republican and to moral principles.”

And just what are those republican principles? It’s not what the current party bearing that moniker (wolves in Republican clothing anyone?) seems to think it is. According to Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority…”

and

"Action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately, and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic... All governments are more or less republican in proportion as this principle enters more or less into their composition."

So in essence, Jefferson is putting the responsibility of running this country squarely on the shoulders of we the people. He admits up front that the people can only govern themselves to a limited extent; that once you get beyond a certain size it becomes necessary to elect representatives to carry out the day-to-day tasks of government. But most importantly he states that said representatives should be REMOVED when they are no longer bowing to the will of those they govern.

Which brings up another interesting word that in this country no longer means what it was intended to. Who exactly are these elected officials representing? It certainly isn’t me. Is it you? Then you’re an evil fuckface who needs a serious kick in the crotch. But I sincerely doubt it, as I have a feeling that the richest 1% of America and soulless lobbyists aren’t going to take the time to read my sorry ass blog.

Let’s take a look at the first paragraph again in relation to our current “leadership”, shall we?
“The chief duties of the President are to diligently uphold the Constitution and administer the laws enacted thereunder …"

So… asking for an amendment to ban gay marriage, thereby incorporating skewed religious viewpoints into our most sacred of political documents… sounds less like upholding and administering and more like anal rape without even the benefit of a reacharound. Take THAT you pesky freedom of the pursuit of happiness! Separation of Church and State my achin’ ass!

“to inform the people…”

After I stopped laughing at the very thought of W “informing” me about anything other than corporate greed, religious intolerance and the price of a barrel of oil, I looked up “inform” to see if there was some other bizzarro meaning that I wasn’t hep to. But nope, here’s what it says:

1 : to impart information or knowledge
2 : to give information (as of another's wrongdoing) to an authority

What I didn’t find were any of the following synonyms: lie, fabrication, fairy tale, falsehood, falsity, fib, mendacity, prevarication, story, tale, untruth, whopper, distortion, exaggeration, half-truth; ambiguity, equivocation; defamation, libel, slander; perjury; bluff, pose, pretense (or pretence); humbug, jive, nonsense; fallacy, misconception, myth; misinformation, misrepresentation, misstatement; deceit, deceitfulness, dishonesty, duplicity, fraudulence
‘Nuff said.

”maintain their confidence”

Since I am neither a right-wing fundamentalist nor employed by Halliburton, my confidence is pretty fucking far from maintained. Our foreign policies make us more a target for terrorism every day; we are nearly universally hated now. Our hard-on for declaring war on ::insert demon of choice:: has lead to a crippling deficit that arguably may still be plaguing our grandchildren’s children. Social Security is about as secure as that ol’ screen door on the proverbial Polish submarine. Yep, I’m fairly oozing with confidence in our current administration, aren’t you?

“protect their rights”

This time instead of laughing, I had to go sit in the corner and cry for a few minutes. I have neither the space nor the intestinal fortitude to cover just how many of our rights and freedoms are being eroded every day under the current Regime. All I can say is read the so-called

Patriot Act and be afraid. Be very afraid.

“and adhere to republican and to moral principles.”

As discussed earlier, those principles are supposedly the current will of the people. Is the war in Iraq your will? How about the deficit? The loss of personal freedom? The alienation of our once great country from the larger world stage? Now I know a (supposed) majority of this country elected this stumbling demented child-king TWICE, but when is enough enough? When are we going to rise up and take back America from neo-puritans, Dominionist dictators, and corporate yes-men? When are we going get “mad as hell, and not gonna take it anymore”?? For fuck’s sake America, when will we wake up?

http://www.votetoimpeach.org

The Libservative Republicrat

2005-06-15T20:30:00.000-07:00

Man, we Americans sure love our labels. On a message board I frequent a user posted the following outdated pro-Bush email chastising “Liberals”:

Bush haters READ THIS!!
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

My response is was as follows:
What this letter to the editor blissfully ignores is that it's not about the body count... of course the body count is lower... we've got better weapons, better armor, and are fighting "insurgents", not an army. What I think most liberals take umbrage to is the fact that Bush lies repeatedly. 9/11 was a tragedy... (his administration ignored the warning signs)... but they quickly determined that it was Al Qaeda and Afghani terrorists responsible... so we invade Iraq?? WTF? Ah, but Saddam was a huge threat with his WMDs... which never materialized. And now with the release of the Downing Street Memos, we learn that the intelligence was being "fixed" so he could run with his personal agenda.

The writer of this letter completely ignores the real reasons that Bush is considered by some to be the worst president in history (if nothing else from an environmental and personal freedom standpoint!) and instead spouts Republican propaganda without ever addressing the real issues. Sheesh.

I'm also wondering how old this letter is... he mentions 600 soldiers lost... last I heard (this morning actually) was 1700. He also mentions that we "crushed the Taliban and crippled al-Quaida"... that's not what the US Secretary of Defense said this week.

Man... although I love America, sometimes I hate Americans.

Yes, I know it lacks my usual bitterness, but the original poster is actually a friend of mine, so I took it easy on him. I didn’t point out the inconsistencies of the letter’s spurious and specious arguments. For example, it states "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us." Hate to break it to you Sparky, but Iraq never attacked us either. The entire argument is juvenile anyway; it's like a teenager being caught coming home after curfew and blurting "Sissy started smoking!" It's a feeble attempt to deflect addressing the actual issues by pointing out somone else's misdeeds. I get this tactic a lot from Bush supporters... "You hate Bush? So I suppose you think Clinton was a great president?!?" Wha huh? I don't know how you got from A to B, but methinks your train of thought made an unscheduled stop. I'd check for engine trouble. This letter to the editor is simply ridiculous, and the fact that my friend felt it was worth posting saddens me.

I mean fer chrissakes, it’s saying that FDR was bad for bringing us into WWII. So… you’re saying that the Nazi’s extermination of the Jews and goal of world domination were a good thing? Yet Bush can do no wrong for lying and destroying our personal freedoms in the name of “protecting” us from terrorists. Lemme guess… white Republican from the South? Hmmm, velly interestink.

I say that last with a wink, as it leads me (finally) into the actual point of this essay. Another poster responded to me saying he was glad that I was actually able to discuss my opinion, rather than just start an argument. He then asked, “So are you a liberal or a conservative?” I responded that I was neither.

I prefer to think for myself rather than toe the party line. Any party. Obviously I lean more toward the left, but I don’t feel the need to quantify myself with a label. I just don’t need to belong that badly. I’m happy being an island unto myself, regardless of what the poets say. I can’t help but think that the political labels we use in this country are just another way to keep us divided and stop us from ever achieving true greatness as individuals or as a society.

Republicans/Conservatives: are all bible-thumping, redneck, racist, homophobic, war-mongering psychotic crackers who screw the poor over in favor of the rich.

Democrats/Liberals: are all limp-wristed, over-sexed, abortion-loving, socialist/Marxist/communist crybaby faggots who hate freedom and want the terrorists to win.

Are those last two paragraphs complete and utter bullshit? Of course they are. Broad generalizations like these should immediately be seen for the partisan drivel that they are. But a lot of people really think that way. Our elected leaders think that way. Or at least act like they do in front of the cameras. I can’t help but feel this is nothing more that a kind of political racism. Instead of instantly hating someone for no other reason than the color of their skin, and perpetuating stereotypes about them, we hate them for the political label they choose to wear. And continue to perpetuate the stereotypes.

In my opinion, the current Republican party seems to have been completely co-opted by the Religious Right, who’s agenda is not based on what’s best for this country, but rather on what they interpret a 2000-year-old fairy tale to mean. The current Democrats seem to have absolutely no balls whatsoever, and are too afraid to offend anyone to actually stand up for what they say they believe in. The Republicans are generally considered the conservative party, and the Democrats the liberal. Why on earth would I want to align myself with either of these clusterfucks? I think Lewis Black said it best:

“The Republicans are the party of bad ideas, the Democrats are the party of no ideas.”

I’m also inclined to agree with Chris Rock (yes I realize how sad it is that a large portion of my political commentary comes from stand-up comedians) when he says that no issue is truly black or white:

“…on some topics I’m conservative, on others I’m liberal. When it comes to crime, I’m conservative. When it comes to prostitution, I’m liberal!”

All joking aside, his point was that each issue, each social problem, each political agenda should be examined in and of itself, and not supported or decried in a knee-jerk nod to party loyalty. Let’s quit calling each other names and actually discuss the issues, and not the person. Am I a Democrat? No. Am I Republican? Hell no. Am I a conservative? At times. Am I a liberal? Fairly often.

The long and the short of it is that I’m an AMERICAN. I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind. One of the most basic intrinsic traits of being an American is the right (if not the duty!) to question my government. Try to keep that in mind before you pigeonhole me into whatever neat little package fits your worldview. Look beyond your waving flags and grownup pep rallies long enough to see the truth for yourself. You might be surprised at what you see when you’re actually willing to open your eyes.

Kids These Days

2005-06-13T20:21:00.000-07:00

I knew I was getting old when this phrase starting actually making sense to me. Being childless, I haven't inflicted my offspring on the world at large and maybe that's why I feel it's all right for me rant about this country's youth. I'm in my 30's so it's really only been a couple of decades since I was a child myself. And I'll tell you, when I was 10 years old I was terrified of adults. Of GETTING IN TROUBLE. I would never have spoken to any grownup the way I hear some of these little monsters talk to their parents. Or to me, for that matter. Little fuckers.

When I'm in the supermarket and I see your fat little daughter turning purple as a result of her screaming tantrum I think to myself "Sweet! Here comes an ass whuppin'!" I mean my mom would have beaten the ever-living shit out of me for acting one quarter as obnoxious. And she would have been right to do it! But instead I hear, in that voice people reserve for puppy dogs and the lightly retarded, "Now Britney, I told you couldn't have a candy bar unless you finished your cafe latte." What the fuck is that?

Or at a restaurant when snot-nosed little Brandon is running around the tables screaming like a Tasmanian devil on a coke binge, and I catch the bedraggled parent's eye and they give me that "What can you do?" look. I'll tell you what you can do... you grab the little fucker by the throat and shake some fucking sense into the mongrel. And if you're not willing to punish your children, then fer chrissakes let me do it!

Look, I'm not advocating violence against children. Child abuse is one of the few things that I really can't stomach. It's an evil, vile, tragic, disgusting practice. But there's nothing wrong with the occasional spanking. There's no harm in teaching your rugrat that there are consequences to his actions! It's not bad to teach the troglodytic fruit of your loins that they should be respectful of others' feelings, especially when in public. When did we forget that in this country?

And another thing... there is no justifiable reason for giving your pre-teen a cell phone. I'm mean jesus, is it really that important for your child to be kept up to date on the latest Justin Timberlake song? Are they expecting an urgent call from the president? For fuck's sake, let your kids actually BE kids, while they can. I mean, we give our kids cell phones and personal computers and credit cards. We let television raise them. Little girls are walking around in padded bras and mini skirts and makeup. When the fuck did I step into this pedophilic Twilight Zone?

I read an article many years ago that talked about the invasion of television into our very psyches. It brought up one point that really struck me as sad, that has stuck with me for all these years. It said that 20 years ago (from when the article was written) if you asked a child to describe a jungle to you, you would get vastly different replies. The kid would actually have to use his imagination, and create his personal idea of a jungle and find a way to articulate it to you. But if "today" you asked a child the same age to describe a jungle, you'd get a Tarzan or Tomb Raider movie regurgitated to you. We're telling our kids that they don't really have to think for themselves anymore, because television will do it for them. And according to t.v., society wants them to be beautiful, shallow idiots with lots of bling.

So please parents, control your hellions. Teach them to respect their elders (when such respect is deserved) and to respect their community. Teach them to think for themselves, and not to be so quick to become another generic soulless consumer. Teach them that if they don't straighten up their act, they might just get a little visit from crazy old Uncle Joe, and he will be infinitely less forgiving than their brain-dead parents.

The Root Directory of All Evil

2005-06-12T20:05:00.000-07:00

How the Internet Got Me Hooked on Crack and Turned My Trick Ass Out

Not me not me, bo bot me, banana fanna fo fot me, me my mo mot me… NOT ME!

What the hell happened to the concept of personal responsibility in this country? Our children are uncontrollable hellions, and it’s all the fault of those insidious video games. Our religious leaders bugger little boys and it’s quietly brushed under the rug for years. Our intrepid political leaders tell bigger and bigger and lies, engage in illegal wars, destroy the environment, and commit crimes against humanity… and then just sort of shrug their shoulders and smirk. They’re not worried, they know they’ll never be taken to task for their misdeeds, because no one in America is ever responsible for their own actions. We are taught from a very early age to look outside ourselves to find the basis of all of our problems. It wasn’t my fault, it was the drug addiction/my dysfunctional childhood/road rage/that Twinkie I ate for dessert… the Internet! Yeah, that’s it… I blame the Internet!

There’s a group of wacko religious types (redundant much?) in Texas who claim “The Internet is a cause for addiction and sin while taking away traditional family values. Our children are being exposed to filth that causes sexual tendencies and drug addiction.” Just reading those two sentences makes my head want to explode. Twice. Thankfully these troglodytes uncovered the seldom seen “Thou shalt not surf porn” commandment that so many of us overlooked lo these many years. And “sexual tendencies”? Not deviant sexual tendencies… not abnormal sexual tendencies… they’re not afraid of perversion, they’re afraid of sex in general. The irony is that I’d wager dollars to donuts that no one in their right mind would want to fuck these people anyway. And I would simply love to hear how they make a correlation between the Internet and drug addiction. They must have found that website that sends heroin direct to your door overnight for a nominal fee. And the fuckers won’t even post the link.

But the best part is how they’re trying to get their message across. In case you haven’t figured it out already… they have started an ONLINE PETITION. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Don’t these neo-puritanical fucktards realize that there is an on/off switch on their computers? That no one is forcing them to subscribe to an ISP? That they have to power to not own a fucking computer in the first place? That as parents they have the right and the responsibility to control their fugly repressed little offspring? Ah, but even if their own homes were made safe from the big bad drug dealing, boner-inducing Internet, they’re afraid the rest of the country might still enjoy themselves. And lord knows they can’t have that! They are the self-appointed Family Values Traffic Cops. You see, if they can’t arrogantly impose their outdated, shortsighted, closed-minded moral system upon the rest of us, then we “ain’t gwine up to hebbin!” It doesn’t matter if we share their belief system. They have decided they know what’s best for everyone, so if they don’t like it, it has gotsta go!

It’s not like there’s actually anything to worry about. As a general rule, e-Petitions are a complete waste of time. Still, I keep hoping to wake up one morning to find that the UCAWWW (United Coalition Against the World Wide Web) is a prank being played on us by some 13-year-old hacker in Duluth. The truly scary part is that I can easily believe that some bible-thumping biddies in a Southern state really would think this way. So just in case, here’s a few new commandments for the modern age you ladies in Texas may want to consider:

I. Thou hast the ability to turn off electronic devices
II. If thine Internet offends thee, thou mayst walk away
III. Thou art probably too stupid to own a computer anyway
IV. Keep thy Lord to thy fucking self

As Seen On TV: The Movie!

2005-06-09T19:36:00.000-07:00

Yes ladies and gentlemen, Hollywood is officially out of ideas. The last decade or so has seen the rise of nearly countless (and almost universally reviled) big screen versions of televisions shows, which in most cases weren’t all that great to begin with. The Little Rascals, McHale’s Navy, My Favorite Martian, The Avengers, Lost in Space, and Wild Wild West, are just a few examples of this incomprehensible phenomenon. Note that according to the Internet Movie Database these “films” scored an average of 4.25 stars out of a possible 10, with “Little Rascals” the most polished of these turds with 5.2 stars. The Brady Bunch movie actually scored higher, but I omitted it from this list as thinking about that movie makes me stabby. More recently it was the two “Charlie’s Angels” snooze-fests and the so-so Starsky & Hutch. (I must admit this last one is sort of a guilty pleasure of mine; I have seen it twice on cable, and neither time did I attempt suicide.)

This summer we’re going to be subjected to two more: Bewitched and the Dukes of Hazzard. Lucky us! Where’s a Futurama suicide booth when I really need it? Although I still wouldn’t pay to see it, at least Bewitched has a modicum of a chance at being decent. Will Farrell is just so damn likeable, and Nicole Kidman doesn’t bug me either. But dear lord, the Dukes of Hazzard? Although I am amused that Cooter's all hepped up about them sexin' up his ol' family show, but why do studios insist on pumping out movies that are practically guaranteed to lower the intelligence level of any audience that watches them? What coked-up, Evian swilling, prostitute boffing sleazoid greenlit this smoking pile? I can see it now…

INTERIOR, studio executive’s office. Wide shot of EXECUTIVE splayed on leather couch, Armani pants pooled around his ankles. The bleached-blonde head of male PRODUCER bobs enthusiastically in EXECUTIVE’S lap as we PAN IN.

EXECUTIVE: Have you seen the latest demographics? We’re losing Middle America. We can’t get the sheep to shell out 15 bucks to see “Crash”. It’s just too deep for the American public. Ditto “Cinderella Man”. The critics love ‘em, but those fuckers don’t have to buy their tickets.

PRODUCER (offscreen): Mmmph. ::slurp:: Grrbbll prrmph grmpbst.

EXECUTIVE: We need something that’ll appeal to the mainstream Red Staters. Is there any way to get a sequel out of Passion of the Christ? No, Gibson would want to direct again, scratch that. But besides religion, what else appeals to hillbillies? Wait! I’ve got it! Beverly Hillbillies, the Movie!

PRODUCER: Prbtth krmff grmmps fnnrk!

EXECUTIVE: Oh, that’s right, we did that already. And it flopped. What was the gross on that?

PRODUCER: Glrrrg.

EXECUTIVE: Yeah, that’s dismal. Plus, there was really no crossover marketing. What were we going to sell? Granny’s bonnets? Ellie Mae’s daisy dukes?

CLOSEUP of EXECUTIVE’S face as his eyes widen and a large grin splits his face.

EXECUTIVE: Yes! That’s it!!

CUT TO PRODUCER as EXECUTIVE’S knob slips from his mouth.

PRODUCER: You have an idea?

EXECUTIVE: No, I’m about to come! Don’t stop you fat pig!

TIGHT SHOT on EXECUTIVE, whose eyes roll back in his head in orgasmic bliss.

EXECUTIVE: Aaaaaahhhh! That’s better. So where were we? Hillbillies… daisy dukes… fat pig…

EXECUTIVE & PRODUCER (simultaneously): DUKES OF HAZZARD! They give each other a high five.

PRODUCER: That’s fucking brilliant boss!

EXECUTIVE: Of course it is. That’s why I’m in charge. I’ve noticed you’ve started swallowing by the way.

PRODUCER: Yeah, I’m on Atkins now. Protein’s where it’s at. Should I get started on the casting?

EXECUTIVE: Yes, first thing in the morning. Right now I need you to toss my salad.

PRODUCER: ::slurp::

Oh, and one last thing. Jessica Simpson is NOT hot. She has a nice body. She might have even been pretty cute, freakishly masculine lantern jaw not withstanding. But as soon as she opened her mouth and revealed the intelligence of asscrack lint, she got real ugly real quick.

Mary Jane: That Naughty Nurse

2004-08-12T18:57:00.000-07:00

I’d like to pose a question to you: If there were a drug that treated many different symptoms, was safe, effective, and inexpensive to reproduce, would you be interested? There is such a drug. It’s called medical marijuana.

One of the main uses of this drug is in easing the pain and suffering of cancer patients. According to the American Cancer Society website this year alone over 1,300,000 new cases of cancer are expected to be diagnosed in the U.S. Chances are likely that this disease will affect someone in your life. If it does affect someone you know, it’s nice to know that you have options.

Although I am not an expert on the subject, I have done extensive research and believe strongly in the mental and physical therapeutic value of this drug. I am not trying to change your political leanings on this topic, simply inform you of the benefits. Medical marijuana is safe, has proven to be very effective, and is gaining credibility in the medical community and society at large.

First, let’s talk about safety. According to the U.S. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) a group that records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners reports, marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death. According to medical experts, there has never been one case of death due to marijuana; it is physically impossible to overdose on THC, the active ingredient.

The only really negative aspect you hear about is addiction. However, according to research compiled by the Marijuana Policy Project, “few marijuana users become dependent.” And those few who do experience very mild dependence, less severe than even alcohol or nicotine.

Next, let’s discuss medical marijuana’s effectiveness. In use as an antiemetic (drugs for nausea and vomiting) the New York State Journal of Medicine, the Annals of Internal Medicine vol. 91, and Psychopharmacology vol. 49 all show medical marijuana is effective in reducing nausea and vomiting, and increases appetite and food intake.The Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 9 showed that a random survey of oncologists showed that 44% of respondents report recommending the use of marijuana for the control of emesis and 48% would prescribe it regularly if it were legal. Doctors know it medical marijuana works.

These same symptoms need to be treated in AIDS patients, and medical marijuana has found to be just as effective in this situation. Also, there have been published studies that consistently show that marijuana is effective in lowering intraocular eye pressure. Heightened intraocular eye pressure is the cause of glaucoma. Thus published evidence indicates marijuana preserves the vision of people with glaucoma.

Finally, regarding control of muscle spasm there is published literature demonstrating marijuana to be effective in controlling convulsions. The control of muscle spasm is important to patients with Multiple Sclerosis, epilepsy, spinal cord injury, paraplegia and quadriplegia. (Common Sense for Drug Policy)

Lastly, let’s talk about the growing acceptance of this treatment. There are currently 8 states that have laws that protect patients who possess and grow their own medical marijuana with their doctor’ approval: Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii and Maine. In addition, the State Health Departments of New Mexico, Michigan, Tennessee, New York and Georgia have released reports showing medical marijuana to be beneficial.On the larger world stage, both the House of Lords in the U.K. and the House of Commons in Canada have passed legislation allowing the use of medical marijuana.

Medical marijuana is safe. Not only are instances of addiction and side effects rare and mild, but there has never been one case of death by overdose in annals of medical history. Medical marijuana is effective: the studies and literature show time and again that it is effective in treating the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and muscle spasm due to diseases like Parkinsons. Medical marijuana is gaining acceptance, not just in the U.S. but around the world. This is a good thing.

Dyin' Would Be a Stone Groove

2004-07-23T18:05:00.000-07:00

I have often said that personally I am not afraid of death. I am much more afraid of growing old. The thought of losing my faculties, losing control over my own body is much more frightening than death itself. There was a great line in the film Pretty in Pink where Annie Potts’ character asks Molly Ringwald’s teenage ‘Andie’ "Why can't we start out old, and get younger?" I think we would definitely appreciate life more if that were the case. Although I imagine it might be a bit harder on our mothers.

As a child I had absolutely no concept of my own mortality. When I look back at some of the crazy stunts I pulled, I am at times shocked that I'm still among the living. I wish that I could pinpoint the actual moment that I realized that I was far from immortal. I would have to take care if I did not want to hurry the whole dying thing along. I still was not afraid of death, but at least I was aware of it.

To me now, the thought of dying is almost exciting... as long as I get to die on my own terms. I am hoping to go peacefully in my sleep, preferably after a marathon session of sex with a nubile young nymphomaniac. If that is the way I get to go then death can be looked at as an adventure. Death is truly the last frontier; the final mystery of mankind. What comes next?

Humans have been asking this question for almost as long as we have been able to formulate rational thoughts. "Where did we come from?" may be the only question asked more often than "Where do we go when we die?" I think that most of the major religions in the world were formed simply to answer these two queries. Not that they've come up with any satisfactory answers to date.

Personally I do not believe in heaven or hell. I do not believe in any sort of afterlife per se. Nor do I subscribe to the belief that we are reincarnated. In my more philosophical moments, I view life as a staircase that goes on for eternity in both directions. The kind of life you lead, the kind of person that you try to be determines whether or not you move up or down on the staircase when your time comes. Sometimes one might just move laterally on the same step. However, I do not think that I will remember where I was before, my "previous life." I think that the stairs are closer to different dimensions than they are to other lives. I feel it would be impossible to even comprehend one level of existence while entrenched in another.

In my more cynical moments, I do not even see the staircase. I think we are nothing more than apes with abnormally large brains. We have developed language, engage in associative reasoning, and arrogantly believe that this makes us special. Sometimes I think we are really nothing more than extremely lucky animals. A fortunate mutation allowed our brains to develop. But then we decided that our brains were instead minds. We are primates with delusions of grandeur. If we really are just glorified monkeys then chances are that when we die, that is it. End of story.

This still does not scare me however. It is the way of nature. Everything dies, and everything decays; entropy is all around us. I feel we should not spend our lives fearing its end, but rather enjoying each moment we do have. If I spend all my time worrying about when and how I will shuffle off this mortal coil, when will I have time to actually live?