Missing You

05/09/19

You know what I miss?  No, not that.  No, not that either.  Well, yes, I do, but that is not we're talking about.  I miss Goth.  The movement, not someone with an unfortunate name (I have just offended someone out there, I just know it).  It wasn't perfect but it had a lot going for it.  It had a huge potential for artistic expression that, sadly, never really came to full fruition.  Sure it had more than its share of pretentious twits but even so, it was still worthwhile.  Okay, in all fairness, there was a disturbing, mind-numbing, soul-crushing amount of pretentious twits, and all of them seemed to masturbate to the sound of their own voices.  Even so, I miss it.  And *insert deity here* deliver me from, and to, the Goth Chicks.

The artistic potential of it was huge and it managed to produced a lot of great material.  A lot of the art, the poetry especially,  had a certain vibe to it.  A lot of it is, unfairly, I feel, written off as the angsty whinings of self involved teens. There was plenty of that, to be sure, but, with a closer look you could see that it was sometimes a good deal more than just that.  For some, the poetry that was most vividly on display was not just on the page.  It continued in the clothes, the music, the make up, the sexuality, and, most importantly, the space it built.

The space of it was what I found most interesting.  It provided a dark space that could be comforting, the comfort of being seen without being seen.  The contrast between that darkness and the brilliant flashes of creative fire was, at times, stunningly beautiful.  It was a vibe that could allow pain to be felt and given vent to without being condemned for it.

Now, maybe I am just romanticizing it.  Maybe this is just the mental paintings of someone who was only able to view it all only from the sidelines, viewing from the outside looking in.  I was, and still am, painfully, cripplingly shy , but the contact I did have and the people I met were part of something special, part of the beginning of what could have been something wonderful.

I am also not one who believes in "the good old days".  There never were any good old days.  There were just days, and they were both good and bad the same as ever and ever.  As I said, it had more than its fair share of the pretentiousness and cliquishness and other bullshit same as any group of more than four humans, but once you scraped through it all, there was a lot that made it worth the effort.  You can find greatness in any age, but this was the one that spoke to me the loudest so far.

One other thing I find interesting is that the ones who, way back when, were so enamored with the death vibe aspect, now look back and say how silly they were now that they are older and, arguably, closer to actual death.  Maybe it is just experience looking back on a former obsession with a laugh.  But maybe, just maybe, that laugh has a twinge of the lost to it.

Also, say what you will, but no one could sack a city quite like the Goths.

Really, Mike? Really?

01/21/19

As most of you know Vice President Mike Pence's wife, Karen, has accepted a job at the Immanuel Christian School in Northern Virginia.  Normally I would applaud that.  Given the woeful state of our education system I would hope that being a teacher would prompt her to become an advocate for that disturbingly undervalued profession.  Yes, I realize that the Immanuel Christian School is a private school but even so, teachers need all the advocates they can get.  Hell, given that our society seems to be determined to reward ignorance, bigotry, pettiness, and selfishness, education itself needs all the advocates it can get!

There is just one little problem.  You know the school that she will be teaching at, yeah, it is just a teensy bit prejudiced.  You know, just like the Marianas Trench is just a teensy bit deep.

This school seems to think that bigotry is a virtue.  Yuppers, a virtue.  Now it was always my understanding the word "virtue" referred to something positive.  Now, I realize that what is regarded a s positive is subjective, but damn!

The school's brand of bigotry?  LGBT students and teachers are banned from the school.  So, if you are a dude who likes weener or a lady who digs who-who (Tech terms, you will be tested later) or one of those lucky people who like both, don't even bother showing up.  You are all terribly naughty people.  Apparently.

The school actually goes farther that that and it bans a great many things that it deems morally wrong.  Including, but not limited to: even having anything to do with anything LBGT related (Put down those Elton John and Liberace CDs and back away slowly!), divisive conduct, premarital sex, living together outside of wedlock (most awkward wrestling move ever!),  polygamy, porn, adultery, premarital sex, violation of the unique roles of male and female (back to the kitchen with you!), etc.

Now this isn't just stuff you can't do on campus,  this is stuff you can't do at all!  Here's an example of how much this school wants to be in control of the lives of the students and faculty, in order to have your child attend the school the parents have to sign an agreement that it calls, the "Essentials of Faith".  Number thirteen on this list states: "I will regularly pray for the needs of the school, my child's teachers, the school administration, and school board."  Nice, huh?  I wonder how they know.  Is it possible to run a wire tap on people's prayers?  Does the NSA know about this?

They want all involved with them to live according to the laws laid down in the bible.  Which version of the bible they don't actually specify.  So, for all of you keeping score, gayness and wanking are a no-no but slavery (with a handy little section on the logistics thereof in Lev 25), genocide (all over the place), and smashing babies against rocks (Psalm 137) are just fine!  Hooray for morality!

So maybe, just maybe, the second lady didn't realize that the school was so... "harsh".  Maybe she thought it was just a regular private school.  Nope, she had taught there for twelve years prior to becoming the second lady.

Some might say, "Hey, she is still a teacher.  Why couldn't she still be an advocate?  Well, she could but it would be a little like David Duke advocating for voting.  Sure, he was an elected official and voting is important (in theory) but the negatives of the person kind of overshadow the message just a tad.

"But, hey," I hear some of you thinking (that's right, I am totally inside your head!), "It's not as if she is an elected official."  Fair enough.  But her husband is and she has his support.  He went so far as to say in an interview regarding the reporting in the media:   “To see major news organizations attacking Christian education is deeply offensive to us,”  Further stating that. “We’ll let the critics roll off our backs,” the vice president continued. “But this criticism of Christian education should stop.” Because, as we all know, expressing differing opinions is downright un-American!

He seems to have a fundamental (most likely willful) misunderstanding of the problem here.  No one is attacking Christian education.  First, I would imagine a great many Christian private schools might not want to be put in the same category as ICS.  Second, the school isn't really the issue.  The issue is that the second lady and the vice president are in vocal support of bigoted and exclusionist practices and that should make anyone nervous.

Now I firmly believe that anyone can worship or not worship anything that they see fit.  No matter how vile something is, it is a person's right to believe it.  The caveat to that would be, "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else".  I may find your beliefs repugnant but I support your right to believe them.  The problem with this situation is this: Those personal beliefs, in a situation like this have a better than average chance of slinking in to public policy.  Best case scenario, a whole lot of people have their bigotry validated.  Think I am exaggerating?  Go have a look at some of the wacky things Mike has said.  It's probably ok.  I mean, it is not like a belief system has ever been used against anyone who believed differently before.  Right?

Oh, fun fact:

According to the bible (Mathew 05:32 and others) Jesus stated that a person who divorces their spouse and marries someone else is committing adultery, as it the person who marries her. Mike Pence is Karen's second husband.  Hmmm, there was something prohibited by the school, wasn't there?  Something that started with an "A"  Something in a nice scarlet...

 

Ok, in all fairness it really puts the onus on the man but that probably has something to do with the bible, in general, doesn't view women as real people.  Mike on the other hand...

Rant Over...for now.

That is Just What They Want You to Think

11/16/18

We all know who the illuminati are.  They are the ones that created "New Coke" (because they hate us) and helped fake the moon landing to hide the fact that we landed on the moon.  See how insidious they are!  They are also the big bad that has shaped nations and started and stopped wars over the centuries.

Now, with those kind of things on their resume you would think they would be a pretty smart group of people and maybe they are, but it seems like they have lowered their standards for membership just a tad.

A South Carolina man recently filed a fraud complaint claiming he was scammed out of $2250.  Apparently that is the cost of membership which, if you think about it is quite reasonable.  $2250 to join a world spanning organization that has been controlling damn near everything since the 1700s?  Sounds legit to me.

But it gets better.  He didn't send them the money all at once.  He paid them $250 and only after that sent them the $2000.  I have to wonder how that conversation went:

"Yeeeeaaaaah, we just got the money and apparently the entry fee has been raised."

"Oh, by how much?"

"Um, $2000?"

"That's a lot of money!"

"True, but membership comes with this nifty keychain...  It's pine scented."

"SOLD!"

Now fortunately this guy came to his senses in time to cancel the transfer of the $2000.  So, "Yay, him!"  I would imagine he is just S.O.L. as far as the $250 goes.  The part that I keep coming back to though is that it was only after the second transfer that it started to seem fishy to him.

Now, as a point of interest, there actually was an Illuminati in Bavaria in the 1700.  It was started by a man named Adam Weishaupt.  It was, for lack of a better term, a think tank.  A think tank run by the reptilians and a small bowl of potato salad named Frederick.  Legend has it that Frederick is still there and is in charge of the yearly evil organization picnic and human sacrifice.  Ed in billing, however, is probably going to get fired over this one.

I would have loved to have been the cop that caught this case.  I would have listened very patiently nodding at the appropriate places and take notes.  Once the man was finished I would slide my notepad to the side, lean in close and, wearing my most serious face and in my most serious voice whisper to the man: "We know."  Sit up, grab my notepad and without another word, walk away.

Yeah, I probably wouldn't last very long as a cop.

It's Not Bigotry When We Do It

Friday, August 04, 2017

Ok, so here is a quick quiz:  What to all these statements beginnings have in common?  "All black people are..."  "All white people are...", "All asian people are...", "All gay people are...", "All trans people are...", "All cis people are...",  "All men are...", "All women are...", "All straight people are..."

Go on, think it over.  I'll wait.  Ask a friend if you need to.  Those of you who said, "They were all just typed by you.  Weren't you paying attention?" are technically correct, but that is not the answer I am looking for.  Give up?  They all signal that the speaker is about to say something bigoted and more than likely, colossally stupid.  To those of you who just pointed out that I just said (typed) all of them,  touché. 

Am I the only one who finds amazing the level of hypocrisy, narcissism and utter lack self awareness that is on display when someone says something along the lines of  "All men are misogynistic", "all white people are racist". or :"all cis people are transphobic.".  There is a disturbing idea that seems to be gaining in popularity that bigotry is something that only certain types of people can be guilty of.  "Certain types of people"  My, doesn't that sound familiar?

To be specific, that "certain type of person" is usually a straight white male.  Now before everyone loses their shit, take a deep breath, relax..  I am not sure why but when someone says something along those lines people immediately jump to the conclusion that that person is saying that bigotry against others either somehow less.  This is ridiculous, there is more than enough stupidity within the human psyche for all.  One group's struggle does not lessen the struggle of another.  Not every discussion of the struggles faced by the various groups needs to turn into an oppression-based pissing contest.

Am I saying that everyone who is not a straight white male is a bigot or that a straight white male can not be a bigot?  Absolutely not.  The statement that someone is incapable of bigotry simply because they belong to one group or another would not only be prejudice but colossally stupid.  If you subscribe to that philosophy, keep this in mind, I fall into a few groups that are generally considered to have been oppressed so clearly I can not be bigoted.  See how silly that sounds?

Think I am overstating the matter?  Think of our popular culture and what we consider acceptable and unacceptable to say.  Think about our various groups that seek the advancement of one group or another.  Now replace the stated group with straight, white or male.  When it is ok for a black character who is not at base a racist character rolls their eyes and says with exasperation " White people!" it is okay but if a parallel white character were to do the same thing except saying "Black people!" what do you think the reaction would be?  Which statement is racist?  Trick question, they are both just as racist. "Dear White People"?  Why is that okay?  "Black Entertainment Channel"?  What would the response to a "White Entertainment Channel"?  A women only club?  How is that any less sexist than a men only club?

I take issue with any group that seeks to separate humankind.  The issues that face one of us face all of us and need to be addressed by all of us.  Separation is counterproductive at best.  All of us working together is far more effective than all of us working separately.  Now that may sound idealistic but that doesn't make it any less true.

There is a great deal more to say in this subject but this will do for now.

Rant Over... For Now

Paging Darwin

Saturday July 08, 2017

A while ago a young woman and man decided that they wanted to be stars.  More, specifically, they wanted to be internet stars.  More, more specifically, you tube stars.  Even if you haven't heard the story you can see where this one is going.  True to your suspicions, the decided to do something very, very stupid to achieve this goal.

They decided that it would be a good idea to pull a stunt with a gun and a phone book.  The gun was a .50 cal Desert Eagle and the phone book, well, it was just a regular phone book.  The stunt was this:  The young man would put the phone book against his chest and the young lady would take the pistol and fire it into the phone book from a foot away.  The thought, if one could call it that, was that the phone book would stop the bullet from hitting the young man.

As I have said before, I am not a "gun guy" but even I could have figured out that having a high caliber gun fired at your chest from a foot away is a really bad idea, phone book or no.  I generally do my best to avoid having guns pointed at me at all.  It is a policy that seems to have served me well over the years.

These people did not have that policy.  As you can guess the stunt did not quite go according to plan.  The gun was fired and the bullet went through the phone book.  Yay!!  What a great stunt.  The bullet then proceeded to go through the young man's chest.  Boo!!  And this spectacular entry to the annals of the Darwin Awards was all captured on video.  Ok, technically, they are only runners up for the Darwin Award.

Now, I am not a nice person (you probably figured that out already, huh?).  Misanthrope, though not one hundred percent accurate, has been used to describe me.  I prefer to think of my self as more of a cynic, and as we know, a cynic is nothing more than a bruised romantic.  Anyway, I cemented my status as a not terribly nice guy when my first response upon hearing this story was "good".  It is not that I wanted anyone to die, per say, but it has long been my opinion that sometimes the gene pool needs a little chlorine.  Harsh? sure, but look at the world we live in.  Dealing with folks like this will tie up resources that could be used to help people that don't think it would be a good idea to be shot with a .50 cal pistol.

Now, while I feel no sympathy for these two, I do feel a great deal of sympathy for their children.  They had one and one on the way.  These kids are down one parent and, depending on how the trial goes, may be down one more, at least for a while.  Now I am hoping that being away from this couple dense enough to bend light will, in the long run, be good for them.  I know it is hard to have to grow up without parents but I know from personal experience that it is even harder to grow up with bad ones.  On the up side though, at least the couple won't be having any more children.

My hope is that maybe this experience will shock the stupid out of this young woman and she will be able to, in time, redeem herself and become a useful member of society.  My experience with society, however, makes me think that that hope may be a bit too high.  Here's hoping that the children can learn from their parent's impressively dumb-ass display of poor choices in action.

Rant Over... for now

Go Us!

Friday, July 07 2017

So, every once in a while surfing aimlessly around the net I will be lucky enough to come across something really cool.  That was the case with a group called Steam Powered Giraffe.  This band has an interesting shtick.  They paint themselves up as steampunk robots when they play.  Well, I would imagine they actually do the make-up before they actually play.  Although, that would be impressive if they did both at the same time...  Anyway as you might guess, at least some of them, have backgrounds in mime.  Sure, I could look up exactly how many of them have this background but I have always wanted to be a reporter, well, columnist anyway, and if the fourth estate doesn't really worry about research and accuracy any more then I don't have to either!  So there!  100, 300 of the 11 current and former member have backgrounds in mime,  Watching these folks makes me question the wisdom of the near universal hatred of mimes.  Up is down, left is right, all is lost!!!

...That's it.  That's the post.  Hope you enjoyed it.

Yeah, I didn't believe I could be that short winded either.  The point of this post (shut your head, there is to a point to my inane ramblings sometimes) has to do with two of the members, David Michael Bennett and Isabella "Bunny" Bennett.  So as I often do when something takes my interest, I looked for more information on the group.  I clicked on the link for Bunny and the first thing I noticed was that her birth name was "Christopher".  It is interesting that the first thing that popped into my head was: "Wow, I bet she had a hard time in high school!".  As you have probably guessed Bunny was born a male and transitioned to female.  Given my experiences in high-school, I would imagine that she did have a rough go of it, just for different reason than being a girl with a "boy's name".  Although, if you want to get technical, I guess she actually was a girl with a "boy's name".

Now I am a firm believer in the idea that the brain can have a gender that does not match the body one was born into.  The thing that I found interesting was that not one did the Wikipedia entry refer to her as "he".  The only mention that was made of her body being born male was in the "Personal Life" part of the entry.  I thought that this was great, especially when you considering that just a few years ago she would most likely be referred to as "he".  It is things like this that gives me hope for our species.  Then, of course, we turn around and do something profoundly stupid and toss that hope away.  Who knows, maybe one day we might notice that pattern.

Huh, I Guess He Really Does Exist...

Monday 06/05/17

And here I thought Rosco P. Coltrane was just a fictional character from that old show. 

I really should apologize to the creators of and the actors who portrayed the character over the years.  But, really, tell me you don't see the parallels.  Now tell me with a straight face.

So, Unless you have been living under a rock, or in a cave with crappy wi-fi, for the last little while, you know all about the bombing in Manchester, England that killed 22 and injured a crapload more last month.  Now, looking back, one might think that it was a terrorist bombing carried out in the name of ISIS, you know, because they claimed responsibility for it.  If you though so, don't worry, I thought that same thing.  Thank your deity-of-choice that this man is here to set us straight!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the savior of common sense.  I give you Sheriff  Tracy Murphree of Denton County, Texas.  Clearly a paragon of intellect!  I actually typed that with a straight face.  I am so proud, and nauseated.

Sheriff Murphree took to facebook and posted his sage wisdom.  In the interest of brevity (yes, I know that ship has sailed) and to avoid the crippling depression that comes with knowing that people like this exist, I will not be reposting his entire post.  Hopefully the depression will be slightly less crippling that way.  Well, I can always hope.

So, anyway, this guy took to facebook to enlighten us all.  Apparently, ISIS was not responsible for the bombing at all.  England was.  I know, I was shocked too.  But apparently (in the man's own words): “This is what happens when you disarm your citizens.  When you open your borders without the proper vetting. When you allow political correctness to dictate how you respond to an enemy that wants to kill you.”

And now you know.  Refreshing isn't it?  England did it by not letting people have guns and trying not to offend people.  Oh, and let's not forget letting those foreigners in.  The bombing simply would not have happened if England had a better vetting process.  They would have been able to keep terrorist out in the first place.  You know, like the guy who carried the actual bomb.  Guys like him, guys who were born there.  Wait, what? 

Yuppers, this guy was born in England.  True it looks the guy had some terrorist training outside the country.  So then the solution is simple don't let anyone who leaves the country back in.  Problem solved.  You are welcome.

While I am one who believes that in some cases political correctness has gone overboard, I don't think it allows people to blow things up any easier.  I am pretty sure the guy would have done it even if people were not politically correct around him.  I realize that he was talking about the reluctance to use the term "Islamic Terrorist".  I do understand the reluctance to use the term.  We, as a species, are a very all or nothing people.  You bandy about a label like that and many, not all to be sure but many, will latch onto it and reduce it down to the easiest and, more often than not, most inane form.  In this case that would be deciding that since this nozzle was ostensibly a "Muslim" and a "Terrorist", all Muslims must be terrorists!  After all, terrorists are hard to find, its kinda their thing, but Muslims on the other hand, find a  mosque and you have found a whole bunch of them.

Hey, it is easier than actually think for yourself, right?

In the rest of his post he seems to make it clear, at least to my mind (stop laughing, I have one...-ish), that when he refers to a certain ideology,  he is referring to Islam, not terrorists.  In the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" the operative word there is "terrorism", not "Islamic".

One thing that I find hilarious (yes, I sometimes have a dark sense of humor, but only on days that end in "y") Is that he refer to "A ideology that treats women as property, kills gays and women and Christians [sic] with complete impunity."  Does that sound familiar to anyone?  If you said "Damn near every religion that ever existed" Well done. I find it interesting that he mentions "killing gays" in his post considering he said that he would send a trans woman who tried to use the same restroom as his daughter to the hospital.  I, of course,  realize that there is a great difference between a gay person and a trans person but do you really think that someone with his apparent mindset worries about those types of distinctions?  Hey, maybe I am wrong and he does make that distinction but whether or not he does or not that doesn't make it okay to beat up trans-folk or anyone for that matter.  It is especial egregious when it is a representative of the law saying these things.  And just to make things extra depressing, keep in mind, sheriff is an elected position.  Yay, humans (heavy sigh).

As far as guns go, I am actually in favor of gun ownership but in this case I am pretty sure it wouldn't have helped.  I am not a "gun guy" but I have yet to hear about a gun that generates a magical explosion-proof force field.  If you know of one, by all means, let me know.

I would really love to say that this guy is an isolated situation but we all know that is not the case.  We have all met these people and we continue to do so and they will continuously and inexplicably end up in public office.  If you are looking for a reason, the reason is simple.  It is so much easier to listen to the crowd and just go along and there are mechanisms in place to help us along with that attitude. 

I would like to say good on Ariana Grande for putting on a benefit concert in the city so quickly.  I know nothing about her but good on her none the less.

Rant Over... for now

From Murderland with Love

Tuesday May 30, 2017

A 73 year old retired construction worker was attacked by a 9 foot great white shark while fishing. Wait, this gets good. The man wasn't actually in the water when he was attacked. He wasn't even leaning over the side. He was sitting in the boat. The shark jumped into the boat with him!

Where could such a thing happen, you ask? Where else but Murderland, aka Australia! It is a place where critters want to fuck you up so badly that they leap into an environment that they are completely incapable of surviving in to do it

.

If you live in Murderland, my hat is off to you. You are braver than I (although, admittedly, that is not a difficult task). You have the courage to live in a place where there spiders big enough to eat birds and even the beaver-ducks are venomous! Don't even get me started on the koalas. Those little buggers are up to something.

I mean watching Jaws when I was little kept me out of the pool for quite a while (stop laughing, it is a well known fact that giant great white sharks occasionally visit pools for vacation. I think they get a buzz off the chlorine and enjoy snacking on unwary children.), imagine what would have happened if I had found out that they can fly as well?!? I would have had to find some way to survive while embedding myself in dirt. Ah, but then I would have to worry about the dreaded land shark. I know you have doubts, but I have seen actual photographic evidence of the land shark. You know, way back before Saturday Night Live started to suck.

This guy, though, I love this guy. I would have love to have been able to listen in to the distress call:

Captain Awesome: Um, yeah. I was just attacked by a great white shark.

Rescue Person: Sir, you seem remarkably calm for someone who was just attacked by a great white.

Captain Awesome: Well... he wasn't very good at it.

And indeed it wasn't as the gentleman walked away with only a couple of stitches. Now this could have been because the shark was a lousy shot but I prefer to believe that he avoided injury through sheer intimidation of the very fabric of reality. He gave several great quotes to the media but my favorite so far is: "I think next time I might find a crocodile to wrestle just to stay in the limelight." You, sir, are a bad ass!

A Bit Behind

I am a bit behind on blog posting here so the next few will be ones that were written a bit ago and posted elsewhere.  So thank you for your patience, non-existent reader.

Excelsior, Dear Friend

As most of you probably know by now, yesterday we lost Stan Lee.  Normally, when I speak about someone I have not met I will refer to them by their last name but in this case I refer to him by his first.  After all, despite never meeting him, to my mind, he was always just Stan.

To say that Stan was a national treasure would be to drastically sell him short.  He was a global treasure.  His work touched the hearts and minds of children of all ages, 3 - 3000, and all genders and races.  Like any person, he was not perfect but he was, it seems a good man. 

I never met Stan nor would I most likely ever have even if he was still with us, but never the less, he has played a very important part in my life.  I grew up in a very bad place enduring very bad things and the universe that Stan created along with so many others offered a hurting sad little boy, who's almost entire world was fear and pain, a place to feel safe and even hopeful.  I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that Stan's work along with the many many other talented people that have worked with him over the years are part of the reason I am still alive.  No matter how dark things got, there was always that small flicker of hope off in the distance, and some times, just that tiny flicker can makes all the difference.  So, thank you, Stan.  Thank you for all you have given us and all the ripples in the water you made that will travel out through the centuries.

To close, here is a copy of an edition of Stan's Soapbox.  This one has been popping up all over the internet since his passing but I think, is shows a little insight into the man's character.  While the views expressed are ones that show of the man's character, it becomes absolutely extraordinary when you consider that this was written in 1968 and was written in a book that, for the most part, would be read by children.  In 1968 there were a great deal fewer adults reading comics.  It makes me wonder how many children read this and had it stick with them throughout their life.  Again, thank you, Stan.

"Let’s lay it right on the line. Bigotry and racism are among the deadliest social ills plaguing the world today. But, unlike a team of costumed super-villains, they can’t be halted with a punch in the snoot, or a zap from a ray gun. The only way to destroy them is to expose them — to reveal them for the insidious evils they really are. The bigot is an unreasoning hater — one who hates blindly, fanatically, indiscriminately. If his hang-up is black men, he hates ALL black men. If a redhead once offended him, he hates ALL redheads. If some foreigner beat him to a job, he’s down on ALL foreigners. He hates people he’s never seen — people he’s never known — with equal intensity — with equal venom.

Now, we’re not trying to say it’s unreasonable for one human being to bug another. But, although anyone has the right to dislike another individual, it’s totally irrational, patently insane to condemn an entire race — to despise an entire nation — to vilify an entire religion. Sooner or later, we must learn to judge each other on our own merits. Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill out hearts with tolerance. For then, and only then, will we be truly worthy of the concept that man was created in the image of God – a God who calls us ALL — His children.

Pax et Justitia, Stan."

Oh the Joy that is Humanity!

Tuesday, May 30th 2017

So, last night there were two terrorist attacks were carried out in Baghdad, Iraq.  Now, before you get worried the will NOT be a post attacking Muslims in any way shape or form.  More on that bit in a minute.  Anyway, the targets here were an ice cream shop and an pension office.  ISIS claimed responsibility for both.  Clearly the targets were military in nature.  Apparently, their enemies are now arming themselves with weaponized tuti futi and mint chocolate chip while recruiting the elderly.  Wait... What?

So let's look at the targets.  First we have the ice cream shop.  Apparently, during the month of Ramadan, the shop was a popular place for Muslim families to break their fast one of the requirements being fasting from dawn to dusk.  This was a place that they knew there would be children.  Now the goal here is obvious, to cause fear.  That is what terrorists do.  Shocking, I know.  Someone who ascribes to a concept with "terror" right in there in the word wants to cause fear.  Go figure.

The second target was a pension office where people were waiting in line to get in and get their checks.  These were mostly the elderly, people who had worked all there lives and were simply there to get what they had earned.  These people worked to earn their money.  Presumably, they had worked on things more productive than building bombs and blowing up the innocent.

The "reason" for all this bloodshed is ostensibly to advance the cause of the Islamic State in one way or another, even if the advancement is simply punishing people that they don't like.  Now I realize that the details of the situation in general, meaning the history, current political climate, etc, are far more complicated than what I just laid out, but there is one underlying fact that runs through everything.

As I said, I will not be bashing Muslims here for one simple reason, aside from it being a stupid knee-jerk reaction.  The simple fact is that these people are not Muslims.  I will say it again, the people who make up these organizations are not Muslims.  Now I am not going to spew out the other knee-jerk blather of Islam being "the religion of peace".  I am not going to claim that because it isn't.  There is no such thing as a religion of peace, at least in my experience.  All religions have there fair share of violence.  It is one of my many problems with organized religion.  There are many peaceful people within the religion, but the religion it self is no more inherently peaceful than any other.

Now back to my point.  I promise there is one.  These people are not Muslims.  They are bloody minded people looking for an excuse to hurt people and in doing so, make themselves feel more powerful.  In short: bullies.  There actions have absolutely nothing to do with any religion, they simple want to bully people, usually with high explosives.  These people are looking for an excuse to hurt people and they will take whatever they can find.  If it wasn't Islam, it would be another religion, or because they live in a different region, or they speak a different language, or that they don't agree that the sky is plaid on alternate Thursdays.  It doesn't matter.  All that matters is that they have managed to find, or simply say "fuck it" and make one up, a justification to bully others.  These are bloody-minded people doing bloody-minded things.  They have always been here in one form or another and they, sadly, always will.  Just one more part of the barrel of fun we call the human experience.  Yay, us!

Rant Over... for now.

I, (Insert Label Here)

Labels are great.  We all use them and, for better or worse, they are necessary.  The purpose of labels as we all know is generalization.  The trouble with generalizations is that they are always bad for everyone.  See what I did there?  I made a genera... um... yeah.. I'm sorry.

Aaaanyway, Certain types of labels are usually safe.  Those that are, for lack of a better term set in stone (i.e.: a ball is a ball, a tree is a tree and that is that).  A bit more difficult are the ones describing belief or ideology. The trouble starts when the label used becomes more important than the person being described.  When it becomes more important that Barbra is a republican than that she is an individual person, that is when the labels start to hurt us.  When we decide that we know everything about a person by the label we give them. It is encapsulated by that label we don't feel the need  to examine any further.  Why would we?  She is a republican.  We all have a general idea what that is, so why bother.  Unfortunately or fortunately (I am leaning toward the latter) people are just not that simple and the social belief systems they subscribe to is certainly not.  So why to we have this tendency to do this?  That is easy, we, as a species, tend to be lazy.  Aaaand, there is another one of those generalizations, humans equal lazy.

So, Barbra is a republican.  Republicans are against abortions.  I am pro-choice.  I don't like people who try to control others so, therefore I don't like Barbra and I don't have to think about her, she is a republican, not a person.  But wait, did you ever ask her if that is what she believes?  Not all republicans are against abortion.  I have met more than a few people who are pro-choice and still consider themselves republican.  But, Logan, you may be thinking, doesn't someone have to believe in A, B, and C.  Well, yes and no.  One has to subscribe to A, B, and C but who decides what exactly A, B, and C are?  If you ask ten different people to describe what exactly makes someone a whatever you are liable to get ten different answers some wildly so.  Sure there are core beliefs held by this group or that group but that is not all people are.  People are never just one thing.  Every person's mental landscape (personality, thought processes, history, whatnot) consist of many things.  Even the most boring of us (why are you staring at me when I say that) is made up of innumerable thoughts.  But, in all honesty, it is much easier to just look at the label and call it a day.  Doing that, however is unfair to both of us.  It judges her unfairly and deprives me of meeting a richly nuanced and unique individual. 

Here's another example, I consider myself a liberal person.  I have a buddy who's opinions on certain things radically differ from mine.  If pressed, I would say he is a conservative, but that is nowhere near all he is.  He has thoughts and dreams that have nothing to do with that label just as I do.  There are quite a few issues that we can agree on.  Had I judged him by just that label, or he by mine, we both would have missed out on a strong and rewarding friendship, and, let's be honest, those are really hard to come by.

Sure, dealing with labels are easier than dealing with people but the cost of doing so is very high.  It tends to allow us to remain smaller and more judgmental.  While easier to do, that prevents us from growing as a people.  In my opinion the cost far outstrips the benefit.

Rant over... for now.

For Shame

I used to be ashamed and in some ways I still am.  I suffer from bipolar disorder.  Intellectually, I know that being ashamed because you have a disease is ridiculous.  You don't see many folks running around beating themselves up because they are anemic.  But a mental disease is something else, isn't it?  It is the dirty little secret that we try to hide, sweep it under the rug and hope that no one notices.  Everyone knows that if you have any sort of mental illness, you are just crazy, right?   It is just a weakness of character, right?  You know you don't waste your time with one of "those" people.  There is just too much "drama".  You fit in this box and that is who and what you are, no variation, no worthwhile person could possibly be there.  You have been identified, labeled and file away.  Why bother, right?

Stephen Fry made an excellent comparison between bipolar disorder and the weather.  You can no more control when, where or how bipolar effects you than you can make it stop raining.  You didn't make it rain, it rained because it rained.  Pretend that it isn't raining and guess what it will be still be doing. 

It is a disease and no amount of "positive thinking" will make it go away.  Don't get me wrong, positive thinking is great and has its place but during a down episode it is nigh-impossible.  The ups, while lovely, can be difficult to deal with and understand for those around you.  There are different types of bipolar that can effect different sufferers differently which ads to the notion that it is not a "real" disease.

I have been told many times that I just need "a good swift kick in the ass".  You know, because the reason I have this disease is because I am lazy.  Neat trick, huh?  One of my favorites is: "You should be happy, you know a lot of other people have it worse than you".  You know who are comforted by that thought?  Sociopaths.  I wonder if the people who say things like this with a straight face look at people in wheelchairs and say: "You should really just walk it off".

I am not proud that I am bipolar.  It is a disease and I am sorry anyone has to have it.  There is medication that I take to function.  It frightens people and can take a little more effort to understand but you would be amazed at what you might find.  There is still shame, but I will not be ashamed

Really, Guys? You are not Helping Your Case!

Before I get this rant going, I would like to post the a couple of the sites where I found the articles and videos:

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-michael-picard-dui-protest-arrest-20160128-story.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/conn-troopers-caught-on-video-trumping-up-charges-on-detained-men-gotta-cover-our-ass/

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/01/26/award-winning-connecticut-cop-swipes-phone-from-man-telling-him-its-illegal-to-video-record-him-in-public/

So here we have yet another example of people with a bit of authority confusing having limited authority with the right to ignore any rules that govern them and impose their will on others even if is no where near justified.  The kid in this video was breaking no laws here.  He was merely exercising his first amendment rights in protesting, in a safe manner, something he feels is wrong.  As to what he is protesting, I don't necessarily agree with him.  I don't generally have a problem with DUI checkpoints when they are used properly.  He does, however, raise an interesting point about the cost/benefit ratio of a checkpoint.  In order to address that issue properly one would have to get into the specifics of the state budget and that is not what this rant is about.

This rant is about crooked cops.  As I have never actually met a cop who wasn't crooked, my immediate thought is: "Isn't that a bit redundant?"  In all honesty, that is not a fair question on my part.  I fully believe that there are honest cops out there, I have never actually met one, but I am sure they are out there.  It is similar to my belief in blue whales.  I have never met a blue whale but I am reasonably sure they exist.

Now, before someone jumps up and points out that you usually only meet cops when things are already bad, keep in mind that, in this rant, I am including the cops that I have met in a non-professional capacity, i.e. when they are off duty.  I have even known a couple of former cops that quit because of all the corruption.  I suppose that I should give you my criteria for classifying a cop as dirty:  If you know of a crime committed by another cop and say nothing, you are dirty.  If you allow another cop to harass a  fellow citizen (remember, you are a citizen as well) you are dirty.  If you abuse the power entrusted to you in any way shape or form or allow another cop to do the same without taking steps to stop it and make sure it never happens again, you are dirty.  And, here's a big one, if you yourself commit a crime not required by your duties (for example undercover cops a sometimes forced to do things to maintain their cover that would otherwise be unacceptable), you are dirty.

And that brings us to this case.  These cops committed numerous crimes and were caught on tape doing so!  The cop who falsely claimed that it was illegal to film him even though they were on public property, where there is no expectation of privacy, was a decorated officer!  Hell, there is a specific law on the books that “protects the right of an individual to photograph or video record peace officers in the performance of their duties.” (Connecticut Bill No. 245).  The cop's claim that he was on state property and not public property holds no water.  State owned roadways, at least in Connecticut, are considered public property.  Don't you think that if you are going to uphold the law, you should probably some inkling of the laws you are supposed to be upholding?  Just a thought.

So, anyway, this officer proceeds to confiscate the protester's camera phone.  Now just out of curiosity, what would you call it if I took something away from you with neither your permission or a legal right to do so?  Sounds a little like theft doesn't it?  If you or I did something like that, even if we fully intended to return what we took, what do you think would happen?  Think we might be charged with a crime?  It is a definite possibility.

Now let's move onto the gun that protester was carrying.  In Connecticut it is legal to openly carry a firearm.  Whether or not you think it is morally right, the fact remains that it was not a crime.  There was some flack raised about the cop confiscating the firearm.  This, I think, is one of the few things the cops did correctly in this situation.  Considering the inherent danger that cops can face during the course of their duties, I have no problem with them temporarily confiscating s weapon provided that they return the weapon and the ammunition the moment the situation is resolved, which they did.  Go them!

So here is a funny bit.  If the cop hadn't broken the law and confiscated the gentleman's phone, he wouldn't have left it recording when he set it on the roof of the cruiser to discuss falsifying charges and lying about fake 911 calls to "...cover our ass" with his colleagues.  There is even one point during the tape where one of the cops explicitly states that what the protester did what completely legal!  Apparently standing out of everyone's way on public property, holding a sign and complying with all the laws of your area is legal.  Well, at least the cops don't illegally detain citizens without probable cause and make up charges to justify their illegal actions.  Oh, wait, that is exactly what they did, huh?

While the cops are over conferring on how exactly they want to break the law that they have sworn to uphold another officer comes and stands near the protester.  Now, were it not for the deplorable conduct thus far I wouldn't think anything of it.  Given the situation and conduct of the officer, it strikes me as more of a bullying tactic.  Gee, someone in a position of authority that is a bully, what a shock.  So this guy asks the officer several times what his name and badge number are.  He was very polite about it the multiple times he asked.  Each time, the cop said absolutely nothing.  I don't know if that is illegal but is definitely a dick move.  He also asked the officer if he had read a state trooper memo reminding all officer that openly carrying a licensed handgun is not a crime.  The officer, again, makes no response.

So eventually they decide they have had enough time to violate their oaths and the public trust.  They return his weapon and ammunition to him advising that he conceal it so as not to upset other citizens.  I do not know the law in Connecticut but in many states, a special license is requited to carry a concealed handgun.  If that is the case there as well, the office advised him to commit a crime.  They also presented him with two citations.  Surprisingly when asked, the officer presenting the ticket gave not only his name and badge number but the name and badge number of the officer who refused to give his own.

So, fast forward a bit and the protester goes to his first court appearance and the prosecutor offers to lower the fine to $25.  He offered to lower the fine on illegal charges,  wasn't that nice of him?   In what was a surprising display of integrity, the protester refused the "generous" offer because he never actually did anything illegal.  I find this impressive.  I can't say for sure that I wouldn't have just paid the $25 to make it go away.  But then it is that sort of attitude that allows things like this to continue to occur isn't it?  Not this guy.  He will now get his day in court.  I hope he not only wins but that those officers involved are fired and are sent to jail for their crimes.  You, know, the crimes that were caught on tape.

Unfortunately, I think that the far more likely outcome is that the cops involved get off scot-free and this gets swept under the rug.  How could that happen you might ask?  The whole thing is documented on tape, right?  Two words: Rodney King.  I really hope I am wrong.

Come what may, the gentleman's trial date is April 25th 2016.  Good luck, for all our sakes.

Rant Over... for now

About Damn Time

Well, as of last week gay marriage became a legal thing and true to the predictions of many conservatives and religious leaders my marriage became completely invalidated.  My wife immediately became pedophile junkie, I began fucking turtles on a semi-regular basis and our children took up smoking avocados while turning tricks at the old folks home.  This last one came as somewhat of a shock as we don't actually have children.

Ok, so none of that really happened.  Especially not the turtle thing... at all... much.  All that happened was that homosexuals got the right to get married the same as anyone else in the country.  I fail to see how that makes the country a worse place.

My real question is: Why did it take so fucking long?  I have to wonder how these people who have protested and been vehemently against homosexuals gaining this right, or curse depending on your point of view, don't see the parallel between that position and the, thankfully, outdated position that black folks or indeed any race shouldn't have the same rights as the population.  What about women?  If one was to suggest that it was morally wrong for women to be able to vote, most of these people would completely lose their minds in a fit of righteous indignation and well they should.

I mean, how stupid is it to prevent one segment of the population from having the same rights as the rest of us.  Why it is a completely ridiculous idea.  It would be like saying that one group shouldn't be allowed to marry... Oh, wait, that is exactly what they are saying

How Dare You Park There You...Handicapped...Person...You. Um, Yeah, Nevermind

This touches on a couple of pet peeves of mine.  A woman in Nova Scotia  came back to her car one day to find a note chastising her for parking in a handicap space.  Now normally I would be right there with whoever left the note.  People who are not handicapped parking there really piss me off.  In this case, however, I find myself planted firmly against the note-leaver (shut up, it is too a word) as the perceived offender was missing one of here legs.  Yup, NO LEG.  Well, in all fairness, she was missing half her leg having lost it below the knee in a hit and run.  Oops.  The young lady wears a prosthetic which was most likely not visible to the note leaver (again, it is still a word).

Now, one might say, how was the note-leaver (word) to know that the woman was actually handicapped?  This touches on my other pet peeve: people deciding whether you actually need to park in one of those spots with nothing more than a casual glance.  This pisses me off more.  Granted, the reason that this one pisses me off more is that I have been on the receiving end of this one quite a lot.

I have a back injury that can affect my leg.  Who knew those two things were connected, right?  Anyway, Some days I am perfectly ok to walk unassisted and on those days I do not use the handicapped spot.  On other days, however, I have to use a cane to keep from kissing the floor.  It is not that the floor isn't lovely but I don't really see it in that way.  Then there are the really fun days where my leg isn't quite as forthcoming with its intent to stop working and take a nap for no apparent reason.  Fortunately, I have gotten to the point where I can usually tell if it is going to be one of those days.  When I am having one of those, I do park in the handicapped space.

If I find myself in the good part of an iffy day, I carry my cane with it but don't actually use it until such time as my leg tells me to go fuck myself.  And on those good parts I don't even walk with a limp.  This, apparently, pisses people off.  On one hand, I can understand this, as I said, I hate it when perfectly healthy people park there and I look, perfectly healthy.  Well, I look physically healthy anyway, I refuse to comment on my mental health (the voices hate it when I do that).   On the other, unless your eyes have been replaced with MRI machines (which, ya know, ouch) you can't really see the damage that necessitates my using those spots.

Despite that rather obvious fact, I constantly get dirty looks and the occasional nasty comment.  While it is not really a big deal it does get rather annoying.  I realize that any asshole can buy a cane and carry it around, I have gotten the looks and comments when I am actually using my cane!  Apparently I am just not handicapped enough to park in that particular space.  Now, I have looked all around those spots and I have yet to find a chart or sign that says "You must be this handicapped to park here".  I'll keep looking but you would think I would have found it my now.

Back to the actual story: The woman with the prosthetic was so cool about this.  She said that she took the note as a complement.  In her words:

"I'm kind of flattered about that, because I've been working pretty hard on my walk to make it look natural,"