Sunday, November 11, 2007
 |
Some time ago I was speaking to a young lady through an IM program. No really, stop laughing. Ok, at least her profile online said she was a lady but who can say for sure. Anyway, we had spoken a few times and I was under the impression that we were getting on well. That's why it took me completely by surprise when she took issue with something I said. |
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
|
Go and watch this video. It is important that we all see it.: |
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
|
A trailer has been released for the new Resident Evil game that has more than a few people pissed off. Her is the link if you are interested: |
Friday, July 27, 2007
|
Read this! It is very important as well as scary: |
Monday, July 23, 2007
|
Go check this out, then come on back: |
On September the eleventh two thousand and one a group of religious nuts took over three planes and wounded America and we have been hemmoraging civil rights ever since. The very things that make America America have been slowly, and not so slowly, slipping away. Don't get me wrong,
This was not caused by 9/11. 9/11 just presented some of the worst elements in our government with an opportunity to further selfish aims and in the process, help continue to destroy what they had been charged with protecting. It was just an opportunity to tempting for them to ignore.
So what is the conclusion we can come to? Is our government filled with greedy bastards who care only for themselves and damn the consequences to others? Undoubtedly. So it must be their fault right? You or I, we are not the ones in power. We weren't the ones fucking over the nation and the world for the sake of our own bank accounts, right? It is not our fault. There is nothing we can do, right?
Consider this:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". This quote is attributed to Edmund Burke and is true now as it ever has been and as it always will be. "Good men" have to ask questions and have the strength of character to say "no, this must change". They have to actually talk and listen.
This country was founded by people who asked questions, not by "good citizens" who took what the machine gave them and followed blindly. There is a reason why "I was only following orders" is not considered a valid defense. The people who fought the machine all died and as the generations wore on we built another to take it's place and "good men" did nothing.
"Good men" did nothing and the machine grew. It wasn't our problem. And then, bad things happened. But they could never happen again. But they did, and good men did nothing. They couldn't possibly happen again. But they are, and still "good men". Do nothing.
How many people will be arrested, spied upon and tortured before "good men" act? If they come for you, will there be anyone to speak out? When future generations look to us and ask "why", what will we say? When they ask: "How did you let this happen?" Will there be anything we can say? Will there be anything we can say or will the machine of our own creation have already rolled over us and left nothing in it's wake. Shall we close our eyes and not question? Be good citizens and let the machine roll because questioning is unpatriotic? Shall we close our eyes and let it happen because: I was not a communist? I was not Japanese? I was not unpatriotic?
In olden times it was a common practice to drive a goat off into the wilderness to die. The thinking behind this was that the goat would carry their sins and thus their guilt away with it. This is where we get our modern word scapegoat. And that is what we needed. Humanity has an inborn need to blame. We are problem-solvers. It is why we are currently the dominant species on the planet. We need to be able to point to something and say: "That's it, that's what caused this. Now lets deal with it." This is usually a good thing. But in the absence of something to blame, we will reassign the blame to something we can deal with.
Japan, for all intents and purposes was on another planet. It was so far away as to be, to most Americans at the time, an abstract concept. No good as a focus. It was too far away to relieve the helplessness that we felt. But there were Japanese people living here, right?
With Franklin D. Roosevelt's signing off on Executive Order 9066, the internment camps were born. This resulted in the forced removal of roughly 120,000 Japanese and people of Japanese ancestry from their homes on the west coast. At least 62 percent of these people were American citizens. To be fair the camps themselves were not bad places. The occupants received free food, lodging, medical and dental care, clothing allowance, education, hospital care and all basic necessities. But a gilded cage is still a cage.
the
In 1943, this poem began circulating at the Poston War Relocation Camp. The writer is anonymous.
THAT DAMNED FENCE
They've sunk the posts deep into the ground
They've strung out wires all the way around
With machine gun nests just over there,
And sentries and soldiers everywhere.
Imprisioned in here for a long, long time
We know we're punished -- though we've commited no crime.
Our thoughts are gloomy and enthusiasm damp
To be locked up in a consentration camp.
Loyalty we know and patriotism we feel,
To sacrifice our upmost was our ideal,
To fight for our country and die perhapse;
But we'er here because we happen to be Japs.
We all love life and our country the best,
Our misfortune to be here in the west.
To keep us penned behind that damned fence
Is someone's notion of national defence.
And Then? (part 1)
|
|
|
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is another school shooting and another round of folks pulling nonsensical reasons out of their asses. As usual lawyer Jack Thomson popped up again barking about the horrors of video games and how they cause ordinary people to become slobbering nutters, as he wipes the drool from his own lips.
The man may be a blow-hard with no imagination and even less of a sense of humor but at least he is dependable. And that's what we like in this country, things that can be counted on to distract us and keep us from focusing on the actual problems and, god forbid, do something about them. I have a sneaking suspicion that the situation is much the same in other countries but, as I have yet to have the opportunity to travel anywhere outside the
Now, we have the same conclusion coming from another source. Dr Phil "look-what-I-just-pulled-out-of-my-butt" McGraw decided to pop up on an episode of Larry King Live and spout the same distracting sewage. Now, I am sure that the comments made caused the entire Oprah-worshiping population to immediately rush en mass to his way of thinking, as they seem to have no discernible thought process of their own, but it still doesn't change the fact that this argument has no actual basis in reality.
On the show, Dr. Phil makes this statement:
DR. PHIL: "...common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high."
There are may flaws with the good doctor's conclusions. Let's start simple, shall we? First, he seems to suggest that the video games are the instigating factor in these and other killings. This conclusion is completely ridiculous. Humanity has been killing each other since the beginning. We are very good at it, it is what we do. Doubt that? Can anyone tell me the name of that video game, you know, the really violent one that Hitler played to set him off?
The good doctor suggests that when you mix a psychotic or sociopathic personality with a violent video game you can create in them the urge to kill. This is both ridiculous and true. While the urge to kill can be sparked by a video game it can also be sparked by something as as benign as a dog as was the case with the "Son of Sam" killings. David Berkowitz received the impetus to kill from his neighbor's dog who, according to Berkowitz was a "demon dog". While I freely admit that
As much as the doctor would like for it not to be the case, people are not numbers. Numbers do not change, they do not have quirks, people do. In the human equation A + B does not alway equal C. This is what happens when people of limited imagination and reasoning capability go questing for the "magic bullet" of human behavior, if you'll pardon the phrase.
I ask you this: Does anyone really believe that the "Son of Sam" murders would not have been commit if there were no dogs? Should dogs be banned because one was there? Will ever psychotic be set of by a dog? These people are sick and need help but they are no less human no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that they are not. And people kill. We kill for all kinds of reasons both noble and ridiculous.
For some, video games offer a cathartic release. It is a safe place to take out the rage that dealing with other humans invariably creates. Millions of people across the world enjoy violent, graphic, bloody games. Why haven't they killed? Why is it that according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics the rate of violent crime has actually been decreasing since 1994. I'll say that again: Violent crime has decreased. Have the games become less violent? Less graphic? I would suggest that the opposite is true. Assuming that I am correct in my assertions, what happens to the "magic bullet" then?
But hey, who am I? Video games are an easy answer, and we like easy answers. It is certainly easier than actually thinking about all the causes that can contribute to homicidal behavior. It is easier to have a bad guy you can point to and say "that's it! They are at fault." The fact however is that video games to not kill people nor do the cause them to be killed, neither does music, nor television nor do movies. Remove those factors, and the killing will still continue. It is what we do. It is a primal instinct that must be fought against. Hiding our heads in the sand may make us feel better, all smug and cozy, but it doesn't actually fix the problem. In the long run, it makes it worse.
Rant Over... For Now
Most people in today's society think of Valentine's Day as just an excuse for card and candy companies to make money and to generally make single people feel bad. This could not be farther from the truth. To find the origins of this holiday, we must set the way-back machine to the third century Rome and the martyred St. Valentinus or St Valentine.
Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men -- his crop of potential soldiers. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. When Valentine's actions were discovered, Claudius ordered that he be put to death.
Legend says that St Valentine sent the first Valentine while imprisoned. This was an amazing coincidence that he was able to not only find something that bared his name while in prison but was able to accurately figure out what should be done with it. While in prison he fell in love with his jailer's daughter who would visit him frequently. Sadly, all this took place before the invention of the conjugal visit.
Before his death he managed to write and send her a letter in the Valentine through the assistance of his friend and fellow prisoner St Hallmark who for unknown reasons doodled a cartoon heart holding flowers in its gloved hand and big smile across the letter's face. The letter was signed "from your Valentine".
For many years this act was celebrated every February by lovers who would unjustly imprison and killing each other. This practice continued up until the beginnings of the Spanish Inquisition. Upon its creation, the Inquisition put an immediate stop to this practice as it leaders felt that they didn't need the competition. Valentines Day, as a holiday, as a result, remained uncelebrated for many many years.
This remained the state of affairs until the winter of 1929 when a man named Al Capone revived the holiday by ordering the gunning down seven members of George 'bugs' Moran's gang against the rear inside wall of the garage of the S-M-C Cartage Company in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago's North Side. The five gunmen, all dressed as police officers for that extra added sense of whimsy (a practice used by strippers to this very day), all used machine guns filled with little chalky candy hearts. In this way they honored the long forgotten tradition of killing loved ones and added the new wrinkle of also bestowing candy on them.
Thus was reborn this noble holiday. Things continued on for a time with imprisoning and bludgeoning with candy of young lovers. The old holiday had made a full comeback. In March of 1940, the practice came to a final close in the wake of a particularly bloody Valentines Day when someone in the American congress pointed out that necrophilia was, in fact, illegal. This was met with howls of protest from the chain and chocolate covered weapon industry but cheers from the greeting card industry which immediately put its full support behind a ban on unlawful imprisonment and murder of loved ones.
The public was, as usual, slow to accept change and the death rate during February continued on at its staggering level. It was only through a marketing blitz by the Greeting card companies, in an attempt to convince the public that a nice card could be just as effective as a chocolate covered ax to the skull at expressing romantic love that the idea of a Valentines Day not resulting in fatalities gained popularity. With time, and a wider degree of acceptance the old holiday evolved into the romantic and, usually, non-fatal expression of love that we know and enjoy today
(Thanks to wikipedia and various other sites for background)
Ok, I just watched the snickers "kiss" ads. Here they are since Mars, Inc caved and pulled them off their website.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkoZ7ngAM0 "Chest Hair" ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOQTVbQPbY "Wrench" ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dkKPgZNA-Y&NR "Motor Oil" ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rb3bN7pUyE&NR "Love Boat" ad
Now, apparently, various gay rights groups (GLAAD, Matthew Shepard Foundation and HRC) are all pissed off about these ads. All of these groups, in my opinion, have missed the point of these ads. First off, in all actuality, these ads had no real political agenda one way or another. Like all ads, the only agenda was to sell a product and make money. That's it. No more. No less. I took the ads as making fun of these kinds of "manly" men, men who would rather do something stupid than be thought of as gay. I laughed because I have met these kinds of men. I am betting most of us have at one time or another. They are moronic and they deserve to be made fun of. After all, making fun of a stereotype it the first step in getting rid of it, right?
Some people have gone so fare as to say that the only way you could find these ads funny is if you are homophobic. This is a stupid statement at best and a prejudiced one at worst. Not everyone who doesn't think the way you do is homophobic. Not everyone is out to get you. I'm not saying there isn't homophobia out there, just that there isn't homophobia EVERYWHERE out there. Getting one's knickers in a twist over something like this simply lessens the attention paid to something that actually should inspire knicker twisting. We all know what happens when one cries wolf.
People should not take themselves so seriously. Bigotry in all its forms is a serious matter but humor can be a powerful weapon in combating it. Losing that simply to avoid offending one group or another lends the appearance of legitimacy to that bigotry and that hurts everyone.
On a side note, as a furry bastard the "Chest Hair" one really made me wince as well as laugh.
Rant over... for now
That seems to be the message that the president is trying to say when he signed into law the transfer of the public land upon which sits a giant cross in San Diego from the state to the control of the department of defense. He did this to circumvent the decision of a federal court that ordered the cross removed from public land.
Here is the history of the Mt Soledad Easter Cross from the wikipedia article:
Three different shaped Christian crosses have been constructed since 1913 on City government property at the apex of the Mt. Soledad Natural Park in the Village of La Jolla.
The original cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens of La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923 and later in the year of 1923 the wooden cross was affixed back in the ground on Mt. Soledad Natural Park only to be burned down by the Ku Klux Klan.
The second cross was erected in 1934 by a private group of Protestant Christians from La Jolla and Pacific Beach. This sturdier, stucco-over-wood frame cross was blown down by blustery winds in 1952.
The third and current 29-feet tall cross on top of a 14-feet tall stepped platform was installed in 1954. It still stands today. A windstorm damaged one of the flimsy constructed cross members in 1955 and the concrete structure had to be repaired.
A wind storm, huh? Isn't that one of those "act of god" sort of things? Oops, I forgot, that only counts when it is convenient, right?
So 17 years ago an atheist gentleman sued to have the cross removed from public lands due to its violating the separation of church and state. Eventually the federal courts agreed with him. Since all the other problems have been solved, Bush decided that it was a good idea to tell everyone who wasn't Christian to go fuck themselves.
The argument is that the cross is a memorial for veterans because, as we know, all people who have ever served this country are Christians. Since only Christians serve in the military and only Christians pay taxes it would be just a fine idea to keep this religious symbol on public lands, supported by public tax dollars. Seems perfectly logical to me.
The effect of the transfer is that the cross will no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the state constitution and will now fall under the jurisdiction of the federal constitution. But wait, you say, isn't the separation of church and state guaranteed in the federal constitution? The answer, of course, is that the constitution guarantees what the Supreme Court says it guarantees regardless of what is actually written down. The administration, having been stacking the Supreme Court for some time now, is reasonably sure that they will say what they want them to, just like all "patriotic" Americans should.
It has been argued that the constitution does not actually contain the phrase "separation of church and state" and therefore it is not guaranteed by it. This is a false argument. Separation of church and state, while not actually spelled out, is very much implied by the first amendment. Their argument breaks down when you consider that no where in the constitution does the phrase "fair trial" appear. It states that you have the right to a speedy trial, but nowhere does it say "fair". It does, however, imply it. Lets have a little consistence here, shall we? If you are going to argue against separation on those grounds, you must also argue against a fair trial on the same grounds. So I say we immediately falsely accuse all these bastards that are trying so hard to set up their own theocracy of any capital crime, set up a kangaroo court, find them guilty and sentence them to be ass-shagged to death by syphilitic rhinos. Who's with me on this one?!? And as they scream, bemoaning their rapidly enlarging colons, we need merely remind them that we were using their standard for what is and what isn't guaranteed.
This is a quote from the article from a catholic school teacher's aide:
"We vote for things to become law and then we have people that fight it," she said. "If they don't want to look at the cross then don't come up here."
This is profoundly stupid. If you don't like it don't look. I would agree with her if the cross was on private land but it's not. The people of California still have to pay for it regardless of whether or not they look at it. And now anyone who is paying federal taxes will be paying for it. I wonder if this lady's opinion of “if you don't like it don't look" would be the same if we were talking about something that didn't suite her beliefs so well. Would she be as supportive of, say, a 29 foot pentagram perched upon the mountain? I highly doubt it, but, who knows.
One gentleman asks if we remove the cross then wouldn't we have to remove all the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery? This is a false comparison. Any religious symbol in Arlington is a monument to the person directly beneath it who was whatever faith the monument is from. It is not a generalization for a whole state, now country, of individuals. If there is a cross over a grave in Arlington it is because the occupant of said grave was Christian. Last time I checked, not everyone in the United States is Christian.
We have freedom some in this country. Some beliefs are granted the freedom and respect they deserve while some just have to bend over and take it and hope they use lube.
This is the article that got me going:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html
Rant Over... For Now
I am so not going to make any friends with this one.
Last night a 14 year old boy was shot by police near the Cabrini-Green housing complex on the Near North Side of Chicago. The boy and a friend were identified as the perpetrators of an armed robbery. According to the police when they ordered the boy to but his hands in the air the boy pulled a gun out of his pocket and pointed it at police. At which point the police opened fire critically injuring the boy. Some witnesses say that the boy was leaning over to lay the gun on the ground.
Now I'm not a big fan of the police in general. Of all the cops I have met in my life I think I have met maybe two that weren’t total putzes. Now maybe this is due to my bad luck, but there you are. Despite my distaste for cops, if I were to pull a gun on them, especially in a bad neighborhood, and they shot me, good on them! Pointing anything even remotely gun shaped at a cop is a dumb idea no matter who you are. If you do this, you are too stupid to live!
If the witnesses are correct and the cops are lying, what a shock that would be, the cops are still not at fault. If a cop stops you and you pull a gun out of your pocket, odds are better than average that you will get shot. If a cop stops you and you have a weapon in your pocket, you do not reach for it, you tell the cop that there is a weapon in your pocket and do what he or she tells you to do. A cop who sees a gun in the hand of a suspect has only a split second to asses the threat and act. If I were a cop and saw a weapon moving in my general direction, I am going to err on the side of you being dead and me being alive. Not that that is a good choice, but sometimes that is the only choice.
I am actually amazed that they even hit the kid. Cops are notoriously bad shots. It is like they all went to the Stormtrooper School of shooting. Like that cop who emptied his gun at a suburban mini-van at point blank range... and missed. Missed with all his shots! You've gotta feel really "special" after doing something like that.
Now the race card comes into play when a community member had this to say:
"Another black man has been shot down by the police," said Fred Hampton Jr. "Excessive force is putting it mildly. Our babies aren't even immune to this."
Wait! What?!?! This is a case of someone doing something stupid and getting shot as a result of it. This is not a case of "Hey, there's a black guy! Let's shoot him!" I'm not saying that this doesn't happen; I'm just saying that that doesn't seem to be the case here.
This guy seems to be an opportunist, nothing more and nothing less. Why else would he refer to the boy as a man (i.e.; someone who should be able to face the consequences of his actions) and in the same breath, refer to the boy as a baby (i.e.; someone who is defenseless and needs to be protected)? This is a case of crying wolf.
People like this make it harder on people who are victims of actual racism. Everyone is so used to it being thrown around that it has lost its impact. It has gotten to the point that when I hear someone crying racism, I am very skeptical at best.
I appear white, blindingly so. What do you think would happen if I pulled a gun on a cop? Would he or she laugh it off, pat me on the head and tell me to be a good little white boy? No, he or she would empty his gun into my dumb ass because he or she would have no way to know if I am going to shoot them or show them my nifty juggling routine. He or she would make the only real choice available.
Green is the only color that matters in this country anymore. It has been that way for a little while now and it will most likely continue to be so for a while longer.
Now here's where the hypocrisy comes in. If it was me who was shot, would this guy be crying over me? Most likely not, because I am not black. Now tell me again, how is that not racist? It is not only racism when a white person discriminates against a black person. It is still racism when a black person discriminates against a white person.
Now be for anyone says that I don't understand because I am white. I assure you that I have been discriminated against at times. I even got the crap kicked out of me and my nose broken by some black adults when I was a child, simply because I didn't have the right pigment in my skin.
Does this mean that I now think that all black folks are racist? No, of cause not, just the few nimrods who have acted against me. And not all white people are racist either. Saying that they are simply destroys one's credibility and hurts the actual victims of racism.
Here is the article that got me going:
http://www.nbc5.com/news/9644162/detail.html
Rant over... for now
This week an entire family of meerkats from the Minnesota Zoo was killed (that's right, Timon is dead). Now I freely admit that the meerkats are the schmucks of the Serengeti, but these particular meerkat's deaths are a direct result of a parent or parents not doing their jobs.
It seems that a nine year old little girl was bitten by one of these animals. Now by Minnesota law, one of two things could have happened at this point. Either A) the little girl could have gotten a series of admittedly painful rabies shots, or B) animal control could have all the animals in the enclosure killed and tested for rabies. Guess which option the parents went with.
All of you who said: "kill the little bastards", give yourself a gold star and go to the head of the class. Some of you may say that you wouldn't want your child to have to go through that painful series of shots, I agree with you. That would not be my first choice either but the girl would have survived the shots. It seems the meerkats didn't fair as well as she would have.
Kids (and people in general) need to learn that actions have consequences. At 9 years old I knew that animals bite and if this kid didn't, the parents were not doing their job. Before anyone says that the zoo might have been at fault, read this:
"The girl had to work to get her hand inside the enclosure. Zoo officials said she must have crawled over a driftwood barrier, climbed up more than 3 feet of artificial rock and reached over 4 feet of Plexiglas to get her arm into the exhibit.
Because meerkats stand just a foot tall on their hind legs, she had to have dangled her hand low for an animal to bite her finger"
Two things: First, enroll this kid in a triathlon immediately. And second, beat this kid's parents to death with the biggest, heaviest parenting book you can find. What were these people doing while their little darling was practicing her poll vaulting? They certainly weren't watch their little idiot larva, were they? If there is anywhere common sense would tell you to keep a close eye on your offspring it's the zoo. I mean, there are animals in the zoo and, as previously mentioned, animals bite. That's what all those little pointy things in their mouths are for. If you spook an animal, it will bite you. This is what we call a "duh concept"!
Now some might say that I can't really talk about this because I have no kids. This is a stupid proposition. I don't have kids because I am not ready to take care of the little buggers. I have no sympathy for parents. Parenthood is a choice. No one is forced to be a parent. If you can't do the job, don't sign up! If you get knocked up accidentally, abort the thing if you can't do the job. If you are against abortion, that also is a choice and all choices have consequences both good and bad. Take some responsibility! Besides, think of all the meerkats you'll save!
A while ago, at another zoo, a woman got her arm bitten off by a tiger. The whole fucking arm! This woman fought with animal services to make sure the tiger was not put down. She had done something stupid, stuck her arm in the tiger's cage, and accepted the consequences, -1 arm. This I can respect. She didn't blame the tiger and make it suffer for her mistake. She took responsibility for her actions and that is what it's all about.
Personal responsibility is important and parental responsibility even more so. The children first learn by watching the parents. If the kids see the parent acting like irresponsible doorknobs, guess what the kids are going to grow up to be. That's right... president.
Here is the story's page:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15202942.htm
Rant over... for now
Ok, I know I am going to lose so "friends" over this one. C'est la vie, can't be helped.
The Westboro Baptist Church was in the news again today. This time it seems that Fred Phelps and his family were again protesting the funeral of a marine who was killed in Afghanistan, Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. Well, it seems this time the father of the slain serviceman, Albert Snyder, has decided to sue the Westboro Baptist Church over the protest.
These people are a disgusting group of self-righteous hate-mongers and should all die in a fire. That said, however, they are acting within their rights under the first amendment. Freedom of speech and expression does not refer to only that speech and expression that is inoffensive, it refers to all speech and expression. Like it or not, when that marine took the oath to defend the constitution, he was swearing to defend these rat-bastards as well. I can't blame the father for this as he is acting out of pain. We all do things we may not ordinarily do when we are in pain. It is up to the courts to act in a logical manor (stop laughing, it could happen).
The law must protect the rights of citizens to carry out peaceful gatherings and protests. As long as they did not physically assault anyone or create a physical danger or trespass on private property, they were acting within their rights. Yes, what they did was horrendously offensive, but it is not our right to not be offended. If we had that right, I would be able to sue every asshole I saw driving around with a bumper sticker supporting George Bush. I find his policies extremely offensive and the sheep that blindly follow him even more so. But, it is not my right not to be offended nor is it yours.
There is another thing to consider. Since this group has started protesting the funerals of members of our military there has been a tremendous amount of outrage against them. While I agree the act is horrid, I have to ask where was all this outrage when they were protesting the funerals of homosexuals and AIDS victims? Where was the outrage when they protested the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a young man who was brutally murdered in 1988 for being a homosexual? Where was the outrage when they tried to get a plaque put up in a Wyoming park commemorating Mr. Shepard’s "entry into hell"?
Was he any less deserving of our sympathies because he wasn't in the military? Or was it that he was just a "fag"? Some would say that the members of our military are nobler because they chose to defend our country. There are three problems with this line of thinking. First, most people who join our military do not do so with the noble goal of defending our country. The most common reason for joining up is for college money and career advantages. There is nothing wrong with that; I tried to join up for the same reason. Second, our military, as of the moment, is not defending our nation. It is defending and enhancing the wallets and portfolios of a select few of this country's upper one percent. They are, right now, being used as a tool of the rich. Third, they are there to defend the rights of all Americans, not just those that they agree with.
Now, I'm sure some would say that I am bad mouthing the military and that is fine. It is always easier to pigeonhole someone and dismiss them than to actually think and consider a different point of view. I respect the idea of the military and what they are supposed to stand for. I do not in any way, shape or form condone the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church but I do stand up for their right to be the scum of the Earth if they so chose.
Another thing to consider is that by suing them, they get exactly what they want, attention. This is Fred Phelps wet dream. You can't buy publicity like this. The worst thing one could do to these nimrods is ignore them. They thrive on negative attention. And like all attention whores, deprive them of what they want and they will fade away.
The constitution guarantees the freedoms of all not just a select few. If we take away the rights of those we find distasteful, what happens when someone finds you distasteful?
Rant over... for now
Humans strike again! If you find yourself walking through life feeling good about the human race, its always nice to know you can count on organized religion to lower the bar. Today's act of self-righteous indignation and intolerance comes to us from our Christian friends New Zealand. It seems that a group of Christians, mostly Catholics, were offended by the airing of an episode of South Park called, I believe "Bloody Mary". For those of you who haven't seen the show it has to do with a bleeding statue of the virgin Mary.
Over 2000 were apparently so pissed off by this cartoon that they took out a full page ad in a local newspaper to announce that they were boycotting the network that aired the show. There are a few things that strike me about this. First let me say that I have absolutely nothing against Christianity or any other religion. If you want to believe that the nailing some guy to a cross thousands of years ago somehow makes you a spiritually better person, more power to you. Hell, happiness is so hard to find in this world that if worshipping a doorknob makes you happy, I say go for it. Now, that having been said, we still should maintain at least some small sense of priority.
First off, we are talking about South Park here, one of the most intentionally offensive shows on the air. I love it, but if you turn on the show expecting for it not to do it's best to offend your delicate sensibilities, you are stupid and should immediately do us all a favor and stop wasting our oxygen. Its satire people, lighten the fuck up. Are people so insecure that they need to jump up and down screaming because someone said something that they didn't like? And really, how strong is your faith that something done on a cartoon, a fucking cartoon, can threaten your devotion.
And speaking of priorities, which we weren't but probably should have been, don't these people have anything more important to take care of than what was said on a cartoon? Are all these people so perfect that they have nothing within themselves or their respective religious organizations that need attending to? Now maybe its just me, but I find the act of supporting and actively shielding child molesters slightly more offensive than anything that could ever be shown on any cartoon. Just me, huh? And that's setting aside the fact that these people are breaking their own rules (i.e. Matthew 7:1-5). Its not my rule, folk, its theirs.
Now there are a couple of things in this specific case that merit special attention. The first of which is that these people were offended before they even saw the show: "However, it must be said that the offence had been well signaled by many Catholics and others in advance of the screening." The show hadn’t even aired and they had their knickers in a twist. I understand, though. I mean, why bother actually viewing the show and processing it through your own mental faculties when it is far easier to just agree with the rest of the sheep and agree with what everyone else says you should think. I mean, you talk about a time saver!
The second and most frightening thing is this statement: "The advertisement came two days after the Solicitor-General's office confirmed it wouldn't take legal action against CanWest for blasphemy". I mean, it is good that they didn't but the fact that this was ever even an option I find terrifying! On the up side, at least we don't have to feel so alone in the world for having our country ruled by a bunch of religious nuts.
If you find yourself thinking that I am being intolerant in my rant and opinions, keep in mind that I am merely stating my opinion, not attempting to force it onto other. I am applying no pressure to anyone. It is my opinion; take it for what it is.
Here's the page that set me off: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3632694a1860,00.html
Rant over....for now
Okay, so I just read an article about some problems people have been having with this movie that just came out called "ATL". Apparently it is a movie about drug trafficking in Atlanta or something. I could care less about the movie but it would take some serious effort on my part and quite frankly I'm just too goddamn lazy to put in that kind of time.
Anyway, I haven't seen this movie so I'll have no comments on its contents or it's worthiness as a contribution to American cinema, not my point. The point I want to bring up is the stupidity of humans in general and humans in groups all together. I have long held the theory that if you gather more than three humans in a group, chances are better than average that two or more of those people are either nuts and/or stupid. And the evidence just keeps on coming. In this case in Toledo, OH a fight broke out in a mall theater after a showing of the film. Reading the article two forms of stupidity were immediately clear. First, The people who decided it would be a good idea to start punching the guy next to them because he didn't happen to enjoy the movie as much as he really should have. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we don't have a city on the moon and cancer is still not cured. If it is your heartfelt belief that this is the proper way to express a differing opinion, please report to the nearest suicide booth an remove yourself from the gene pool. Hey, I'll give you the quarter.
While this is bad enough the media makes the whole thing worse by printing this little gem: "The movie may also be responsible for the death of 17-year old in Chicago early Saturday morning."
What?!? At what point did strips of celluloid become fully autonomous homicidal killing machines? I seemed to have missed that memo because unless the movie jumped down off the screen, picked up a gun and shot the kid in the head I'd have to say that this one is a little far fetched.
If I watch a movie, read a book or view a program that upsets me And I go out and beat ninety-two and a half people to death with a flaming spiked dildo, guess whose fault that would be. Go ahead and guess. I'll wait....... Ok, those of you who answered the dildo manufacturer go to the back of the line. In both cases the responsibility lies not with the stimulus (i.e. film, book, whatever) but with how we act upon that stimulus. The choice to pick up that gun or flaming spiked dildo and do harm to another being is entirely our own. This is just another shovel full of dirt on the shallow and urine-soaked grave of personal responsibility.
For whatever reason be it random chance or some deity's slow afternoon, we were all given a mind and the ability to use it. Sadly the desire to use said mind seems to have been overlooked in about eighty to ninety-five percent of the world population. We all think of ourselves as intelligent human beings, how about we try and start proving it. I know we can be better than this.
In case you are interested in reading the article that pissed all over my cheerios you can find it at: http://www.nbc24.com/Global/story.asp?S=4714025
Rant over......for now.
UPDATE
03/14/07 2:17 am
To his credit Gen. Pace has said, in light of all the flack he garnered for his comments, that he should not have voiced his personal views and should have just stated his support for the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Unfortunately, thing cannot be un-said and we were all offered a view up the good General's skirt and the view was not pretty. Bigotry is still bigotry, even if it isn't said out loud.
The fact remains that there is still a double standard, on set of rules for homosexuals and one for heterosexuals. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a necessary first step, but that's all it should have been. It was necessary because humans, as a general rule, are slow to accept change. You throw in many, many years of tradition in there and you really have an uphill battle. The time, however, has come to move on to what comes after. The time has long since come for us to allow everyone to serve openly regardless of orientation.
Rant Over... for now... um, again
It all sounded so straight forward. It was a news story about three high school girls that got suspended for saying the word "vagina". What could be simpler, right? Easy equation: censorship = bad. This article contains so many examples of things that are wrong with this society and species. Bear with me as I super glue the skull fragments and lumps of gray matter that exploded in all directions when I read this article. Here is the link, have super glue standing by: http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS02/703060363/1018&GID=xi+6X4FdPrduoI2j4z90HCGbIVUKXnx7c7Gbd64k1iw=
Ok, as I am running low on glue I will endeavor to narrow my focus.
Now, the story is this: Three high school girls, during a school's "open mic", read a selection from Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues". As a result of the use of the word "vagina" in the passage, the three girls were given in-school suspensions.
Now normally this would be a no-brainer for me to rail loudly and possibly incoherently against the basic stupidity of both the society and the species in general. This time however, there is a snag that has me slightly conflicted. The school is claiming that the girls agreed not to say "vagina" and the fact that they broke their word is why they are being punished.
The reason this has me conflicted, admittedly only slightly, is my basic distaste for lies in general and lairs specifically. In this world, the only thing we really have, that can not be taken away from us is our word. Everything, up to and including your life can be taken from you, but not your word. No one can "make" you break your word once freely given. Now don't get me wrong, I am a realist and I do realize that in the world we live in, some lies are necessary and that not all lies are equal but I still have that basic visceral reaction.
Now let's play devil's advocate for a moment and say that the girls did agree not to say "vagina". Shame on them for lying. But an even bigger shame should be felt by the school for asking them not to say it in the first place. Let's ignore my basic belief that words are just words and that there is no such thing as a "bad" word. Was this a slang word? No. Was this one of those words that are generally considered a "curse word"? No. Did the saying of this word cause any harm what so ever to those within ear shot? No. Was this word an accurate biological term intended to describe an aspect of human anatomy? Yup. Is a school the sort of place that one should learn and, indeed, be free to use accurate biological terminology? Again, yup. Now explain to me again the reason a school, a supposed institution of learning, should ask any student not to use a word that, realistically, should have no connotation other than its definition? Seriously, explain that one to me.
The school sighted the fact that there would be small children in the audience. So what! Lord deliver me for those that rally under the battle cry of: "We are doing it for the children!" I love children, I really do. I hate what parents make them into today by abdicating their responsibility to be parents, but I do love children. I have a little secret for you though, some of those little children that they were protecting, actually have vaginas. Maybe it is just my crackpot theory (I certainly have enough of them) but wouldn't it be a good thing if they knew what they were. Just a thought.
The fact that a school would choose to stifle knowledge and expression in order to avoid offending some prudish, self-righteous morons or indeed to indulge in their own "moral" point of view is unconscionable. It also should be a big red flag that the system is not working. Does anyone know what we do with systems that don't work? If you said "ignore them" welcome to the human race.
As I said, there were many red flags in this article but this is the one I wanted to discuss first. The rest will have to wait until another time. Fortunately for me, there is no statute of limitations on my bitching. Now if you will excuse me I have to go scrape a chunk of cerebellum off my wall. Cheers
Rant over... for now
I just read an opinion piece by syndicated columnist Paul C. Campos that just made me cringe. Here is the URL for the article: http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinion/8998903624125906943
This article is entitled "There are Few Genuine Atheists". Right away, I have a problem with this title. Who is to judge what is and isn't genuine when it comes to someone else's belief system. For every belief system, outside of a few core tenets, there have been multiple definitions. In fact, I would be willing to bet that there are almost as many definitions for various belief systems as there are people who hold them. How many of them are not "genuine"? And more importantly, who's definition do we use to define what is "genuine" and what is not? His? Mine? The preacher screaming fire and brimstone down from the pulpit? That emo kid down the street who cuts on himself? Whose opinion do we pretend is fact?
How about Mr. Campos? He is a law professor and presumably and intelligent man (those two things don't always go together. There are a lot of educated idiots out there). He seems to think it is just fine that in various opinion polls a large percentage of the American public would not vote for a candidate for president simply because he/she was an Atheist. Ok, I seemed to have missed something. If it is bigotry not to vote for someone because they are a Jew (a particular belief system), why is it not bigotry not to vote for someone because they are an Atheist (another particular belief system)? Why is it ok to discriminate against one and not the other? Isn't discrimination discrimination no matter who it's aimed at?
Mr. Campos concludes his article with this statement:
"Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you.
The latter view is that of the famed biologist Edward O. Wilson, in his new book "The Creation." Written in the form of a letter to a pastor of the Southern Baptist faith in which Wilson was brought up, Wilson argues that atheists like him and religious believers ought to agree that preserving biological diversity, and therefore in the long run humanity, is a profound moral imperative.
Wilson is a brilliant man, but this kind of thing has always seemed to me nonsensical on its face. After all, the human race has existed for an eye-blink of cosmological time and will certainly cease to exist in another eye-blink or two.
The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."
Apparently, Mr. Campos was absent that day in law school when the covered the topic of "research" and the concept of "false assumption". I have to question whether or not he has even met an Atheist. In truth, this is not the first time I have heard this assumption. Also, his conclusion that a religious person would be more concerned about the ending of the species than an Atheist is completely ridiculous. How many times have you heard this phrase when bad things happen: "It's all part of God's plan". Wouldn't the end of the species also be viewed as "part of God's plan"? If you think not, allow me to remind you that most religions do have myths that tell of the end of the world in accordance with "God's plan".
The notion that a Human being is incapable of moral decision and position without some sort of outside agency has always struck me as very sad. Most humans, excluding of course sociopaths, have a conscience that allows them to discern right and wrong in addition to also being a product of the environment in which they were raised. "Morality", at least in my opinion, at least in its conception, is a society's or individual's attempt to do what is best for the species at least on a subconscious level. Survival of the species is an inborn instinctual imperative, not something we have because we were told to do by some guy with a book of supposedly divine origin.
I was of the opinion that bigotry was unacceptable under any circumstances. The going against someone simply for their belief system while not examining their specific beliefs and how they would impact the job they want to do is bigotry no matter how many degrees one possesses. If you don't vote for someone simply because they are of one belief system or another think carefully the next time you bitch about bigotry in this world, you are could be talking about yourself.
Rant over... for now
Ok, some of you have heard this story. There was a theater down in Florida, I believe, that was putting on a production of "The Vagina Monologues". So, they did what anyone would do when they are putting on a show, they put the title up on the marquee. You can see where this is going, huh?
Apparently, a woman was driving down the road with her 5-year-old niece. This little girl saw the sign and asked her aunt what a "vagina" was. So this woman turned to her niece and calmly and rationally explained that a vagina was a part of the female reproductive system. The young girl further inquired as to the nature of said reproductive system to which the aunt went on to explain, again in a calm and rational manner, the nature of the system. She further added that although our society tends to cast shame and doubt on the various aspects of the human body and function thereof, it was actually a perfectly natural thing and in no way deserving of shame.
Ok, now see if you can tell me which part of that story bares absolutely no resemblance to what actually happened.
Go ahead. Guess. I'll wait.
Got it? If you said the last bit was complete bullshit, fondle yourself in a happy place, you are a winner!
Yes, rather than choose the above or similar rational course of action, she immediately called up the theater and complained very loudly (I'm guessing) that she was deeply offended that not only did her niece see the dreaded word but she also had to explain it! Oh, the humanity!! The horror, the horror!!!
To this the theater politely respond by apologizing that she was a repressed, prudish, neadrethalic git but that was the name of the show and they would not bow down to attempted pressure of anyone, least of all to someone who most likely wouldn't have been interested in seeing the show in the first place. They ended the call by suggesting that humanity, and her niece, would most likely be better served if she would drop the little girl off at her parent's home and go die in a fire.
That part really happened, right?
Of course not!! Humans aren't allowed to have reasonable reactions to things!! You should know this by now! No, they immediately caved and changed the marquee to read: "The Hoo-Haa Monologues". For when censorship of any sort rears its ugly head they bravely gave in like a two dollar whore with a five dollar bill (there's some imagery for you).
Eventually they did change the name on the marquee back to the proper title. I would like to say that they did so because they came to their senses and decided that integrity was more important than the whining of an idiot. I would LIKE to say that, but, if I did, I would be lying. They made the decision to change it back for the same reason that most decisions are made in this country (don't know about other countries, sadly, I am not yet widely traveled). They made the decision for the love of money! Apparently, whoever wrote the contract for usage of the material figured that this might be a problem and added a clause that said that it could only be performed if the title was displayed correctly. Whoever wrote that agreement: Bravo to you!!!
Now this upsets me for three reasons. First, I get kind of nervous around any type of censorship. Any time anyone tries to force ones own morality on another, that bothers me. I know, I am strange like that. Go figure.
Second, this woman was upset that she had to explain to a little girl, her niece, what a vagina was. This makes no sense. They both had them!!! Barring some horrendous accident, the both had vaginas!!! How could this be offensive? Now, if you have the urge to write and tell me that this is another illustration of how we live in a patriarchy, sit on your hands, take a deep breath and realize that not everything will fit in whatever little box you want to cram it in to make yourself feel all nice and safe and superior. This is a much larger issue that has nothing to do with gender. In this case, vaginas just happen to be involved. Don't believe me? Try to put on a show called "The Penis Monologues" and see if you don't get some complaints. Better yet, you and a male friend go walking down the street naked, doing nothing of a sexual nature, and see if you don't BOTH get arrested. This is an issue that goes past any gender issue. It is an issue of shame. Both sexes have been conditioned to feel ashamed of their bodies. This also goes into a larger and more basic issue of the human condition, one that I will most likely rant about at some later date.
The third thing that bothers me is the use of the term "Hoo-Haa". This is just completely wrong. The correct euphemistic term for the vagina, should you ever need one, is "Hoo-Hoo". "Hoo-Haa" is too close to "Yee-Haa" which, to me, brings back both disturbing flashbacks to my days in the deep south and equally disturbing images of our country's current foreign policy.
Rant over... for now
