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,"
 

Aaaaand...

You know what, no.  I am gonna try not to jinx it this time.  I will Just say that, at least for now, I am no longer having to use smoke signals and carrier pigeons to communicate which is a good thing as those are notoriously difficult ways to get online.  Plus, the pigeons REALLY hate it when you use both methods simultaneously.  What I will say is that both my blogs are back up and I will hopefully remember to start updating them soon.  Until then, LIVE IN FEAR!!! (Ooo, scary)

Aaaaaaaaand, Now We are Not Quite Back

So, here's the situation (And now I have "Parents Just Don't Understand" playing in my head on a loop). We were forced to bid adieu to our craptastical (it is too a word) ISP. See, we have this little quirk in that if we pay for a service, we should actually get that service. I know, bizarre, huh? So now we are trying to find another ISP. The area i live in is awesome in terms of privacy it is crap as far as ISPs are concerned. We are out of range of cable or DSL so satellite is our only option. Coming from a place where we had high speed cable with unlimited access, the speed and access cap is a big adjustment for us. So now the only internet access we have at home is through our phones. This sucks and not in the happy happy joy joy sort of way. Hopefully, for the sake of my cramped fingers, the situation will change soon and i will be back. Oh yes, internal voices, I will return! Until that day, live in fear! FEAR ME... Well? Go on. Fear me. I'll wait.

Aaaaaaand, We're Back

That's right, kiddies, I am back on the air.  After a particularly arduous move fraught with troubles and the occasional cyborg-ninja-monkey attacks (true-ish story) we have managed to find a place and get some sort of internet access.  While the access is ridiculously poorly maintained, it is there at times.  The excitement of this announcement is some what lessened due to the fact that my entire readership is almost completely made up of myself and the voices in my head that other people pretend they can't hear.  Regardless, I shall solder on on the off chance that someone peeks in and doesn't run out eyes bleeding and/or a victim of the aforementioned cyborg-ninja-monkey attacks.  I know those little bastards are following me.  And yet I trudge on.  In the immortal words of Stan Lee: "Excelsior!"  Okay technically that is only one word but you get the point.

Not this Crap Again!

Now I don't consider myself a masochist, quite the contrary, but today I saw some fair evidence against that image I have of my self.  I actually sat down and watched the entire first presidential debate.  The entire thing.  By choice!

There are only two reasons you are reading this right now: A) you want to read what I have to say or B) you are severely mentally ill.  I admit there is some overlap there.  So, here goes... kinda...

While I do have very strong opinions about which candidate should be president, I am only going to focus on a phrase that sent up all manner of red flags.  This was said by Romney at one point:

“We’re all children of the same God,”

Really, Mitt? Really?

While it is sadly true that most of this country is overtly religious, this is a remarkably stupid statement as well as a dangerous one.  What sent up further flags was that it came out of nowhere.  He was citing a line in the Declaration of Independence that says: "we are endowed by our Creator..." And then began to speak, thankfully briefly, about religious tolerance.  That wasn't even the question!

The Declaration of Independence is a political document.  It was written and supported by people who were trying to achieve a political goal.  As such, it had to conform, at least in part, to the language of the day.  If that were not the case a simple not written in large letters saying: "Fuck You, Limeys!  Take your shit and go home!"  While, admittedly, this would have been hilarious it would not have done just a whole lot to advance the cause of independence.  Instead, they used the parlance of the day which, like it or not, was riddled with the trappings of religion.

Similar progress, or lack there of, would have been made had they said that Thor had been the one who gave us these rights.  Regardless of what you believe, if you are trying to convince someone to do something you have to play up to your audience.  Royalty was conferred by divine right or at least having having killed the right people and telling every one that (insert your deity?deities here) had willed it to be so.

Not only did it have to deal the prejudices of the intended audience but it also had to deal with the prejudices of the people it was supposed to represent.  That whole Thor thing would most likely gone down rather poorly.

Like it or not the parlance of the day included inserting the Christian God into everything.  That is why on a lot of the correspondence from that time you will find the phrase :"in the year of our Lord..."  I have seen people attempt to prove that the founding fathers were Christian.

I am not going to debate, at this point, what, if any, religion the founding fathers subscribed to.  What I will say is that too much meaning can be read into the little ticks of social language that are used as a way to make discussion easier.

Having said all that, there is nothing like religion to control and/or destroy people.  I think that was what Romney was doing here.  In this case, control the way people vote.  Now, that is what a debate is for, however, ideally people should be swayed by well thought out arguments and reason.  Rather than reason, he pulled out the religion card.  It is kinda like the race card except less restrictive of who can play it.

All children of the same god?  What about people who don't believe in god?  What about those that believe in a pantheon of gods?  Which god is it that you think we are the children of?  Yahweh? Odin? Zeus?  The god that speaks in Eddie's head instructing him to shove rocks up his nose while bathing in the blood of pigeons?  That holy voice that commands us to kill the wabbit?

This is just a stupid, bigoted statement to be made during a debate.  Unfortunately, to a disturbing number of Americans, one of the criteria for voting for someone is that they believe a system of mythology that, at least for the most part, mirrors their own.  The real danger of this is that when a person is doing something because it is something that they believe it is what their god wants them to do, that is all the reason they need to do anything, no matter how heinous.  Don't believe me?  I point to holy wars, the inquisition, suicide bombers and the 9/11 attacks.  People tend to forget that last one as it hits so close to home and they want to distance themselves from it.  The uncomfortable fact is that it was carried out by very religious people.

Then again, I am only writing all of this is because god told me too.


Rant Over... for now

Why yes. My eyes are Bleeding. Thank You So Much for Noticing!

Let me paint you a little picture:

You are running some errand or other.  Perhaps you are going to pick up some monkey chow, perhaps you just remembered that you need to unlock the handcuff you were using three nights ago.  Either way, you find yourself in a store.  In the case of the handcuffs to pick up a good hack saw that can cut through them, well, through bone anyway, the key having been lost during an unfortunate incident involving a crowbar, a small whip a fifty gallon drum of barbeque sauce and one very confused carp.  You know, an average Thursday evening.  But I digress... rather a lot actually.  Anyway, for whatever reason, you find yourself walking through a store and as you walk along you are hit in the face with a pungent cloud of perfume that is so thick it is damn near solid.  Three minutes later the person from whom this fog of evil emanates passes you, completely oblivious to the path of pulmonary scarring that they have left in their wake.  And you think to yourself, as you hork up the remainder of your left lung, how the hell does that even happen?!?  How is it that he/she/it has not been reduced to a gelatinous mass of quivering goo?!?

Now take that whole scenario and add in a really good case of asthma.  Good times, good times.

This has happened to me on more than one occasion and I can almost bet it has happened to you as well.  This used to be more or less confined to really old ladies who had burned out any sense of smell they may have had long ago.  At least that, you know is an honest mistake on their part.  What about the people around them?  Not strangers, mind you, but people they actually know!  Has not one of these people had the common decency to tell them "Hey, maybe you might wanna dial it back a bit on the perfume.  The plants are on fire and the walls are bleeding."  Is that really too much to ask?  The answer to that question seems to be a resounding "YES"!

More and more the people who commit this crime against lung capacity seem to be getting younger and younger.  Not only that, it has crossed the gender barrier as well.  I am a big fan of gender equality but this is taking it in the entirely wrong direction.  Walking through a store one day I was almost knocked off my feet by the stench of cologne oozing from a kid who couldn't be older than seven!  Isn't there some law against teaching a child to mainline noxious chemicals?  Two questions: Where are the people who spawned this douche-larva and can we stone them?  At the very least we should be able to make sure they do not reproduce any more than they already have?

So here is a question, since the people who should be telling them seem to be incapable of doing so, is it ok for the rest of us to do it?

The answer to that question is apparently "no". 

This actually happened to me:
I was in a store waiting in the check-out line.  As I got closer to the cashier it got harder and harder to breath.  Now, as I am a gentleman when no one is looking, I decided that the best way to handle the situation was in as discretely a manner as possible.  Granted, that had more to do with my accidentally leaving my flame thrower at home than any actual gentlemanlyness (it is too a word!) but I digress... again.  I make my way to the customer service desk and ask to speak to the manager.  After a few minutes the manager shows up.  I tell her, in between wheezes, that the lone cashier is wearing perfume a bit on the heavy side and someone needs to say something to her because that could cause some problems for people with breathing troubles.  I used my inhaler for emphasis.  The manager literally turned her back to me and walked away.  I know, what a day to forget the flame thrower, huh?

But wait, boys and girls.  There's more

This was relayed to my by a very reliable source:  This gentleman, a fellow asthma sufferer, worked with a woman who, like the check out lady, seemed to wear perfume so heavily that mustard gas would have been like a breath of fresh air.  On more than one occasion working in relatively close quarters with this waste of carbon won this gentleman an all expenses owed trip to the emergency room.  Now you might be saying to yourself "Damn! Why didn't he just say something?"  Here's the kicker.  He did.  He explained the situation to their mutual boss.  He told him what was going on and explained that that was the reason he was missing so much work.  Did I mention that he was in danger of losing his job? He was.  The boss' response: Well, I can't make her not wear perfume!

Yeah, I've got to call bullshit on that one.  If I can be fired for wearing only a squid to casual Friday, he can tell this lady to stop trying to kill her fellow employees.

Apparently, that would have been rude.

You may, at this point you may be saying to yourself: "But, Logan (that is a really strange thing to say to yourself unless you actually happen to be named Logan), how can I tell if I am wearing too much of this particular biological weapon?"

I hear your plaintive pleas and provide this simple test.  After you are all ready to go out find yourself a nice enclosed space. A closet or spare coffin will do nicely.  Once you are all sealed up, wait about a minute and a half then light a match.  The degree of your burns will let you know how bad your stench was and you can adjust your scent usage accordingly.  Here is a handy guide:

No Burns:  You are good to go, Sparky
1st Degree: Not too bad.  Only small adjustment needed
2nd Degree: Heavy adjustment necessary IMMEDIATELY!
3rd Degree:  It is called soap and water, Beluga, look into it.  Steel wool will probably be needed.
A Smoldering Pile of Ash on the Floor:  WooHoo! More oxygen for the rest of us!!!

I try to help where I can.

Rant Over... for now

That's Just Pointless

Today I would like to rant a bit about a few of my favorite things: sculpting, toys and nipples.  Bear with me, this will make sense in a a bit. Well, make as much sense as anything I write.

I was in a Walmart (henceforth to be referred to by its proper name: Wally World or Wally for short) and, in accordance with federal law, I looked through the toy section.  There was a glut of Avenger figures with far less articulation than there should be, (that's another rant) and I saw some of the larger Avengers figures.  The one that really caught my eye was the Hulk.

The sculpt of the figure was excellent. Well proportioned with plenty of fine detail with one notable exception, well, two really.  You can see where this is going, huh?  The missing bits were, as you have guessed, nipples.  Now normally I don't go around fondling action figures in an attempt to feel nipples no matter what those police reports say, but on a sculpt this good it kind of sticks out like a sore... thumb.

Now, if this were the first time I have seen this omission I would chalk it up to crap quality control but that is not the case.  As a general rule, action figures that are shirtless, are missing them.  My question here is: WHY?!?  I mean really, can anyone come up with a good reason for this?

The prudish among us would say that a child's toy doesn't need to be that detailed.  I agree, it is far more healthy to treat a normal aspect of human anatomy as dirty and immoral.  Hey, if we are lucky, maybe we can get a good case of shame going too.  To all of the "think of the children!" crowd, I have a little secret for you.  Barring horrible accident or radical surgery, your children have nipples!  No, really, they do and so do you!

It wasn't just the fact that his nipples were missing, it was the fact that the rest of the sculpt was so detailed.  I mean correct musculature, toenails even the texture of the skin!  All that but nipples are too much detail?  What I have to wonder is if the sculptors are given the anti-nipple mandate or if they are removed somewhere down the line.

I freely admit that my views on the human anatomy, specifically the appropriateness of its display, are not the same as mainstream America and it has been suggested to me that all of my sculpts don't all have to be anatomically correct and detailed, but come on! They are nipples not an invitation to have free candy in that creepy guy on the corner's van!  Seeing human anatomy molded in plastic will not turn your children into twisted sexual deviants, leave that to organized religion.

Have we, as a society, really become that tightly wound that nipples, part of what defines us as mammals, are so offensive that we would remove them from an otherwise beautiful sculpt?  It is art for crying out loud!  That is just sad.  By the way, who can tell me what inevitably happens when something is wound too tightly?  Just saying.



Rant Over...for now

Ok, not completely over.

Update 6/27/12

In the store the other day, I'm telling you guys, it's the law, I saw the new mold of the Hulk for the comic Avengers pack in the Marvel Universe line.  The mold is a vast improvement over the previous one.  Care to guess what was missing?

Now, Rant Over...for now

La, La, La, I Can't Hear You, La la la

I know this story is a bit old but if you wanted up to the minute news you really are in the wrong place

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066795/Muslim-students-walking-lectures-Darwinism-clashes-Koran.html

First off, let me say that I am not against religion as such but there are some things that don't really go together. Science and fundamentalism of any religion go together chocolate and yak vomit. There's an image for you. In this case it it Muslim fundamentalism.

Many medical students are boycotting lectures because Darwinism contradicts the Koran. Allow me to point out the terrifying words in that sentence: "medical students"! These people want to be doctors! Me personally, I want any doctor that works on me to have a deep understating of biology and the scientific method not believe that a all knowing all powerful invisible sky king farted the world and all the critters, including us, into being after a particularly spicy burrito night at Deities-r-us. Now I know that is not what Muslims believe but it amounts to the same thing: a doctor who is missing a large chunk of scientific knowledge.

The thing that I find really scary is that Darwinism is science and these people are chucking it out the window because it conflicts with a book written a long time ago but uneducated folks who, at the time, had not experienced the awe and wonder that is indoor plumbing. They told a story that loosely described the world around them and gave them power over others. This worked very well for them for a long time. Then along came a person who looked around with a logical eye and said "why".
That question is a danger to any religion not just Islam. I would much rather have a doctor that asked why rather than just believing that my illness is the will of the aforementioned sky king.

What if the doctor decides that antibiotics are the tools of the devil? What if they decide that it is god's will to cure the common cold by hitting the patient in the face with a 20 pound sledge hammer. Admittedly that method would, in fact, cure the common cold in most cases if the doctor got a really good swing. The down side is that it would also cure the patient of that whole "being alive" thing. Besides, most people's insurance wouldn't cover it.

Does all this mean that I think that religious belief is completely incompatible? The answer to that is both yes and no. If the religious belief requires that the adherents believe that things are a certain way and there was no room for discussion then yes it is incompatible. Science asks "why", religion answers "because I said so". That may work well from a parent to a child but when said to a full grown adult who is trying to solve the mysteries of the Universe, not so much.




Rant Over...for now

I Didn't Even Know There Was a Bigotry Party

So this has been out for a while and most of you have seen it but just to refresh your memories, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA&noredirect=1

I happen to agree. There is something wrong in this country when we extend equal rights to all its citizens and doesn't allow people to force their religion on others!

The truly sad part about this is that I don't think that he thinks he is saying anything wrong! He actually seems to see equal rights for all citizens as a bad thing and forcing your religion on others as a good thing. I guess he worded it the way he did because "Fuck you, faggots and non Christians!" would be too obvious.

The idea that children in schools are not allowed to openly pray and celebrate Christmas is ridiculous at best. There is no law preventing children from praying in school. What is not allowed is taking up class time and the school itself having official prayer time. There is that whole separation of church and state thing that he seems to have forgotten about. As far as celebrating Christmas, what exactly is it he wants? Again, this seems to be him wanting to force his beliefs on everyone else. Now, at the end of the ad, he says he will end Obama's "war on religion" (there will be bitching on the whole "war on" thing later), yet he doesn't specify which religion. Does that mean he wants the same rights for all religions? He would be fine with state-sponsored prayer for Jews? Museums? Scientologists? Wickens? The practitioners of VooDoo? Satanists? Worshipers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the state-sponsored celebration of their respective holidays? If that is the case, when would their be time for actual education? Oh, wait. What was I thinking?!? He was talking about public schools! There hasn't been any actual education going on in those for many years. Never mind. Somehow, though, I have a sneaking suspicion that he had a specific religion in mind. What do you think?

Also towards the end he makes the statement that "Faith made America strong." This is just plain inaccurate. You know what made this country strong? Nukes, lots and lots of nukes. That and money, lots and lots of money.

If he meant "strong" in the more abstract sense of the word, then he is still wrong. Freedom is what made this country strong. Remember freedom? I know government and corporations (like they are actually two different things anymore) have been doing their best to turn the idea of freedom into a distant memory. We still have some but if things keep going the way they are...

The thing that really upsets me about this ad is that he will gain quite a few votes because of it.

Ok, in order to try and get the horrible taste of bigotry out of our mouths, here is Stephen Colbert:

http://gawker.com/5866582/stephen-colbert-defends-rick-perrys-anti+gay-campaign-ad


Rant Over... for now

WAR, HUH!

Now is usually the time of year when various people who seem to really like the sound of their own voices love nothing more than to spout off about the liberal media/various politician/anyone who is not Christian’s war on Christmas.

Ignoring the idiocy of “declaring war” on an abstract concept, what exactly do they mean by war on Christmas? To those of us that immediately think of Santa with a rocket launcher or Christ with a flamethrower the actual meaning is no where near as awesome. They usually mean that someone has the temerity to not believe in the same things and express them in the same way.

On example that I hear the most is that a great many people and places have started saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”. This is a move that was obviously made to express a deep seated hatred towards Christmas and Christians on general. It was in no way made to acknowledge that not everyone in the country is a Christian. As opening salvos go, it is not the most interesting.

Ok, let’s move on to an even bigger shouting point, the government! Many of these people point to the removal of nativity scenes, Christmas trees and decorations from public buildings and the withdrawal of public funds to pay for them as a huge slap in the face to Christianity. Well, last time I checked, there were provisions in the constitutions to keep the government from sponsoring any religion. Yes, even if that religion is Christianity. As of this point I have yet to hear of any law banning any individual from putting up trees or decorations and celebrating as they see fit.

Now, one might say: “There were Christmas decorations and greetings when I was a child.” And? Your point is…? When someone was a child, women didn’t have the right to vote. When someone was a child, slavery was perfectly legal. When someone was a child, Adolph Hitler was Time’s man of the year! Just because something happened a long time ago, doesn’t mean it was a good idea and just because it took a while doesn’t automatically mean it is a bad one.

The fact that someone doesn’t share your belief system or that pieced of the country are actually starting to follow the rules set down for it (countries will do that sometimes if you don’t keep a close eye on them) doesn’t constitute a war against your belief system or a particular holiday contained there in.

In short, relax. If your belief system can be destroyed by someone not sharing it then it probably wasn’t that good a belief system anyway. I mean, do I get all upset when no one wishes me a happy Loganisawesome day with the traditional orgy and gummy bear feast… Ok, I do. But that’s totally different!



Rant Over....for now