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

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...

Well, "don't ask, don't tell" has been repealed and all those doomsayers that thought that those "damn queers" had no place in the military have been proven correct. As most of you know the ban on homosexuals in the US military was lifted as of the twentieth of September. I hope somehow, our country can survive our naive mistaken belief that homosexuals were just people like everyone else.

Since our fateful mistake, homosexuality in the military has risen an alarming five billion percent. This is largely attributable to the "gay radiation" that openly homosexual people are known to emit. There has been an alarming rise in the sale of pink camo fatigues due to now openly gay soldiers refusing to wear regular fatigues because "They are so last year. I mean, heloooo!". During combat there has been a significant rise in soldiers refusing to to fire on the more attractive members of the enemy. One soldier was quoted as saying: "I am sorry sir but I cannot fire on that man. He is gorgeous!" There has also been a dramatic rise in both turtle fucking and drive by makeovers the gay rays seep into the surrounding populous.

Despite all this, homosexuality between attractive females is still considered "hot".

Hey, wait a minute. None of that happened at all, except for maybe the lesbianism thing. Huh, go figure.

Some people have predicted that there will be a backlash against openly homosexual solders. In this I have to agree with them. I think there will be a lot of homosexual soldiers being on the receiving end of beatings. I imagine there will be an increase in the number of "friendly fire" instances. And I am almost sure we will see a good many deserving folks passed over for promotion for no apparent reason.

Despite all this, I still think lifting the band was the right thing to do. Change is difficult and there is always a price to be paid. When the change is of something that has been around for a very very long time, the price is even higher. Despite the initial cost of this particular change, I think this will, in time, make our military and country itself stronger. The people who say that the cost is too high and should not happen because of the danger to others need only set their wayback machines to when the armed forces were first integrated and the hardships involved in that. Was the cost too high then? Some people say that yes, the cost was too high and it never should have happened. Those people should not breed.

There has been some whining by Christians chaplain that now they will not be able to do their jobs as they will now have to censor themselves. Why? Because Christianity says that homosexuality is wrong? As a religion, chaplains will still be able to spout off their bigoted rhetoric as they have before. Organized religion has never had much of a problem getting across a message of intolerance.

There will be a great many growing pains but, in the end (insert joke here) history will prove that it was the right thing to do... as long as we watch out for those "gay rays"



Rant over... For now

"Decent Script, Decent Scriiiiipt!" Shamble, Shamble

So, all those out there that have read the book "World War Z" by Max Brooks raise your hands. Ok, those of you with your hand raised, take that hand and pat yourself on the back for having excellent taste in literature.

"World War Z", one of my favorite books ever is being turned into a movie!

For those of you who don't know the book (for shame) the theme of the book is a collection of interviews collected from all over the world 10 years after the end of the zombie war in which the world had been overrun with zombies (its only a matter of time, folks) and subsequently taken back by the humans that survived. Now I realize that a book that is a collection of interviews may not sound like much but Brooks manages to weave the interviews into a cohesive storyline. Go Max!

There was an "audio book" made of it that was excellent. I use quotes around audio book because that is not really a fair description. It would be more accurate to call it an audio play but good luck finding "audio play" when you head down to your local book store to pick it up. One of the things that makes this play so great is the phenomenal acting by the cast which includes voice acting great Mark Hamill. Yes, I know he was Luke Skywalker but, while I absolutely loved the original Star Wars movies, he really came into his own with voice acting. Other performers include Alan Alda, Rob Reiner, Carl Reiner, Henry Rollins, John Turturro and others all turning in top flight performances. Unfortunately all the interviews in the book don't make it into the play but it is still a great one.

Ok, so now you know the storyline of the book. Let's have a littl look at what the storyline of the movie will be. This is the official synopsis from Paramount:

"The story revolves around United Nations employee Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), who traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments and threatening to decimate humanity itself. Mireille Enos plays Gerry’s wife Karen Lane; Andre Kertesz is his comrade in arms, Segen."

Now, does that sound like the same story? To be fair, the two storylines to cave a couple of things in common: Um... Well... They both have people and zombies.

This isn't just a case of a fan of a book nitpicking a movie based on it. This is a case of one story having nothing to do with each other except the title! It is like licensing the movie rights to Harry Potter and making a movie about a little girl who travels around the world granting the wishes of bread mold and pulling magic joo joo bees out of her left nostril. Insistently, if there are any Hollywood big wigs out there reading this I am available to write that screenplay.

I know changes are made to the original story in movies all the time due to the restrictions of film or even just to make the story new for people who are familiar with the story but there is at least something of the original story in there somewhere! One of my favorite TV shows "The Walking Dead" diverged quite a bit from the comic it is based on. The key difference is that, despite being different, it is still true to the source material.

I guess there is something that truly upsets me, as a writer, about taking the product of someone's hard work and imagination grabbing the title and tossing everything else. Why should it upset me when Max Brooks is fne with it? Well for one, we don't know what his feelings on the changes are, no statement has been issued. Even if he is ok with it I still feel it is kind of a giant "Up Yours!" to the fans who are excided to see a story that they enjoy up on the silver screen.

The movie isn't set to be released until December 21, 2012 and many things can happen between now and then so there is hope. Incidentally December 21, 2012 is the date of the end of the world according to the Mayan calender ad least according to popular belief. Cute, Paramount, glad you did something right.

The one of the truely sad things about all this is that the synopsis sounds like it might be a pretty good movie were it allowed to stand on its own. Maybe they will change the title and then make a real World War Z movie. I won't be holding my breath for that one though.



Rant Over... For now

Fabulous! Now I am Going to Miss Halloween!

The world will end on May 21 2011! Wait, wait, wait. I totally meant October, 21 2011. Sorry, my bad.

Originally the word from on high, or low, depending on your take of the whole "end of the world" thing was that the rapture would occur on May 21 and the whole Armageddon thing would last until October 21. Now, according to Harold Camping, the guy who was making the prediction in the first place, the rapture and the end of the world will occur simultaneously and bypass that whole pesky Armageddon thing.

This is either good news or bad news. It is good news for those of us who were hoping to cut out the middle man and bad news for those who were on the fence and were hopping for some time to repent should the rapture actually happen. Here again we have an example of god being gracious and loving, or a complete dick.

I am, generally speaking not a big fan of organized religion (I know, it is shocking to find that out about me, huh?)and things like this are why. It doesn't bother me that people believe god will smite the world, hell, I firmly believe that a zombie apocalypse will occur any day now (ready your ZCP!)but things like this some people take as permission to behave like an ass.

Consider this:
"My mom has told me directly that I’m not going to get into heaven,’’ said Grace Haddad, 16. “At first it was really upsetting, but it’s what she honestly believes."

Gotta love mom there, huh? Now, admittedly, I don't have kids, but isn't just a teeny bit cold to tell your kid, in all seriousness that they are going to hell?

I also find it disturbing that the kid is okay with it because "it’s what she honestly believes." If I honestly believed punching random strangers in the naughty bits would make large sacks of gummy worms appear in my kitchen, that doesn't give me permission to start swinging away. It sounds as if maybe a bit of the crazy may be starting to seep on down the bloodline. Here's hoping they find a good therapist before they become little batshit copies of their parents!

The Haddad family, I would imagine, is now in a bit of a pickle. She quit her job, they stopped working on the house and stopped saving for the kids college. Now that May has passed, they are gonna have to find a way to skate by for the next five months. I hope their savings were considerable. Now, the article doesn't say whether or not the father works, just that she quit her job to travel about with him to spread the work so, presumably, he is out of work too. Here is another little bit of trouble that the family might have now that the date has been pushed back: Travelling costs money. When I said their savings had better be considerable, I take it back, the family had better be monstrously wealthy.

Another disconcerting thing about this particular family story is that the job she quit, was being a nurse. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't any job in medicine have more to do with science rather than beating someone over the head with a bible. I can just imagine this scenario:

"Well, Mr Smith, the good news is that your heart surgery went flawlessly, a complete success! The bad news is that you will soon be burning in everlasting torment. Enjoy your jello!"

Here is another heart warming quote:

“I don’t really have any motivation to try to figure out what I want to do," said Joseph Haddad, 14, “because my main support line, my parents, don’t care."

I got all misty on that one. You can truly feel the love. If this is indicative of the kind of folks one would have to live with in heaven, save me a place by the fire. An old friend of mine, when asked if he wants to go to heaven replied brilliantly: "That depends. Are you going to be there?".

I am sure there will be many many stories like this one between now and October, and probably after. Let's hope they are few and far between.

One last thing from the Haddad family:

The children, however, have found something to giggle over.

“She’ll say, ‘You need to clean up your room,’ " Grace said. “And I’ll say, ‘Mom, it doesn’t matter, if the world’s going to end!'"

You gotta love that!

The original article can be found here:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-20/news/29565433_1_prophecy-judgment-day-nonbelievers




Rant Over...for now

It's The End of the World as We... Wait, What?

Well it is now Saturday 5/21/11 1:28pm. Do you know where your apocalypse is? If you are still reading this from an earthly computer that is because god thinks you are a dick and were not lifted up to heaven during the rapture. Welcome to my world.

Looking around outside I am not at all surprised that hell on Earth looks a lot like Vegas.

As of this point, the content of the "The End Is Nigh!" pages have not changed. Maybe they are waiting until midnight just to be sure.

This is just a quickie (was it good for you?) but you can bet that I will be posting more on this topic in very short order. I will be posting, that is, of course, assuming that I have not been wrong and the entire world bursts into flame at midnight.

In the mean time, feel free to point and laugh at all those who whole-heartedly believed that they were going to be drawn up in the rapture but made no effort to donate everything they had to the poor unfortunates who would be left behind. Isn't giving to those less fortunate the "Christian" thing to do? Apparently not.

I'll Be Back... You Have Been Warned!

Hey! Nice Underwear!

Sagging pants that expose the underwear, this has got to be one of the stupider fashion trends in recent memory. Not as bad as bell bottoms but it is certainly within kissing distance. I mean, past a certain point you are no longer wearing pants, you are wearing thigh-highs. While I am a big fan of thigh-highs, they really don't do it for me when worn by underage boys with a perma-scowl etched on their faces. If you are gonna wear your pants down around your knees, just loose the pants. You don't look tough, you look ridiculous.

Now, as bad as normal jeans down around the knees are, there is an even more insidious fashion cancer growing in the world. For quite some time there has been a trend of adolescent boys wearing jeans so tight that just looking at them makes my balls hurt. This was bad enough but they have also added the sagging thing. If you are wearing pants so tight I can tell what religion you are from across the room, I don't need you dropping your drawers to confirm the point.

I am a big supporter of the concept of a clothing optional society but this isn't really the way to go about it. If you don't want to wear pants, don't. As long as you are still wearing underwear you are still not considered "indecently exposed", quite possibly one of the stupidest laws ever composed by mankind.

The thing that really bothers me about this is not the exposure, its the whole attitude that seems to go with it. There is an incredible amount of hostility that seems to come along with this "fashion". I find it interesting that a guy who has to hold his pants up with one hand to even walk glares at me like I just question the legitimacy of his parentage. You shouldn't be pissed at me, you should be pissed that you can't find a working belt.

Now, one might suggest that the glare is due to the fact that I am staring at them. Let's say, for the sake of argument that I am staring. I am not, but lets just say that I am. So what if I am? Staring is the natural response when seeing something unusual. If a guy rolls out on a unicycle wearing fishnet stockings, juggling flaming hamsters and sporting a three foot day-glow orange mohawk, I am going to look. Hell, if that happened I might even toss a few buck in the hat for him. The point is, if you don't want people to look, wear something that blends in. Granted, if this trend continues those of us who know how to work a belt will be the ones being stared at.

As I said, the attitude that goes with this fashion is what really irritates me. Sorry, chuckles, showing me your underpants doesn't make you tough. Not even a little bit.

There are two stories I have heard to explain the origin of this look, both of which say it originates in prison.

The first, is the one I am really hoping is true because if it is, it really puts a bit of a hilarious spin on the whole tough-guy attitude thing. In this story, the look was one used by guys in prison advertising that they wanted to be someone's bitch. The hilarity jumps up a few more notches when you consider the homophobia that is so prevalent in the intercity black culture where this look seemed to first gain a foot hold.

The second one is a bit more likely but much less funny. The story goes that the inmate uniforms in the LA county prison system were usually too large due to there not being the funding to give every inmate one that actually fit. All the belts, shoelaces and what have you were confiscated to prevent suicide and to prevent them from being used as a weapon. As a result, the inmates had to hold their too-large pants up with one hand for fear of the first story becoming swiftly and violently true.

Even if the second story is the true one, those that choose this look are still emulating failure! Everyone who has ever been or ever will be in prison, rightly or wrongly, is there because they failed in some way. Now they may have simply failed to prove their innocence in a corrupt court system that gives only lip service to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" or they got caught committing a crime, it is still failure. There is just no way around that.

Here's hoping this stupid trend will die off soon. Hey, bell bottoms and the leisure suit died off too, so there is always hope.

Well, that is my grumpy old man post for the day.

And stay the hell off my damn lawn!


Rant Over... for now

Its a Party! Who Brought the Chips?

The end of the world will apparently occur on May 21, 2011. This according to a site called familyradio.com. For those of you keeping count, you have five days to hug your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye.

How do they know this? Well:

"That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment. The Bible tells us in Amos 3:7:


Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto His servants the prophets."

Wait. Did I miss a date or something in that passage? To be fair, later in the page they do present an equation that proves, PROVES I say, that the world will end on 5/21/11. That is to say, it proves it if you interpret the bible in a certain way.

I love this one:

"In its original languages (mostly Hebrew and Greek) it has never been changed, and each and every word in the original languages is from the mouth of God."

Paging King James!

Now that we know that the bible has never been changed and is 100% accurate, we have to wonder why it refers to the messiah as Jesus Christ. "Jesus" we know is a corruption of the Greek which is a corruption of the Hebrew name "Joshua" pronounced "Yeshua". That's an awful lot of corruption for a book that has never been changed and is completely accurate!

"The people of the earth, which we call mankind, were created to rule over this earth. God gave laws by which we can live as happily and wisely as possible. He warns, however, that the breaking of those laws is sin, and sin will bring punishment from God. The Bible declares in Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death…."

Can't you just feel the love?

"By careful study of the Bible we learn that in the year 4990 B.C. (Before Christ) God brought a flood of water and destroyed the entire earth except for eight people and the animals that were with them."

Again with the love. Now maybe its just me but isn't 8 just a little small for a viable gene pool? If somehow a pool of 8 people end up producing a world population of roughly 6 billion people there must have been some serious inbreeding going on. Now that I think about it, that much inbreeding would kind of explain a lot of bonehead moves humans tend to make. Moving on.

"The ark that Noah had built was the only place of safety from the destruction of the Flood."

Apparently there was a rash of termites that ate holes in all the other boats.


"We learn from the Bible that Holy God plans to rescue about 200 million people (that is about 3% of today’s population)."

Ok, if you are one of the 200 million that are taken up to heaven, I call dibs on your stuff!

For those of you who want to see where all these quotes come from, you can find them at: http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/judgment/judgment.html

I am really anxious to see what their website will say on May 22nd. Unless, of course, they are right and the world has ended the day before. If it does, the Mayans are gonna be super pissed!



Rant Over... for now

In the Army Now...

The other day I was having a discussion with a few friends. Stop laughing, I have friends! The topic of discussion was gays in the military. Two of these individuals were former military themselves. One of them said that while he would have no problems serving in an open military there were certain positions that he would have a problem having homosexuals serve in. I asked him to elaborate and he mentioned a "flamer" in a command position. In this point I agreed with him but that was more a case of a personality ill-suited to a particular job. A flamer would indeed, in my estimation, be a poor choice for command but not all gays set off sprinkler systems. Personality is a different issue entirely than who one finds physically attractive.

A point brought up was by another gentleman was the practical concern of the hetero soldier on the ground's reaction to an openly gay soldier. He said that there would many possible instances of personal backlash against the gay soldier up to and including instances of "friendly fire". While I acknowledge that in many instances that could very well be the case, is that a reason to keep gays out of the military? There are many bigots in every part of society. Many people would like nothing more that to see their own personal prejudices reinforced by official policy. Is the fact that a bigoted individual will behave in a violent way when confronted with the object of his bigotry a good reason to condone the behavior? I submit to you that it is not. There was negative and often violent reaction to the integration of black soldiers into the military. Does that mean it should never have happened? Radical changes made to any social system are always messy and often bloody. That does not mean it should happen. There are military statutes that protect military personnel from being attacked by one another just like there is in the civilian world. A soldier attacking a soldier, in most cases, is a crime and is punished as one. The point was made that these statutes would be "selectively" enforced. I can not argue with that. How many black soldiers were brutally attacked with impunity during integration? Does that mean it shouldn't have happen? Sadly, a great deal of the "old guard" had to "die out" for the change to take root. And the same would most likely have to take place in this instance.

I am not now nor have I ever been in the military. This is a fact that is usually used by current and former members of the military to discount my opinion as being completely invalid. This is arrogance on a rather impressive level and is completely ridiculous. It would be on par with my pointing out that I am a writer and since someone else isn't his or her opinions on literature are completely invalid. This would be viewed, quite correctly, as a ridiculous idea. It is quite possible for a non-writer to studies literature and the various aspects of its creation and possess well thought out and valid opinions on the subject. Guess what, the same thing is true for the military and any other subject. We all have minds that allow us to logically form opinions on any subject. The out of hand rejection of another point of view simply because it comes from a different set of experiences than yours is false logic at best. Sometime a fresh pair of eyes can be a very helpful thing.

Another excellent point that was made was that was made was that when one enlists in the military they sign a contract that includes the wording banning homosexuality and so breaking the contract by declaring one's homosexuality they should rightly be incarcerated for this breach. I would agree with this statement if it were not federal law that a contract that requires one to commit an illegal act is non-binding. The sanctioned discrimination against a citizen of the United States clearly violates the fourteenth amendment and is, therefore, illegal. Don't forget, military personnel also pledge to defend the constitution. There is a reason "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. If you signed a contract with me to kill my wife and then did not fulfill the contract, I could not then sue you for breech of contract. Despite the ridiculousness of that example, the principle holds true.

The practical result of all this is, as correctly pointed out by the gentleman, is that one would find themselves sitting in federal prison until the supreme court agree to hear the case. Given the stacked deck that is our current Supreme Court and our government's love affair with ignoring civil rights and locking people away without even the pretense of due process, the prospects of policy being changed in this way are dim indeed.

When you strip away pandering to the bigotry of others, I still have yet to hear even one logical reason why homosexuals are unfit for military service.



Rant Over...for now