The Misanthrope's Journal

Depressing ... Just Depressing

2009-11-03T17:49:00.000-08:00

From yahoo finance:

Here's a list of top-paying jobs requiring little schooling, and their median annual earnings as of 2006, using the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Keep in mind that these jobs have their own challenges and often require some type of specialized schooling - sometimes on-the-job training.

1. Air Traffic Controllers: $117,200
2. Industrial Production Managers: $77,670
3. First-Line Police and Detective Supervisors: $69,300
4. Funeral Director: $49,620
5. Police and Sheriff Patrol Officers: $47,460
6. Advertising Sales Agents: $42,750
7. Real Estate Brokers and Sales Agents: $39,760
8. Occupational Therapist Assistants: $42,060
9. Occupational Therapist Aides: $25,000
10. Physical Therapist Assistants: $41,360

So, I'm depressed on two counts:

1. It's taken me 4 years of college to get a degree, a year-and-a-half to take classes to become certified, 2 more years to achieve my Master's, and 14 years to get all kinds of academic experience--and NOW, just now, I get to have a 5 as the first number of my salary.
2. In my classroom daily, my entire profession is built around preaching to my teenage students the essential nature of a good education in today's financial environment--and this article comes out saying that one doesn't need all that silly ole schooling to make a decent living in the good ole U.S. of A.

I need people to stop telling me what a "noble profession" teaching is; I think I'd rather have the money.

I Need a New Halloween Sign at My Front Door

2009-11-01T05:35:00.000-08:00

Here's what it'll say:

IF you are ...

not even wearing a friggin' costume, GO AWAY!
older than 12, get a life and then GO AWAY!
from an entirely different neighborhood, get back in your damn car and GO AWAY!
not even planning on saying "Thank you," get your hand out of my candy and GO AWAY!
planning on "tricking" me later, seriously ... GO AWAY!

Backasswards in America

2009-10-24T06:59:00.000-07:00

From msn.com

Spain bans new 'Saw' movie

WENN -- Spanish film officials have banned the latest gruesome "Saw" movie from cinemas by giving it the same rating as explicit porn films.

The new picture, the sixth in the "Saw" franchise, revives the hunt for gory serial killer Jigsaw and features scenes of graphic violence as the body count rises.

The gruesome scenes have disturbed bosses at the Spanish Culture Ministry's Film Institute, who have made the unprecedented move of handing the film an "X" rating. The classification means the picture will miss out on a nationwide release - as there are only eight theatres in the country which are licenced to show "pornographic" material.

I've tackled this issue before; however, I just wanted to thank Spain for being bold enough to say "NO!" to this gruesome American cinematic garbage that somehow we in America are okey-dokey with labeling as "R" while giving "Showgirls," another type of cinematic garbage, an "NC-17."

Let's be serious. What's more damaging to an individual's psyche: seeing full-frontal Elizabeth Berkley cootch shots several times or watching numerous realistically portrayed grotesque modes of torture? Which one of those--if given the either-or choice--would I rather my child or teenager not see? Which one should be rated as ethically "less child-oriented"?

We in America are sooooooooo scared of sexuality while somehow remaining rather accepting of violence.

How backwards is that?

Thank You, Catholic Church!

2009-10-20T15:29:00.000-07:00

from yahoo.com:

Vatican seeks to lure disaffected Anglicans

By NICOLE WINFIELD, VATICAN CITY – The Vatican announced Tuesday it was making it easier for Anglicans to convert to Roman Catholicism — a surprise move designed to entice traditionalists opposed to women priests, openly gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions.

The decision, reached in secret by a small cadre of Vatican officials, was sure to add to the problems of the 77-million-strong Anglican Communion as it seeks to deal with deep doctrinal divisions that threaten a permanent schism among its faithful.

The change means conservative Anglicans from around the world will be able to join the Catholic Church while retaining aspects of their Anglican liturgy and identity, including married priests. Until now, disaffected Anglicans had joined the church primarily on a case by case basis.

Finally, finally, and again I say to you--FINALLY!

I have recently been looking for ways to feel spiritually superior while still...

retaining my spiteful homophobia,
encouraging the spread of HIV and unwanted children because of my antiquated view on contraception,
helping sweep rampant pedophilia under the rug,
defying all known biological possibilities with my beliefs in 2 virgin births,
ignoring obvious idolatry with the worship of saints,
sweeping all of my weekly sins away with a quick confession to a man in a box.

And now I can get there faster!

Woohoo!

The Political Correctness Movement Is Now Taking Halloween Hostage

2009-10-18T07:01:00.000-07:00

I thought this was pretty funny and creative, as far as Halloween costumes go:

Description:
He didn't just cross a border, he crossed a galaxy!
He's got his green card, but it's from another planet! Sure to get some laughs, the Illegal Alien Adult Costume includes an orange prison-style jumpsuit with "Illegal Alien" printed on the front, an alien mask and a "green card".

But when I tried to find it on Target's website, this is what I got:

PAGE NOT FOUND
There is no Target.com page matching your request.
It's possible that you typed the address incorrectly, or that the page no longer exists.

Why? Here's the reason (according to cnn.com):

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Immigrant rights activists are calling on U.S. retailers to stop selling two controversial "Illegal Alien" costumes that have surfaced for Halloween, saying the outfits are a broadside attack on illegal immigrants.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said it began receiving e-mails from concerned legal immigrants on Friday. In response, CHIRLA wrote a letter asking several retailers, including Target, Walgreens, and Amazon.com, to stop offering the costume.

As of Saturday afternoon, Target had pulled the products, and some links to the costumes on other sites were no longer functional.

Target said the "Illegal Alien" costume was inadvertently uploaded to its Web site due to a data entry error.

"It is never our intent to offend the consumers with the products we offer," a company statement said.

"Offend"???? Are you serious? Whom, exactly, are we concerned with offending?

Legal Mexican immigrants? No. They're here "legally," so they can obviously recite the Pledge of Allegiance and tell me the capital of Iowa, so they're good.
Galactic aliens? No. They don't have the correct WiFi connections to see this on the Internet.
Prisoners who have to wear orange jumpsuits? No. They're too concerned with memorizing the correct dance steps for the next West-Side-Story-esque gang war to surf the Internet for pretty costumes.

So, it must be illegal immigrants that are here ... (wait for it!) ... ILLEGALLY! They're not citizens; therefore, let us remember, they have no Constitutional rights, no legal voice or standing, no reason to be using our money for purchases of goods at Target, and obviously no sense of freakin' humor! (It's supposed to be funny, for El Dios sake!)

I'm ordering 20.

Bathroom Humor

2009-10-17T06:40:00.000-07:00

In a bathroom stall yesterday, I found exactly this :

F*UK

This was obviously written by a dyslexic graffiti novice with a bit of an ethical compass...

...or by a complete idiot. Whichever.

I circled it with my red pen.

I Don't Know Whom To Blame

2009-10-15T06:19:00.000-07:00

The other day, an English teacher friend of mine told me possibly the greatest story I've ever heard concerning the idiocy of some students. I almost wish it had happened to me, just so I could have it as my very own, but alas, it was not to be. However, I may still pass it along on this blog, which seeks out just such stories to fulfill its evil mission. I'll put it in dialogue format for your dramatic enjoyment.

Scene: Classroom of teacher on the third full week of the school year--a Thursday; right before the bell rings to begin class

Student (introducing himself to teacher): Hi. I'm, like, in your class.

Teacher: I know. Where ya been?

Student: Well, I didn't know, like, school had started yet.

Teacher: [stunned silence]

Student: I, like, went over to a friend's house yesterday, and they, like, asked me where I had, like, been. I asked them, like, what they were, like, talking about, and they were, like, school! So, here I am.

Teacher: [stunned silence]

Student: Sooooooo, did I, like, miss anything?

My first impulse is to blame the 10th grade student himself, for it seems that he should've noticed the large yellowish buses making frequent trips around his neighborhood or the lack of neighborhood friends with whom he could play his regular games of tiddly-winks or the mere fact that the calendar says freakin' "September!"

My next impulse is to blame the parents, since the nut doesn't fall too far from the large tree. I mean, shouldn't they have been a tad on the responsible side by waking little Junior up to say, "Hey, lil sunshine! It's time to do that school thing, since you're only 15 and all." And didn't they notice all those "Back to School" sales and put 2 and 2 together? And on their ways to work, did they notice that school zones were actually back on after a 3-month hiatus?

And then, of course, I blame the system. I don't know why, but I'm sure there's a reason.

Anyway, my final impulse is to continue telling this story because it's one of the best ones I've heard in a long, long time.

I Was Wrong!

2009-10-11T06:28:00.000-07:00

Completely ignore my last post! Look what I just read on cnn.com:

Obama addresses largest gay rights group
President Obama delivered a rousing speech Saturday night to the nation's largest gay rights group, praising the gay community for making strides in equal rights and pledging to deliver on major campaign promises that some say he's left on the back burner.

The horror! The horror! The grand, biblical horror! It's all starting to add up for me now!

Wins the Nobel Peace Prize
Supports women's rights
Attempts to grant universal health care to so many undesirables
Wants to end U.S. military presence in other sovereign nations

And now this?!? He is actually addressing the gay community as if they are equals? This guy's got "AntiChrist" written all over him!

Speaking of "written all over him," has anyone checked him for a "666" tattoo? I mean, think about it:

He is the 44th President.
Add two 4s together, and ya get 8.
What's the even number between 4 and 8? 6!
How many numbers are in the sequence of 4,6,8? 3!
Three 6s in a row, anyone? This guy's practically screaming "Beast"!

It's like he's straight out of Revelations! And I've read (parts of) it, so I should know!

And, by the way, don't discount one glaring sign of the Apocalypse that no one has brought up yet: The U.S.A. voted in a black man as President!

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em, folks. The end is obviously nigh!

Thank You, Organized Religion--Vol. II

2009-10-09T10:51:00.000-07:00

From a post on FaceBook referencing Obama's recent Nobel Peace Prize win:

Ya know, prophecy says the Antichrist will be heralded as a peacemaker prior to the events leading up to Armageddon! AMERICA.....WAKE UP! How can someone win an award for saying..it is okay to kill innocent babies...and YES they are babies! As a Christian, I am so thankful to say I have read the back of the BOOK and I know who wins the ULTIMATE prize! Lord forgive us!

And here are the responses:

Amen Sister [Name]!
THANK YOU [Name]!!!!!!!
That's about all I can say now when I pray! PREACH lady...maybe SOMEONE will hear it!
PREACH ON SISTA!!
BUT I THINK YOUR PREACHING TO THE CHOIR!!
Amen! Preach it!!!

OK. So where do I begin? There's so much there that I hardly know where to start.

First, I wish to note that I don't believe Obama deserved the prize either. I think that awarding him this prize just 9 months into his new job reeks of congratulatory racial ass-kissin'. But that's a whole different blog entry.

Second, I am not here to bag on true, sincere spirituality--the kind that is intensely personal, encouraging, uplifting, reflective, loving, and open-hearted. In fact, THAT I sincerely believe in.

Rather, I do wish to criticize this very prevalent sense that organized religion has become synonymous with true spirituality. Here are the major issues that I have with the kind of pseudo-religion that is reflected in the above quotes:

Equating Obama with the Anti-Christ? Seriously? With the kind of logic implied there, any human being who has ever won the Nobel Peace Prize could be assumed to be the biblical coming of that much-feared 666 dude.
Actually, there is no logic in statements like the aforementioned one, but for some reason, that's just fine with organized religion. In religions, when a particular answer is needed by the over-zealous adherent, s/he simply reads a symbolic book, interprets it in the most convenient way for the needed answer by working backwards to that answer, and then pulls the great religious trump card--FAITH. Waalaa! No logic needed, for it is up to all the adherents to have faith or perish spiritually, since it could be nothing but the Devil, that great red-tailed deceiver from the Underworld, who would be encouraging us to use our brains. It's so obvious!
And, to add to that last point, faith in what exactly? In a very vague, very symbolic book (Revelations) that has literally (Yes! Literally!) been interpreted in thousands of different ways by thousands of different doomsdayers over the last 2,000 years. None of which has EVER been close to correct! So what's the plan for organized religion? Keep interpreting it for your own human ends, and the odds will continue to get better for you eventually to be right? I don't think that's how it all works.
To me, this reeks of the stereotypical Southern, Republican, ultra-conservative voter--the one who believes that abortion is somehow the only true socio-political issue out there on which to base his/her vote; yet the same one who may, very conveniently, ignore/forget about his/her spiritual support of Bush when he decided to wage bloody, destructive war on another sovereign country, thereby signing the death warrants of thousands of divinely created human beings; and the same one who will attend his/her super-posh, racially divided, gossip-filled mega-church on Sundays while also conveniently ignoring/forgetting about his/her unquestioning support of the death penalty and unbridled laissez-faire capitalism. Hypocrisy, anyone?
So, your team (McCain/Palin) didn't win, and now you wanna get all pissy and start calling the other team names? A piece of advice: Sore losers are never taken seriously. However, if you do insist on whining, will you please just take your ball and go home? That way, the rest of us don't have to listen to you.

Can I get an AMEN?

Where Can I Apply?

2009-10-09T07:08:00.000-07:00

"Everything that he's receiving is stuff that he earned... at a time when Bank of America was a premier financial services company."

--Dave Schmidt, consultant defending departing BofA CEO Ken Lewis' $64M retirement package from the beleaguered bank.

My next career choice will be the CEO of a behemoth bank. Here are my qualifications:

No knowledge of the American financial system whatsoever--check!
A need for a golden parachute of epic proportions in the midst of epic job failure--check!

Yep. That's it. That's my entire resume.

On the other hand, here are what I'll need to obtain:

A desire for only short-term job stability
The complete lack of conscience while accepting tax-payer handouts
Jowls
Oatmeal for brains
A consulting firm with no handle on reality
A giant painting of Nero's fiddling while Rome burned all around him

I think I can get most of these on eBay.

Emotional Pornography

2009-09-27T07:03:00.000-07:00

Pornography--such a taboo word in our society, one that immediately makes individuals take sides, one that is hardly definable but still divisive. So many questions arise (forgive the pun):

Does it objectify its participants (mostly women)? Yes, but those individuals also choose with their own free will to participate.
Is it morally questionable? At times, yes, but in other times it simply displays nothing more than what's going on in bedrooms across the world.
Can it become a relationship-destroying addiction for its viewers (mostly men)? Yes, but for others, if used in a very open and honest fashion, it can become a relationship-enhancement.

Yet there's one question that I'd like to focus on because I don't believe, unlike the aforementioned questions, it has a two-sides-of-the-same-coin set of answers:

Does pornography do nothing more than provide a world of sexual escapism, something which many are not able to differentiate from reality?

The answer is YES, unequivocally.

However, rather than address this question via the standard T&A&etc. visual pornography--the kind that the very visual and very sexually driven male seems to enjoy so much more than his female counterpart--I'd like to think about it in relation to what I call the "emotional pornography"--the kind to which the female of the species is so easily drawn.

To me, this type of pornography is just as escapist for the indulger, just as debilitating to a relationship (especially if there's mental addiction involved), and just as ubiquitous in our society as the standard visual skin flick; however, it is actually much less taboo and actually very well accepted by our modern American society.

What I call "emotional pornography" is better known as the "chick flick."

The reason I call this standard American movie fare "emotional pornography" is because of its completely fantastical escapism that it feeds so very easily to its viewers (mostly women).

For example, think of any well known "chick flick" and see if the following don't apply:

The male lead, although both rugged and handsome, is completely lost and needs guidance, preferably from a female, in order to survive as a human being.
The female lead has all of the answers and has both the ability and the patience to help change the male into a better, more socially acceptable person.
The theme of "Love will conquer all," even in the face of all realistic obstacles (e.g., money issues, family problems, major ethical differences, etc.), suffuses the entire film.
And "happily ever after," no matter the reality of the situation, reigns supreme, many times with the requisite emotional catharsis at the end.

All of this is to say that such a standardized, forced vision of relationship reality is nothing more than emotional escapism, for such trite shallowness does not even come close to defining a real, healthy relationship in modern society.

Therefore, what's the difference, on a cognitive level, between the two types of pornography I've described? Besides the intended audience and the social acceptance, not much.

Questions That Never Need to Be Asked

2009-09-24T06:24:00.000-07:00

The answers to the following questions (all of which are based on actual questions I have seen in the media lately) are either so damn obvious (thereby needing to be answered only with a "WTF!") or so damn frivolous (thereby needing to be answered only with a "Who the @#$! cares!") that I can't believe our American culture begs for them to be answered. (That's not true. I can believe it--it's the very fodder for this blog.)

What D-level, desperate-for-any-attention celebrity went home last night on "Dancing with the Stars"?
Should there be actual laws banning texting while operating a 2,000-pound motor vehicle?
Will Kourtney and Khloe actually take Miami by storm?
What does Tyra's nappy hair really look like?
Should a clinically insane murderer with a penchant for escape be allowed to go on a day field trip to the family-friendly county fair?
Has Iraq become this generation's quagmire of a morass of a cesspool of a Vietnam?
Is public education (especially what's being liberally labeled as "education" inside a certain Shadle Park High School English teacher's classroom) failing our children?
Should there be laws that require all political advertisements to tell the full truth (or is that simply an impossibility for all politicians everywhere)?
What if energy were cleaner? Would that actually be a good thingy for Mother Earth and all (or at least most ... or possibly some) of her inhabitants?
Should this most awesomest of blogs be on your "Favorites" list?

What others have I missed? Let me know.

Thank You, Organized Religion.

2009-09-23T16:29:00.000-07:00

From cnn.com

Florida dad admits killings, blames 'spirit'

A Florida man admitted to a reporter that he killed his wife and five "innocent" children, adding that he wants to be executed "right away" so he can be buried with them. Mesac Damas, 32, told the Naples Daily News that he wanted to take his own life, but did not have the courage to go through with it, "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven."

Wow. Can't argue with that. Good thing organized religion was there to stop him from killing himself; that way, we can do it for him, and he can somehow go to heaven. Everyone wins!

Ohhhh, The Anonymity of It All!

2009-09-08T16:26:00.000-07:00

If you get a minute, peruse some of the commentary left recently on some of my past blog posts, especially these:

Yeahhhhhhhh!
Scientific Proof
Decapitation? Yes! Fornication? No!
Dear Sarah Palin, You're an Idiot!
American Celebrity Status

It seems that a particular Hello-Kitty-memorabilia-collecting coward has hidden behind the single great courage-creating facet of the all-holy Internet--ANONYMITY--to leave some rather entertaining vitriol for me to cry over. It would certainly be a shame to waste such wonderful logic and diction on silly ole me, so I invite the rest of you to enjoy. He really was quite bold--in a Wizard-of-Oz-lion sort of way.

A Hate Crime Is a Hate Crime Is a Hate Crime

2009-09-07T12:52:00.000-07:00

Here's a little old-school SAT test question for ya:

ROSE: ROSE :: ROSE : ____
(a) flower
(b) Michael Jackson
(c) donkey farts
(d) rose

If you answered (d), then you are a winner! In fact, you're friggin' brilliant! But that didn't seem so damn difficult, eh? However, according to this cnn.com story, it seems that such an easy correlation is still flying right over the top of the heads of our more dim-bulbish citizens and law enforcers:

Father wants son's beating treated as a hate crime

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Brian Milligan Sr. believes his son's race triggered a brutal attack on the streets of Buffalo, New York.

Brian Milligan Jr. poses with his girlfriend, Nicola Fletcher, before he was attacked last month.

Armed with a chunk of concrete, several assailants beat Brian Milligan Jr. on the back of the head on August 18, leaving a 3-inch gash. They kicked him in the face, breaking his jaw.

Bloodied and bruised, the 18-year-old managed to walk five blocks to his grandmother's house before being rushed to the hospital.

Milligan's father believes several African-Americans beat his son, who is white, because he is dating an African-American woman. He wants police to treat the beating as a hate crime. He also has criticized what he calls a deafening silence from the community, police and the national media.

"If this was a black guy who was beaten by a group of white guys for dating a white girl, people would be up in arms," he said. "There's a double standard."

So, in order to put this story in perspective, allow me to return to an SAT-test-question analogy for those of you who just don't get it yet:

RACISM : RACISM :: RACISM : ____

I won't bore you with a list of multiple-choice answers; you know the right answer.

I'm just tired of racism being ignored/justified/called something different when a Caucasian happens to be the victim.

Racism will be defeated in this country ONLY when we're all treated the SAME! Period!

Scientific Proof

2009-08-25T18:25:00.000-07:00

From a headline on yahoo.com:

Study: Obesity takes serious toll on the brain

Thus, we now have scientific proof that fat asses truly are dumb asses!!!

Yeaahhhhhh!

2009-08-24T11:54:00.000-07:00

From yahoo.com

Attack on Obama riles Beck's advertisers

By David Bauder, Ap Television Writer – Mon Aug 24, 10:18 am ET

NEW YORK – Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

Finally, a blowhard spewing empty, angry rhetoric is being called out for his actions! Now, all that needs to happen is for the exact same thing to happen to the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, and all the rest of these pseudo-entertainers attempting to pass themselves off as real "journalists."

Why does our society even put up with such transparent bias in our "news"?

Headlines That Are Too Obvious Even to Be Called News

2009-08-23T06:50:00.000-07:00

From cnn.com:

Iraqi violence overshadows start of Ramadan

What am I supposed to do when I see that headline? Rush right to the story to read the completely surprising details that could shake up the very core of news-dom? No. Not even close. It's a Middle Eastern third-world country that was invaded and is still occupied by another nation and that is full of religious zealots who are ready to "celebrate" their holiest month of their calendar year with fasting and no sex. That is simply an equation that necessitates much violence. Period.

So, in that spirit, I have collected other "headlines" that I will never ever need to see in the news (but that I probably will), for they are so expected that they can't even be labeled as "news":

According to reports, people believe Christmas advertising begins too early
Teenage boys like to look at naked women
Lucky Charms: They really ARE magically delicious
Middle-aged men like to look at naked women
Athletes are getting paid more than the average American, even as the economy crumbles
Bill O'Reilly is the most narcissistic human on the planet; Oprah takes a distant second
Old men like to look at naked women
Gay men tend to be more fashion conscious than Joe Six-Pack; gay women tend to be less
NASCAR fans drink cheap beer out of cans--and LOTS of it
Other countries believe the USA is just a big ole sweat-stained bully
Being white may hurt one's chances of playing cornerback in the NFL
Bill Clinton has another affair with an ugly-ass fatty; Hillary has no comment
Religious people tend to be "holier-than-thou," also ultra-hypocritical
Turns out there is no such thing as "bi-partisanship" in politics
Turns out there is no such thing as the "student-athlete" in big-time college programs
Blogs are giant wastes of time written by self-immersed doo-doo heads

Any others that I missed? Let me know.

Exactly!!!!

2009-08-22T10:26:00.000-07:00

From the "Completely Illogical" Department

2009-08-20T10:34:00.000-07:00

From abcnews.com

Convicted Lockerbie Bomber Released, Returning to Libya to Die
Terminally Ill Lockerbie Bomber, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi Released by Scotland Over Objections from U.S. and Victims' Families

By MIGUEL MARQUEZ and AMMU KANNAMPILLYLONDON, August 20, 2009

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man ever convicted of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing, which killed 270 people, was released from a Scottish jail today and put on a plane to return home to Libya. He was released on compassionate grounds, Scottish officials said, after doctors said he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and may have only three months to live.

Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi boards a plane bound for Tripoli.
Al-Megrahi, 57. served only eight years of the life sentence imposed after his 2001 conviction.
Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill said he understands people will disagree with the decision but said al-Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is terminal, final and irreversible. He is going to die."

Here's my question: So the hell what?!?!?!

I mean, I'm pretty sure (but you may want to check me on this one) that Manson is going to die, too. And so is the Unabomber. And Timothy McVeigh (OOOps! Too late--we took care of that for him.). Does the fact they are going to die EVENTUALLY mean they should be allowed to roam free after their horrendous actions? Here's the correct answer--Hell-to-da-NO!

Plus, what's this with the "he faces a sentence imposed by a higher power"? Again, I'm pretty sure every homo sapien who has ever walked this rotating orb faced that exact same sentence of death simply because of the fact that we are all mortal. No exceptions! By this judge's logic, I should be able to go on a crime spree of epic proportions and then argue at my trial that a higher power has imposed the harshest of sentences on me already; thus, no human power needs to impose anything resembling a punishment. Case closed!

This dude chose to end the lives of 270 people, and he serves 7 damn years? What's that? One year for every 38.5 lives he ended? (It is--I checked.) And now we're supposed to offer him sympathy because he's going to die soon? Seems to me he got to live at least 20 years longer than any of his victims. Don't know that I'm feeling anything close to "compassionate grounds" for this murderer.

Decapitation? Yes! Fornication? No!

2009-08-18T07:35:00.001-07:00

A friend of mine posted this question the other day on his Facebook page:

"Is it OK to watch The Godfather with my 12-year-old daughter?"

Now, first, I don't want to use this space to answer that question. He received 20 responses, and many of them were quite well stated. However, one of the responses in particular caught my eye, and it was the following:

"Its just violence, not sex, isnt it? That was my parent's policy, blood and gore are fine as long as everyones stayed clothed."

I don't want to pick on this person individually, for that would be unfair. Rather, I think her response is reflective of the American thought process in general when it comes to what we consider the rankings of our "adult-material." It seems that gratuitous violence is slightly more acceptable than gratuitous nudity/sex for the average American, and I personally find that fact quite disturbing.

Think of the examples from our culture:

Janet Jackson's nipple exposed for all of 0.9 seconds = atrociously, satanically evil
The violent Super Bowl game surrounding that controversy = accepted part of Americana
An actor's buttock or actress's breast exposed during a show in a 10 p.m. time slot = worthy of being fined and picketed
A severed human head (not real, but certainly realistic) = just part of the plot
A caught-on-camera show's catching a streaker = a puritanical need for tiling out the "fun" areas
A caught-on-camera show's catching a brutal beating or a fatal shooting = a need for more videos of the same

I'm sure we can trace this aversion to human sexuality back to the asceticism of our country's early founders; however, it is the modern-day continuation of this odd dichotomy between the rejection of the body and the acceptance of the destruction of that body that blows me away.

Just think about it. What we're really implicitly telling our children is that expressing violence towards another human being is actually better than expressing passion/infatuation/love (whichever) towards another. I believe that is completely backwards. One is inherently destructive ... and THAT'S the one we like better!

As a side note, in Europe, they also believe we're completely in the wrong. And, they don't have nearly the problems with either societal violence or teenage pregnancy that we do.

Coincidence?

Being "Un-American" Is Sooooo American

2009-08-11T06:48:00.000-07:00

From abcnews.com:

In a USA Today op-ed Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., dubbed the town hall disruptions as "un-American."

"Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American," they wrote. "Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

Wow. So, a politician is upset with someone else's "drowning out the facts"? Why? Because that's her job?

Honestly, I'm not sure what to think about all this health-care mess, but for a politician to call the most recent town-hall shouting matches "un-American" is idiotic. Pelosi needs to remember that we are the land of the free and home of the following:

Jerry Springer
the WWE, WCW, and TNA wrestling
reality television
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and so many other political pundits
rock and roll and gangsta rap
the Three Stooges
Monster-Monster-Monster Truck Rallies!
Terrell Owens
celebrity sex tapes
The National Enquirer
a military budget larger than the rest of the world's nations combined
Showgirls
CEOs' receiving golden parachutes as their companies claim bankruptcy
local car dealership commercials
Paris Hilton

Americans obviously have an affinity towards in-your-face, raucous, spiteful, rumor-mongoring, fact-eschewing, never-let-the-other-person-finish-a-thought, entertainment-producing argument. We are not the home of subtlety; we are not the home of rational discourse; we are not the home of fact checking. Idealistically, maybe we'd like to be, but the reality of the situation is that we are not.

We love to bully, and we are willing to do whatever it takes (including subverting factual information) in order to make sure the little guy knows his place.

Non-Racism Explained

2009-08-10T07:25:00.000-07:00

Here's something I've been thinking about for a while now (not really). Because our American society is so culturally diverse, we tend to have certain minority races screaming "Racism!" far too quickly and far too liberally for this translucently white man's taste. For example, the recent case of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and anything involving either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Thus, I've decided to take it upon my very thin shoulders to explain why certain situations, although seemingly bigoted on the surface, are not really racist at all.

So, here's my hypothetical example. Let's say that someone yells out in the middle of an NAACP demonstration the following: "I hate blacks!" Now, most people would automatically assume that an all-out riot would ensue (that's because it would); however, if cool-headed logic were to prevail (it won't), nothing would happen at all. Here's my crystal-clear reasoning as to why:

"Black" is not a race; it is a color. The same goes for the words "white" and "brown" and "yellow." The correct "races" would be African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Chink, respectively.
Races and colors should never be mixed, unless you're talking about Olympic races, at the end of which they give out colored (not as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, since that term is no longer apropos except in the title of that exact organization--weird) medals--gold, silver, and bronze.
Both "gold" and "bronze" are synonymous idioms for a person's being tan (something that we true whiteys know nothing about, since our only two colors are "reflective" and "burned to a crisp," even with SPF Infinity caked on our bods).
"Tan" is another word for "khaki," which is actually a type of casual slacks for men to wear, especially while on the golf course (i.e., the links).
Golf is the official sport for all white men everywhere; in fact, it is extremely rare for one to find in this country a person of a minority race roaming the links (i.e., the golf course), unless that person is driving the cart to pick up range balls.
However, one of the greatest golfers ever is Tiger Woods, who is half black and half yellow. (Oops! I mean half Colored and half Chink.)
Therefore, ... well, I can't actually remember where I was going with this. So, anyway, here's my point: The phrase "I hate blacks!" is actually colorist, not racist, unless it is shouted by a white-trash redneck. And if this is the case, that dude should get his ass kicked immediately while having his lifetime golf membership revoked.

So there. I hope that clears things up a bit for everyone.

Irony?

2009-08-09T06:57:00.000-07:00

From abcnews.com

Kelly Clarkson: Skinny and Svelte on Cover of Self, Thanks to Airbrushing
By SHEILA MARIKAR Aug. 7, 2009

Kelly Clarkson has battled weight ups and downs for years, but on the cover of September's SELF magazine, she looks slimmer than ever.

That's because she's been photoshopped, and the magazine's not afraid to admit it.

"Yes, of course we do post-production corrections on our images," SELF editor in chief Lucy Danziger told "Entertainment Tonight." "Kelly Clarkson exudes confidence, and is a great role model for women of all sizes and stages of their life. She works out and is strong and healthy, and our picture shows her confidence and beauty. She literally glows from within. That is the feeling we'd all want to have. We love this cover and we love Kelly Clarkson."

In the past, the "American Idol" winner has raved about the photoshop jobs done on her album covers. She still seems comfortable in her own skin, digitally retouched and in real life.

"My happy weight changes," Clarkson says in the September issue of SELF. "Sometimes I eat more; sometimes I play more. I'll be different sizes all the time. When people talk about my weight, I'm like, 'You seem to have a problem with it; I don't. I'm fine!' I've never felt uncomfortable on the red carpet or anything."

Dear Self Magazine,

I have a few runway-model bones to pick with you:

Is is merely irony that you chose a woman who is less waifish and more fleshy (i.e., more "normal" than the regular cover model) to be on your cover of the "Total Body Confidence" issue and then photoshopped her to look closer to waifish and further from fleshy? Just irony, or are you really that oblivious?
Is it merely irony that Clarkson herself doesn't feel uncomfortable with her weight and body type, but you obviously did ... in your "Total Body Confidence" issue?!? Or are you just that much of a tool?
How can you claim how much you love Clarkson's strength, health, and beauty when you purposefully shaved some of her strength, health, and beauty right off her body? In your "Total Body Confidence" issue?!?
No, Kelly Clarkson does not "literally glow from within." If she did, she would have been living inside a nuclear reactor for several weeks and would need to be checked out by a doctor immediately. You and many others literally need to stop using the word "literally" so liberally.
Are you helping or hurting the American woman's issues with body image? (If you don't know the right answer to that one, let me know--I'll tell you which one is correct.)

Dear Sarah Palin, You're an Idiot.

2009-08-08T07:44:00.000-07:00

From abcnews.com:

When we last heard from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin she was -- not without some justification -- beseeching some members of the media to "quit making things up."

But in a post on her Facebook Page today, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee seemed to take some liberties of her own.

In a column titled "Statement on the Current Health Care Debate," Palin wrote that as "Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!"

She questions Democratic promises that the health care reform plans will reduce the cost of health care, invoking economist Thomas Sowell, saying the only way to cut costs is to refuse treatment.

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" Palin asks. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

A few observations:

Is using empty, inflammatory rhetoric what she meant by the following in her resignation speech: "You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!"? A false accusation of a "death panel" is an example of "building up" our country? Seriously?
Is using empty, inflammatory rhetoric what she meant by the following in that same resignation speech: "I am not wired to operate under the same old 'politics as usual.'"? Calling a proposal by the "other" political party "downright evil" in a public forum isn't "politics as usual"? Seriously?
And when she said that by quitting, she wasn't "retreating," only "advancing in another direction," did she mean making posts on Facebook? Seriously? The once VP candidate has now chosen to post on Facebook in order to change the world? Awesome!
Does anyone else automatically think of Tina Fey when one looks at Sarah Palin? It's almost as if Tina Fey is more Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin is. Creepy.

I'm so proud this woman was once a few votes away from being our next Dan Quayle.