Goddammit ABC…

About a month ago, ABC aired a special on guns in America.  Within 30 minutes of the start the proverbial media fear-mongering had entered full swing on 20/20’s broadcast that Friday night, showing (via hidden cameras) children, teenagers and twenty-somethings handling guns.  As you can imagine, they repeatedly showed the subjects looking down the barrels, pointing guns at other people and doing all of the things those of us exposed to guns by a responsible owner at some point were taught not to do.

I’m no expert on guns by any measure, but even with my limited experience I’m fully aware of which end of a gun is the business end and I’m smart enough to be aware of the risks involved in choosing where to point that end.  In this day and age, with the prevalence of guns in movies and television, I think it’s safe to assume that virtually everyone – children aside – also knows all of this.  Yet there is still a fairly common belief that guns are as dangerous as can be, firing deadly rounds at random any time they are even touched.

The thing that these people don’t seem to grasp is that a gun is a machine that lacks any ability to expel a round without external force.  The operative word here is force.  A loaded gun sitting on a shelf is no more inherently dangerous than a bullet sitting in the same place.

Sidenote: Yes, I understand that there are physics in play when exploding gasses are contained within a space and behind a projectile that make the loaded gun significantly more dangerous when it’s fired.  But the chance is small that the gun is aimed back into the room where the shelf upon which the gun rests is located, so I’d say the two are about even in terms of risk.

Regardless of the specifics, the point is that a gun will not fire unless someone squeezes the trigger (with the safety off, round properly loaded, breech closed, etc.) at a rate any higher than ammunition will fire sitting in a box.  Pointing a loaded gun at your face is no more dangerous than a pilot peering into an engine nacelle prior to takeoff.  Both could easily kill you, provided something else happenes first: pulling a trigger or starting an engine.

People have been killed by jet engines, guns, cars, ladders, swimming pools and elective surgical procedures.  Despite that, these things haven’t been banned because of the desire for a return in the face of the risks that they present.  The risk of any activity is accepted or rejected based upon the reason for engaging in the behavior and the strength of the want or need for the outcome, a concept I’ve come to understand is colloquially referred to as ‘living life.’  I once heard that humans are 800 times more likely to die if they get out of bed in the morning versus staying put under the covers.  Does that stop anyone from getting out of bed?  Very few, if any.

Regardless, quite a few jackasses in this country believe that legislation, not education, is the best way to mitigate this risk.  I, as you may have guessed, disagree.  But let’s entertain the fantasies of the unimaginably stupid for a moment.

Imagine that guns are banned tomorrow, how do you propose that the guns already in existence be collected for destruction?  Just have everyone bring their guns down to their local police station and drop them off?  Only the most law-abiding people in the country would even consider doing that and there are only four of them.  You can trust me, I know, I dated their daughters.

Since the honor system would be completely ineffective, how about having the police confiscate any gun that they happen to discover while performing their ordinary duties while our political leaders pass laws to lock up those found to be in possession?  That’s a bad idea too because 1) it would take so long to complete that those hell-bent on getting guns would surely find a way to do so, rendering the law useless, and 2) it would cause those unwilling to part with their weapons to go to great lengths to prevent their seizure.

So why should we not ban guns?  The most obvious answer is that banning doesn’t work.  The oft-repeated argument that “…if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns,” is true.  For proof, look no further than the idiotic ‘War on Drugs.’  Cops already confiscate drugs, as well as raid the cars, homes and businesses of those who are suspected of having some involvement with them and arrest millions of people in the process.

What’s the net result of all of this confiscating, raiding and arresting?  Millions of American tax dollars spent on salaries, equipment, training and planning for the police and millions more spent on prisons filled to the brim with non-violent offenders who pose no serious or immediate threat to society.  Those inmates will eventually be released back into the general population and, because of the black mark on their record due to the conviction, will have few options other than crime to support themselves.  The best evidence that banning doesn’t work is that with a few phone calls and a little cash, I could have virtually any drug known to man delivered to me like a pizza within a couple of hours.

Who could possibly be stupid enough to believe that banning guns would have any different result?  Apparently, the folks at ABC are and, assuming this special was effective, then perhaps a few more Americans.

Whoring Yourself Out to ‘The Man’

There are times in every man’s life when he is forced to do things that he would, under normal circumstances, never do.  Things like:

-sleep with a woman larger in every physical dimension than he

-snort powdered wasabi in an upscale sushi restaurant with predictable results

-run naked into a lake in full view of more than 30 people that he had to see the next day

-kiss another man on the mouth (obviously only applies to straight dudes) in exchange for free beer

-have sex with someone for the first time when there are other people in the same room

-stab himself with a kitchen knife to prove a point

-urinate on an electric fence, a tennis court, a police car and an occupied, windowed storefront despite having other legal options available

-slap himself in the face to prove both his sobriety and his masculinity

-vomit on a slot machine, then blame it on a nearby geriatric hooked up to an oxygen tank when confronted by casino security

I just realized that all of these are alcohol-related, which the gist of this post is most certainly not, so I’ll move on.

Sometimes a college student needs some quick cash and, with no available assets that he could swiftly liquidate, he’s forced to resort to unusual methods.  The easiest method with the highest level of potential fun is, of course, prostitution.  However, when you’re a 5’10”, 160lb Irish/English guy (pale, moderately freckled, moderately hairy), that option isn’t actually an option.  So I decided to resort to a lesser-known form of prostitution: selling my plasma for use by multinational drug corporations.

So what’s the process like?

Tuesday:

7:30 AM – I woke up, fully prepared for a long day of classes, which I then attended.

3:30 PM – I stopped by the donation center on my way home, only to find out that, as a new donor,  I needed a photo ID, Social Security Card and a recent bill to prove my current address.

3:40 PM – I made it home, ate a can of green beans (I’m broke, remember?), chugged a half-gallon of Tempe’s finest tap water per the instructions I had been given during my earlier visit and went back to the center.

4:10 PM – I signed in, showed my documents to the staff, sat down in the waiting area and looked around at the place I had come to die…I mean ‘donate.’  I took note of the 40 or so other people who were waiting to donate and realized that the last time I was this far out of my element was when I was working as a bouncer at a bar in the Mexican Ghetto a while back.  There were the drifters, the addicts, the physically disabled, the mentally ill, the generally destitute and me: a college student in flip flops, cargo shorts and a golf shirt.

The sight of blood makes me nauseous, so I began talking to myself (not out loud of course, although that probably would have helped me to blend in better with the rest of the clientele) in an attempt to calm my racing brain and heart.  I then noticed something odd about the staff: not one of them looked to be any older than myself, except for the maintenance guy putting a door back on its hinges.  God knows how the hell that thing fell off, but I convinced myself that it had been torn off by the paramedics in a rush to get a hemorrhaging ASU student to the hospital before he bled out.

I’m in my mid-20s, technically an adult, but I still expected there to be a ‘real’ adult around the place, you know, a 45-year-old woman with rubber gloves, eye glasses and a caustic attitude, but she was nowhere to be seen.  I then spent the next few minutes unable to tear my mind away from the idea that I was going to die in that center that day.  I broke out in a cold sweat, my mouth went dry, I felt nauseous and I began shaking.

4:20 PM – I got up and left, explaining to the kid behind the front counter that I just couldn’t do it.  There was no fucking way I was gonna let the prepubescent result of a condom failure jam a needle into one of my veins, somehow resulting in me slowly dying as a homeless guy sat in a donation chair across from me serenading Rachel, his plasmapheresis machine.

Wednesday:

6:00 AM – Aware that I was running low on cigarettes, I decided to pace myself.  One an hour, was the plan.  I kept with that until about 6:45 AM.  Willpower doesn’t exist with me when it comes to nicotine.  Realizing that I needed some cash, lest I kill someone for their cigarettes, I decided to spend the day amping myself up in preparation for a return to the donation center with several slogans: “Quit being a wuss, your future illegitimate children will never respect you.”  “You’ve been mugged once and had a gun pulled on you twice, this is nothing.”  “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.”  “YOU can DO EEEEET!”  “You could just quit smoking.”  That last one did it.

1:00 PM – Out of cigarettes, I finally decided to shave and shower, but I was struggling with what to wear: I wanted to make it clear that my donation was motivated solely by pure altruism, not because I needed the money, but I was unsure whether a sport coat and tie would be too ostentatious.  Finally settling on an Abercrombie polo and Hollister shorts, I left for the center.

2:15 PM – I arrived at the center, signed in on the New Donor Check-In sheet (again), and sat down in the waiting area.  The same people were working there as the day before, the fifth-grader at the front counter even recognized me: “Back again, eh?”  I wanted to scream “FUCK YOU! I don’t see any goddamned giant needles sticking out of your arms!” but I decided on “Yeah, needles freak me out.”  Awesome, now everyone knows I’m a pussy.

2:45 PM – They finally called my name and I went into a small room with glass doors, a desk, a computer and a 12-year-old in a lab coat.  He looked over my documents, filled out a few pages of information, quizzed me on my documents (one of many attempts to weed out the active drug users), checked my local address against a database of known crackhouses (I’m not kidding) all the while trying to make small talk:

“So you’re a finance major, huh?  Good job opportunities there right now.”  I didn’t expect him to be a genius, but for christ’s sake, does he EVER watch the news?

“I’m a finance major too at Mesa Community College.”  And he still doesn’t know that the financial services industry is imploding?  What the hell is with this moron?

“Well, I was, I dropped out.  I’m going back though, eventually.”  Ah, there it is.

I decided to ask a question, his reply would decide whether or not I left again: “Do you ever get to collect the plasma?  You know, stick the needles in and whatnot?”  Fortunately, he did not as he lacked the training, so I stayed.

3:05 PM – Back in the waiting area, my name was called again.  I walked into another small room, practically identical to the one I’d just been in, but instead of a computer, this one had a blood-pressure machine, a thermometer, a scale, and two machines that I would later find out calculate how much plasma and protein your blood contains, based upon a sample taken from what they refer to as ‘a small finger prick.’  The prick itself was small but they put a tube up to the gash then rub, yank and jerk your finger to extract about a gallon of blood from you so that they can test it in their machines.  I asked the technician, Mr. Sadistic-Finger-Puller, if I should remove my flip-flops before I stepped on the scale and he responded with an unintentionally funny “No, never take your shoes off anywhere in this place,” coupled with a look on his face that finished his sentence with “OR YOU’LL DIE!”

That guy was actually enjoyable to be around, although he did recommend I gain some weight: “You’ll get paid more if you can make it over 175 pounds.”  Thanks, I’ll get right on that.  Become a big fat guy for another $10 a week.  Another round of questions regarding my documents followed, but I managed to outsmart them and pass.

3:20 PM – I headed back out into the waiting room where a whole new cast of characters had been cycled through.  I recognized none of the donors, although that may have been because I had already started trying to forget the whole experience as a form of self-preservation.

3:30 PM – I got called into a small room where a lady in perhaps her mid-40s sat in front of a computer with an examining table behind her.  She asked me questions about recent travel, past illnesses and my current health.  I explained my irrational trepidation regarding the donation process and she calmed me down by talking about things unrelated to why the two of us were in that room.  Her exceptionally conversational demeanor gave me the feeling that she didn’t get too many people in there who had heard of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, let alone anyone able to discuss the inevitable alterations to the global political landscape if the disease were to begin afflicting millions of people on more than one continent.

She then had me lie down on the table and pressed on my abdomen, checking the health of my spleen and liver.  Fortunately, my liver passed the pushing test – I had my doubts about that.  She then told me that they don’t take urine samples, so I could use the bathroom if I wanted.  I had been holding it in anticipation of having to piss in a cup and she apparently felt my bulging bladder.

After a ton of questions about my sexual history (‘Any sexual contact with any men since 1970?’  Apparently gay men aren’t allowed to donate plasma) and the histories of my sexual partners, my past drug use and a check of my extremities for track marks, she gave me a pass for the front of the donating line and sent me back to the waiting area.  Despite being at the front of the line, the wait was a little longer than I had expected.

4:10 PM – My name was called and I was escorted to what looked like a permanently-reclined dentist’s chair with a machine next to it.  I tried to take a quick count of the number of people in the room, but I only got to 40 before I sat down and my view was cut off, limited to the dozen or so people directly surrounding me.  I wanted to ask how frequently the chairs were disinfected, but I wanted even less to hear the answer.

4:15 PM – A guy whose age I estimated to be fairly close to mine walked over to me and started talking to me as he readied the machine to kill me, I mean ‘take my plasma.’  I was surprisingly calm at this point, doing everything I could to pretend that what was about to happen was something…anything…other than what was actually about to happen.  He explained how the machine works in a rapid-fire delivery as he applied a liberal amount of iodine to my arm:

“I’ll place a needle in the main vein on the inside of your left elbow.  Blood will flow through the tubing into a centrifuge where the plasma is separated from the rest of the material in your blood.  About a cup of blood will be taken at one time before it’s returned to you.  During the return phase, some of the anti-coagulant fluid in this bag will be returned with your blood to prevent clotting near the needle.  It’s normal for your lips to go numb and a metallic taste to fill your mouth each time this phase occurs (Side note: neither one happened to me).  You’ll be able to see the collected plasma flow into this bottle here.  Once it is filled to this level (indicating a line on the bottle), the machine will cycle for the final time and the fluid in this other bag will also be delivered to you as well to help replace the fluids you lost during the donation.  At no point does your blood or plasma enter the machine, it is all contained within this sterile plastic setup I’m installing now.”

He affixed a blood pressure cuff on my left bicep, gouged me with a giant fucking needle, taped it to my arm, pushed a few buttons on the machine, and walked off.  Within a few minutes, my left arm was cold and numb.  After a few more minutes, it began to hurt, so I asked one of the technicians walking by if my symptoms were normal.  She loosened the blood pressure cuff on my arm, and within seconds my arm returned to normal.

The rest of the donation was uneventful, save for the occasional temporary freak out I had whenever I would think about what it was that I was doing.  After about 55 minutes, the machine began to pump the saline solution into my arm and I could feel the cold fluid spread up my arm and across my chest.  It was a very odd feeling, and I highly recommend you donate just to experience it.

In the end I was paid $40 for my donation, and another $40 for the one I made a few days later, with subsequent donations worth about $25 each.  I’m also left with a relatively noticeable scar at the puncture site which means I’ll be less able to refute possible future accusations about intravenous drug use.  *sigh* So goes the life of a collegian…

Drivel Indeed

I was checking my blog stats a few minutes ago and something caught my eye.  A visitor was referred to my blog by way of the WordPress.Com search engine.  What term did they search for?  “big dicks”

*sigh*

Everyone is Pro-Life

A couple of my Facebook friends joined a group titled “LIFE – Let’s see how many pro-life people are on facebook,” which made me realize the stupidity and pomposity of the naming conventions surrounding the abortion issue.

The argument is primarily between two sides, those in the ‘Pro-Choice’ camp think it should remain a legal option while those in the ‘Pro-Life’ camp think that it should not.  I’ve noticed that often times this difference of opinion is frequently twisted around to make the argument about something else, be it morality, religion, faith, politics, feminism, gender equality and so on.  While these can be tools utilized by all of us to make our argument regarding this issue, all I’ve seen any of this do is further complicate the problem and the names don’t help.

‘Pro-Choice’ is fairly accurate in that its supporters believe that people should be able to choose to have an abortion, while its opponents think that the option shouldn’t be available, essentially making the ‘choice’ for those actually involved.  Rather than call themselves ‘Anti-Choice’ possibly due to the decidedly un-American vibe that phrase holds, the opposition chose a different term that sounds overwhelmingly positive: ‘Pro-Life.’

Unfortunately both sides chose titles that serve not only to strengthen the resolve of their supporters by offering what is essentially a semantically-positive rallying cry but to further polarize and confuse the issue.  How could anyone possibly be ‘anti-choice’ or ‘anti-life?’

The real goal that we should all be working toward is to reduce the number of abortions which, just like drug use and gun violence, simply can’t be achieved through legislation.  Perhaps the best first step is an overhaul in sexual education coupled with easier access to effective birth control.  We are all pro-life and we are all pro-choice, these are two of the attributes that bind us together as a society under the broader term ‘freedom.’

Midwest Gay

I wrote a new post about Ann Curry’s on-air experience with corporate censorship earlier today, and it reminded me of something funny that I experienced nearly a decade ago while I was in high school.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I attended a small public high school in a rural portion of the midwest.  Socially conservative, historically Republican and less diverse than Utah, it was a rough go for those of us capable of free thought.  Being called ‘gay’ was the worst possible insult for the males, though it never seemed to be used accurately.  Instead, it was what I call ‘Midwest Gay.’  It’s not ‘real’ gay, mind you.  The target’s sexual inclinations were presumed hetero as homosexuals were either non-existent or totally invisible.  The sight of a gay person would have probably caused the agitator’s head to explode, raining down hate, ignorance and bigotry in a bloody mess of intellectual inferiority all over the gymnasium.  I became Midwest Gay pretty early into my freshman year despite having been threatened with suspension for making out with a cheerleader on school property.  It being a small school, news traveled exceptionally fast and there was no such thing as a secret, so I’m sure everyone heard about it within seconds.  Just how did I manage to acquire the label then, you ask?

- I taped a brief and edited version of Joseph Lewis’ An Atheist Manifesto to the outside of my locker.  I wasn’t necessarily an atheist, I just didn’t like having Christian doctrine rammed down my throat every other day and I knew that such an action would at least open up a dialogue.  Unfortunately, the dialogue consisted of a few dozen juveniles calling me gay (and all of its colorful derivatives) and frequently informing me of my inevitable descent into the fiery depths of hell where I’d be spending all of eternity for hating baby Jesus.  On the upside, I hate cold weather and I’m guessing that there aren’t too many snowy days near The Lake.

- There was a display case in the hallway outside of the library that was used to call attention to different literary periods throughout history.  During the time in which the focus was on the Renaissance, a miniature version of Michelangelo’s David was prominently displayed in the case but with a tiny piece of paper taped conveniently over his genitals.  I explained to the librarian just how ridiculous it was that she felt that one of the most famous sculptures in the world needed to be censored in an attempt to protect the sensitivities of a bunch of high school students, but to no avail.  The statue had a penis and a penis is indecent.  Period.  I then got to spend the next few weeks overhearing people in the hallways saying things like “That’s the gay pervert that wants to see guys’ dicks.”

- While sitting in an English class one day I was handed a piece of paper composed by the same librarian of Art Censorship Infamy suggesting books that all of us planning to go to college should read, conveniently separated into ‘fiction’ and ‘non-fiction’ sections.  Of course, the first book listed in the ‘non-fiction’ section was *drumroll* the Christian Bible.  I asked my English teacher why it was listed there when it clearly didn’t belong.  She responded by saying “Of course it does!”  I argued and was then told to either shut up or leave the classroom and report to the principal’s office for being disruptive.  I gladly left, taking the paper with me and coincidentally arrived at the office at exactly the same time as the librarian, so I asked her about the list.  I was then accused of starting trouble and stirring things up for no reason.  I assured her that that was certainly not the case, just that I felt that the book was wrongly categorized.  I even went so far as to offer a compromise: put a third section on the list titled ‘Religious Texts’ and include the Bible, the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Koran, the Book of Mormon and so on.  I wasn’t against them recommending a religious text, I was just pissed that a public high school was clearly endorsing a specific religion and presenting it as truth.  Much to my dismay, though I had predicted this outcome, the list wasn’t altered and I became Midwest Gay-er.

- I was once asked by one of my male classmates point-blank in the cafeteria while eating lunch if I was gay.  I responded by asking “Why?  Looking for a date to prom?”  In hindsight, that probably didn’t help quell any rumors.

- During my junior year a former professional athlete of some sort (Football?  Wrestling?  I can’t remember.  He was big, though.) came to our school and an assembly was held.  The first thirty minutes or so of his speech were really interesting as the man spoke of the wealth he had amassed and how he wasted most of it on drugs and women.  Then he found Christ and his life changed dramatically.  If we wanted to find similar happiness then he suggested we do the same and become born-again Christians just like he did.  It was at this point that I stood up, walked down the bleachers and across the floor directly in front of him as he continued to preach.  I was stopped by the principal, threatened with suspension (noticing any common themes?) for disrupting an assembly, then forced to stand in the hallway until the end of his speech, still within earshot.  They maintain that I was told that I didn’t have to attend, though they couldn’t find anyone who could confirm that anyone had actually told me this.  I had ceased to be Midwest Gay by this point, though, because I had become good friends with one of the captains of the football team and remain so to this day, having even been the Best Man in his wedding some years ago.

I suppose the lesson here is that all it takes to legitimize a person, product or idea is one celebrity endorsement, which is why we should all be scared shitless of Scientology.

Cheers To Ann Curry

While watching Today on NBC this morning I was underwhelmed by a couple of the stories they aired, several of which served to propagate the typical ‘doom-and-gloom’ media hype I’ve come to expect from television.  For instance, some jackass killed a bunch of people in Alabama, so did another in Germany.  These are stories that would usually be reported ad nauseam but then a bit of good news trickled in toward the end of the first hour.  For starters, Citi reported a profit (easy to do when your losses are wiped away with a magic, taxpayer-funded wand), Wall Street ‘rallied‘ yesterday, Madoff may go to prison for the rest of his life and apparently Obama told those who disagree with his stimulus plan to blow it out their collective ass.  It’s always fun to see a President say something firm when that something isn’t also retarded (I’M THE DECIDER, DAMMIT!).

Then the hosts did something fun: Matt, Meredith, Al and Ann went to the New York Academy of Art in NYC to paint.  They ‘warmed up’ by drawing a bowl of fruit, then moved on to painting a couple of nude models.  As the scene was filmed, any bit of the models’ so-called ‘intimate parts’ that happened to make its way into the shot was pixelated thanks to our archaic social rules regarding the human body.  For fuck’s sake, people, the one thing that every person has in common is a naked body…how could the most common thing in humanity possibly be considered indecent?!  I hope to god that reincarnation is real so that I can come back to this country in a few thousand years once the average level of common sense has progressed beyond that of a common house fly.  But I digress…

While the hosts were painting their works were not displayed to the television audience, presumably so that they could be revealed to us at the end of the segment with some sort of anti-climactic flourish.  It turns out that I was half-right.  The segment did end with the paintings being revealed to the audience, but there most certainly was a point where my blood pressure reached what can only be described as a climax.  The previously-mentioned ‘intimate parts’ were covered with pixelated tape.  The painted intimate parts.  The fake intimate parts.  The ones that, judging by the astonishing level of photo-realism displayed by the painted non-intimate parts, probably looked much like the bowl of fruit drawn earlier.

So what did Ann Curry do?  She reached over to her painting and ripped the pixelated tape covering the breasts of the female figure she had painted right off of the canvas as Matt gave a half-assed attempt at covering it with a red cloth.  So what did the painted breasts look like?  Grab the nearest CD or DVD and imagine it flesh-colored.  Salacious, no?

So I say to you, Ann Curry, cheers for understanding that nudity is not inherently bad – especially not an artistic representation of nudity – and for standing up on behalf of common sense!

As I was typing this, another segment aired regarding breast cancer in women.  During the segment four x-ray images of different breasts were shown, void of any pixelation.  Other than context (art versus medicine), what’s the difference?  Both are images depicting breasts, neither one looked necessarily realistic and both were created in two dimensions.  So what the hell, NBC?  Are breasts offensive and deserving of censoring or not?

PETA Confusion

Don’t bother asking how, but I ended up reading the Wikipedia entry about PETA, the animal rights group.  PETA stands for ‘People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,’ which is certainly a noble concept.  I don’t think that animals should be treated cruelly, unnecessarily restrained or otherwise inhibited as they go about living their lives.  However, I’m confused by some of the group’s policies and positions as they are laid out in the aforementioned entry.  Their official website is similarly complex but it has less to do with their specific positions on certain issues and more to do with finding out exactly what they are, especially when the damn page won’t load properly for me.

Let’s start with the name, which acknowledges that a distinction between humans and all other animals exists in that people are the only creatures known to exist that are capable of intentionally treating other creatures in an ethical manner.  We have conquered virtually our entire planet and, by extension, every other species with which we co-exist.  While this allows us practically limitless power over our world, it is not without a large degree of responsibility.  The vast majority of us agree that human life is more valuable than that of any other persuasion, plant or animal.  This exists in stark contrast to what I perceive to be the organization’s overall message that animals are just as valuable, if not more so, than humans are.

The president and co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, was quoted in September of 1989 by Vogue as having said “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”  Allow me to reiterate my position that I am indeed against the commission of cruel acts against animals, but isn’t sacrifice in the interest of the greater good a noble act?  Perhaps she would argue that the difference lies in the absence of choice for the animal: the rat wasn’t given the opportunity to choose a life outside of a lab.  While this is true, it is so for the same reason that we travel in space shuttles to the moon while all other animals achieve locomotion only to the extent that their own biological faculties allow.  In other words, humans are intelligent, self-aware creatures while all other animals are, comparatively speaking, dumb.  If a human gets sick, we can usually make ourselves better.  If an animal or plant falls ill, it is almost always a death sentence unless we selfish humans intervene on their behalf.  Isn’t taking an animal to a veterinarian against its will the same deprivation of liberty of which this organization rallies against, despite this being – unbeknownst to the animal – in the animal’s best interest?  Perhaps the issue here is what species benefits from human intervention into the lives of animals, rather than the well-being of the animals themselves.  If PETA intends to argue on behalf of the animal, that the animal should ultimately choose its own path in the world, then that argument applies in all situations regardless of how obvious the ridiculous nature of any hypothetical situation may be.

While promoting a vegetarian or vegan diet as the best course for all to take, PETA seems to overlook one important fact: meat is delicious.  Who cares if it’s unhealthy?  This is a society that chain smokes, drives intoxicated, engages in recreational drug use, trades exercise for hours in front of the television and refuses to teach its children anything of real value regarding sex.  Personal health is of superficial importance to us, especially when the alternative is pleasurable, fun or tasty.

Perhaps most famously, PETA works to end the use of animal parts in clothing and fashion.  I had always assumed that this was because they are against the slaughter of animals, but I was intrigued to find out that PETA is far from being against killing.  During 2007, PETA euthanized nearly 2,000 animals, in Virginia alone.  If that is an average number per state, then it can be extrapolated that the nationwide number is around 100,000 animals, dead at the hands of an organization that claims to exist solely for their protection.  The organization admits that euthanizing is a necessary evil (especially pit bulls), and they claim to work toward reducing the number killed by spaying and neutering domesticated animals.

Continuing the theme of protecting animals from unscrupulous acts by humans, PETA has set circuses, zoos and the affiliated acts such as Jack Hanna and the late Steve Irwin in their sights.  While I somewhat agree with their position on this (filming is fine, touching is not), I’m interested to know what they think of the new show “The Exterminators” on A&E in which a camera crew follows around a team of exterminators in Louisiana.  The name of the show is a bit misleading, though, as the ‘exterminators’ have said multiple times on the show that they only kill animals as a last resort, instead preferring to trap the pests in a manner as humane as possible then release them as far away from humans as they can.  I’m sure they would support this as another ‘necessary evil,’ but doesn’t it also go against interfering with the animals’ free will?

I think that PETA’s sweet and peaceful bunny image on their website is meant to be ironic given their unwavering support of militant activism in achieving their goals.  The organization has supported:

• Those who throw paint on fur coats
• Those who throw pies at their opposition
• Giving animal carcasses and boxes filled with their entrails to those they oppose
• Damaging or defacing private property
• Funding the legal defense of those who have set fires, attempted murder and committed other illegal acts on behalf of animals
• The comparison between the treatment of animals in America to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, slaves and Native Americans in early America, child laborers in third-world countries and other oppressed groups

These tactics combined with their anti-meat and anti-animal testing positions are the things that keep me from supporting PETA in any way.  Perhaps there exists some middle ground in which animals are processed in painless slaughterhouses that utilize methods that cause an instantaneous death following a clean, pain-free (although relatively short) life.  We could ban the use of fur in fashion, close all circuses and zoos except for situations in which containment is the only chance for the animal’s survival.  Unfortunately, though, I suppose that these advances wouldn’t be enough for PETA because animals would still be dying prematurely.

We do have an enormous responsibility to interact in an ethical manner with the world around us but the thing I think PETA seems to be forgetting is that above all else, we have a duty to ourselves to ensure that the well-being and continuation of humanity comes first.

A Jaded Disposition

Today I registered for classes that I plan to take during the Spring 2009 semester, and apart from the usual headaches surrounding that process, I found myself experiencing a noticeable lack of optimism. When I first came to ASU more than three years ago I was bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, admittedly naive and in serious want of intellectual stimulation on a level far beyond that of the mental stagnation to which I had been subjected throughout the entirety of my upbringing in a socially-conservative Midwestern public school system. I dreamt of being surrounded by bright people, independent thinkers capable of discussing abstract topics without unnecessary and often self-imposed hindrances such as religion, personal biases and willful ignorance that I found so pervasive in my hometown. I assumed my fellow collegians would be people who could discuss topics that offend the sensitivities of the general public without resorting to violence, instead being able to set aside all of our differences for the passionate pursuit of knowledge and greater understanding.

Imagine the disappointment I had in myself when the reality of the situation which I had so callously overlooked finally set in: I was attending Arizona State University at Tempe, one of the largest college campuses in the country and a notorious ‘party school.’ Colleges don’t achieve those distinctions in a geographical region with such a comparatively light population if their admission standards are such that only people who fit the above description are offered acceptance.

I then adjusted my expectations accordingly after my freshman year and explained to myself that with such a large number of people in one place – a place devoted to furthering the promises of academia – there were bound to be a few students who shared my outlook. Finding them proved to be difficult, though I predicted that they may be more easily identified as I transitioned from lower-division to upper-division classes.  Unfortunately, that prediction has yet to come into fruition.  Instead of being surrounded by students who have no idea why they are furthering their education – as was often the case in the lower division classes I took – I am now surrounded by students who want nothing more than a bigger paycheck than what they would likely receive without a degree.  Admittedly, I too am pursuing a degree partially because of the economic advantages it will offer me, but it is far from my only reason.

Many of my classmates, if not most of them, lack the desire to be challenged with their school work, instead opting for the easiest route possible to graduation.  One of my biggest problems with this school is how much work the administration seems to put into enabling those attitudes and placating the morons that they allow to attend this institution.  Instead of being challenged, I’m being bored nearly to death with material that is not only uninteresting and uninspiring but far below the threshold of what I would consider to be the norm for a major university.

For instance, I am required to take two science courses, each with a lecture portion and a complementary laboratory portion.  I chose Geology and Biology, the two basics which nearly everyone seems to take, on the advice of my Academic Adviser. While sitting in the Geology lab one morning, I was tasked with coloring the different types of rock found within a topographic map of a portion of the Grand Canyon, which took the better part of an hour to complete.  As I was coloring the paper, an interesting thought crept into my mind.  I paused, looked at the TA and asked “How many hours during their college career do you think undergrads at Harvard spend coloring as a requirement for their classes?”  Without missing a beat, the TA replied “This isn’t Ivy League material, Kyle, this is busy work.  Now get back to your coloring.  Lunch is at 11 and nap time starts at noon.”  Gotta love those Canadians with their quick wit.

I could have taken a very difficult Geology course, one that required extensive knowledge of Geologic processes and it would have been quite challenging.  However, I chose to take an introductory level course because I didn’t know anything about Geology, and the challenge would not have existed because Geology is inherently difficult to understand – which is the challenge I am after – it would have been solely because I had yet to memorize all of the things I would have needed to know to do well in the course.  The concepts are quite simple, though the vernacular is somewhat cumbersome, and the high potential for damage to my GPA due to a course that has virtually nothing in common with my intended course of study made this an easy choice.

It hasn’t been all bad, though.  Aside from what I like to think are my more noble pursuits regarding higher education, I also wanted to drink a lot of booze and have sex with many different women.  In those respects, there is no finer university in the country – or possibly in the entire world – than ASU.  Perhaps my baser instincts played a subconscious role in my selection of a school and, typical of what occurs when that portion of the male mind exerts its influence, the end result has been bittersweet.

A Presidential ‘Shocker’

Oh what a difference context can make. Like the difference between the President of the United States making a ‘crude,’ sexual gesture:

…or the President of the United States posing with the Arizona State University track and field teams, which is what was really going on in the photo.

So why the ’shocker?’ ASU’s mascot is Sparky the Sun Devil, a creature that carries a three-pronged pitchfork which the gesture is intended to simulate. Of course, most people seem to be unaware of that usage, instead being either oblivious to any meaning or understanding it only as ‘The Shocker.’ It is the latter group that I suspect will begin calling for the President to apologize to their god and to their sensitivities for his crass behavior.

Politics Over Friendship? You Betcha!

Today a friend of mine made note of something that surprised her with its stupidity and, at first, I agreed with her.  But after some careless consideration, I’ve realized that it was actually completely reasonable.  She said (via Facebook) “r ppl really so hardheaded that they’re willing to lose friends over politics? really?”  The short answer, for me, is ‘yes…sort of.’

Prior to this election season I knew the political affiliations and inclinations of only a few of my friends, and it was rarely an issue.  As November 4th came near, some of my friends who had never before displayed to me the slightest interest in politics were wearing t-shirts supporting their chosen presidential candidate. Many of them began using their Facebook profiles as political soapboxes from which they would espouse the virtuous nature of their candidate while simultaneously condemning the opposition.  Though the latter was irritating due to the volume and frequency of updates all on the same topic, I was comforted to know that the news media’s characterization of my generation as politically apathetic wasn’t completely true.  More important, and more relevant to this post, is that although I may have disagreed with some of the positions my friends had taken, most of it was far too trivial for me to consider ending a friendship over.  Most of it…

There were a few people who really surprised me with their ignorance, both on Facebook and in the real world.  These were people who managed to destroy all respect I had for them by arguing that Barack Obama really is a Muslim, or that Sarah Palin is a brilliant person, or that John McCain was never a prisoner of war, or that Sarah Palin’s youngest child is actually her grandson.  The worst I heard was arguably also the most ridiculous, and that came from those few who were willing to admit that they would never, ever, under any circumstances, vote for a black candidate solely because of their race.

I can’t possibly maintain any sort of meaningful relationship with these people after these events have transpired.  Some of them are actually too stupid to comprehend the truth, like when it is explained to them that just because someone is named “Barack Hussein Obama,” he, like every other American, is free to choose and follow any religion he likes and is not, by default, a devout follower of Islam.  Others activate their self-preservation gene and utilize their skill in willful ignorance, like when they are given countless examples of Sarah Palin’s stupidity, or are shown photos of John McCain in a POW Camp, and they still refuse to accept the obvious truth of your argument.

While it may not have been directly because of politics that I’m willing to lose a friend, it was politics that saved me from wasting countless hours, if not years, investing in these morons.

The Curse of the Plumber, Part 2

Expect this on the news for the next day or two: Joe the Plumber is above the law.  On Wednesday, October 29th, Sam/Joe “The [Fake] Plumber” Wurzelbacher was pulled over by Toledo police for traveling at “…about 50 mph in a 35 mph zone in his Dodge Durango SUV,” but received a verbal warning instead of a citation.

Why no ticket?  According to the cop that wrote the report, they were “…concern[ed] it would reflect negatively on the Toledo department.”  Apparently, some jackass clerk that works in the police department looked up Wurzelbacher’s address in a state database the day before, presumably resulting in negative press for the department.

Anyway, you know what reflects negatively upon you, TPD?  When you not only condone, but promote your lack of professionalism.  Wurzelbacher, by your own admission, was caught, by you, breaking the law and he deserves a ticket.  It shouldn’t matter to anyone that John McCain gets his rocks off talking about this guy, so much so that McCain imagines Wurzelbacher being there even when he is not.

I guess this is kind of like what frequently happens in college football: the refs make a shitty call, and everyone knows it.  Then, to even things out, they make another shitty call during the next drive to penalize the other team, thereby simultaneously acknowledging and apologizing for their earlier mistake.  What the Toledo Police Department and NCAA referees apparently don’t remember, though, is that classic line from elementary school: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”  Instead, everyone who didn’t benefit from the decisions that were made ends up pissed off, and those involved end up losing some credibility in the eyes of the angered.

The Curse of the Plumber, Part 1

I’m sorry to say folks, but it looks as though those of us who assumed this “Sam/Joe ‘The [Fake] Plumber’ Wurzelbacher” character was nothing more than a flash-in-the-pan utilized by the faltering campaign of a presidential hopeful, were wrong.  He has not only hired a publicist, but now he’s planning on writing a book.  Thankfully he is not, as rumors had previously suggested, working toward becoming a country music star.

I wonder how it is that he apparently can’t pay his taxes but can afford a publicist.  Maybe the firm took him on as a client in the spirit of charity and he isn’t paying them anything.  Or maybe he’s paying them in free plumbing work, which they will inevitably have to get re-done because he’s not licensed and his work would never pass inspection.

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that the only people who would be willing to read a book written by this guy are those who are unable to read.  Looks like they’ll have to wait for the miniseries to air on Lifetime which, if the media obsession with this faux-celebrity continues, might just become the big hit this holiday season.  That would be funny if it weren’t a realistic possibility…

The Plumber Doesn’t Speak For Me, McCain

At a rally in Sandusky, Ohio yesterday, John McCain referred to Sam Wurzelbacher as “…the voice of America.”

This, Senator McCain, is where I draw the proverbial line and you, sir, are in grave danger of permanently losing what little respect for you that I have left.  You can refer to this ill-informed attention whore as your “…role model,” if you so choose, though I think it serves as further evidence of your horrific decision-making skills.  He is absolutely not the voice of the America in which I live, and I know this because nobody I know and respect would ever consider letting this guy speak on their behalf.  Couple that with reassurances I have received from those around me that I am indeed currently living in America, and I’ve got a pretty solid argument.

Perhaps, though, you meant that he is the voice of Governor Palin’s America, you know, real America.  I imagine that being a place where spending tax revenue on social programs is the only criterion needed to brand an entire government as a socialist regime.  I envision it as a place where an assumed deity directs both foreign and domestic policy utilizing the White House as a medium (insert obvious comparison to Catholicism here, just to scare “The Republican Base” with festive, Halloween fun).  I think of it as a place where the health of females is an appropriate punch line of a deriding comment made by the Presidential candidate.  I picture it as a place where the brightest people are prevented from assuming positions of leadership in favor of electing the borderline-illiterate.

So you know what, Senator McCain?  If there are in fact two Americas, and one of them is Palin’s Real America, and Joe “The [Fake] Plumber” Wurzelbacher is the man tapped to become spokesperson for that society, then I suppose I’m fine with it because I don’t live there anyway, nor would I want to.

The POTUS and The SCOTUS

There was a piece aired during Campbell Brown’s No Bias, No Bull show on CNN this evening in which she discussed the Supreme Court.  As you should know, the Supreme Court is currently composed of nine judges, all of whom serve for life or until resignation or retirement.  When a vacancy occurs anyone can be nominated by the sitting President of the United States (POTUS) to fill the gap and, following a majority vote by the United States Senate, the nominee becomes a justice of the Court.

I think it is obvious to most people that it is in the best interest of the President to select someone who shares their views on all things political; conservative presidents should select conservative judges and vice versa.  President Eisenhower said that appointing a liberal judge that he mistakenly thought was conservative was the “…biggest damn fool mistake [he] ever made.”  What did that judge, Chief Justice Earl Warren, do to upset Ike?  He voted in favor of desegregating public schools in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision.  It is my contention that in certain situations, pushing their political agenda would be exceptionally irresponsible of the Commander-in-Chief and, dare I say, un-Presidential.

The Supreme Court exists to “…say what the law is,” as brilliantly-stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case Marbury vs. Madison.  The justices are not there to make laws, commonly referred to as ‘legislating from the bench.’  Instead, they are supposed to remain completely impartial, interpret laws as they are written and compare their legality to what is provided by the Constitution.  However, there is nothing in place to ensure that this happens other than the possiblitity of impeachment of a justice by Congress, Congress overturning a decision by the Court, or a future Court overturning the decision reached by an earlier Court, all of which are exceptionally rare.  It is because of this that there exists the possibility of enduring a Court with a specific and obvious political bias regarding the cases that are heard.

Of the nine current members, four are considered conservative (Chief Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito), four others are considered liberal (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer), and another is considered to be an independant conservative (Kennedy).  This is an excellent balance in our two-party system because both parties are evenly represented, and in the event of a highly-partisan issue being brought before the court it will be up to someone who is considered to be politically impartial, at least moreso than the other justices, to decide the case.  Essentially, this balance serves as a safeguard against a political ideology deciding the law instead of impartial reason, logic and precedent.

Unfortunately, many of the justices are getting quite old, which increases at an increasing rate the odds that they will die, resign or retire during one of the next few Presidential administrations.  Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75, Scalia and Kennedy are 72, Breyer is 70, Souter is 69 and the others are, comparitively speaking, spring chickens at 60, 58 and 55.  Of the justices considered to be conservative, only one made my list of those six I arbitrarily consider to be ‘getting old.’  Most problematic, though, is that all four liberals and the one semi-independent made the list.

This brings me to the issue of Presidential responsibility when selecting justices.  Under a McCain/Palin Administration, what are the chances that if all four liberal judges were to die, resign or retire that they would be replaced by four other liberal judges in the interest of preserving the political balance of the Court?  Probably close to what they would be if the tables were switched, with an Obama/Biden Administration and four conservative justices leaving the bench.  It seems to me, though, that Presidents should see it as their responsibility, their Presidential Duty if you will, to do what they can to preserve the political balance in the highest court in the land for the sake of fairly “…say[ing] what the law is.”

Say What You Mean

I strongly believe in protecting the right to free speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, just look at my posts on profanity and personal freedom.  That said, I really wish that there was more honesty and less bullshit pouring out of the mouths of the talking heads.

On The Situation Room this afternoon, Wolf Blitzer spoke with guests Leslie Sanchez, a Republican Strategist and entrepreneur, and the “Ragin’ Cajun” James Carville, discussing the effect evangelicals will have on this upcoming election.  Ms. Sanchez spoke of the religiously-inclined independents and religiously-inclined undecided voters, regarding their desires in a President.  Though she cited several examples, one in particular stuck with me which was “protecting the family.”  Any American with a brain knows what she meant, that religious types want a President who will work to prevent gays from getting married.  Though I firmly defend her right to phrase anything she wants to say in any particular way she desires, I wish she would be more straightforward and just say what she means.

We all sugarcoat words and phrases in certain situations and it is generally acceptable, even preferable, to portray certain things in a veiled manner.  But why does our society act so complacently when the blow we are attempting to soften is blatant discrimination?  How is replacing “gays aren’t deserving of the same rights and opportunities as straight people” with “we are protecting the family” while on television the equivalent of replacing “I fucking hate that bitch” with “I really don’t like Sarah Palin” while your grandmother is present?

Aside from that, the words they have chosen to act as a synonymous phrase are completely illogical.  “Protecting the family” brings to mind a father, armed with a large-caliber rifle, standing in front of his wife and small children as a large bear charges toward them.  If you replace the rifle with legislation and the bear with Clay Aiken, both the phrase and the image seem ridiculous.  Gay people offer no threat from which anyone needs protection, not families, not children and certainly not the religious.

The problem I have with Ms. Sanchez and others like her who choose to put a noble-sounding name on such a ridiculous notion is not with the act itself, it is with the effect this glossing-over has.  It makes it socially acceptable for anyone to spew hateful rhetoric and for the government to intervene in the private lives of individuals.  The latter, of course, then serves to legitimize the claims of those who chose to discriminate against homosexuals in the first place.

President Sarah Palin

May I present to you a glimpse of daily life in the Oval Office if Palin were to ever become President: http://palinaspresident.us

Turn the volume up, click around, laugh your ass off, and be sure to not have any liquids near your keyboard while doing so.

Undecided Voters

Imagine, if you dare, the type of person who remains undecided mere hours before the 2008 Presidential Election about which candidate they intend to vote for, Barack Obama or John McCain.  Believe it or not, you have more than likely seen them and their idiocy in action long before this election.

Remember the last time you were at a Taco Bell standing in line behind someone who was reading the menu even though everyone knows that everything on that menu is composed of the same five ingredients?

Remember the last time you came to an intersection with a four-way stop and there was some jackass who just would not move until you waved them on, even though they had the legal right-of-way?

Remember the last time you were in a public place and endured the pain of watching a parent attempt to reason with a screaming child under the age of five?

Remember the last time you saw an attention-whore on television asking a presidential candidate about his intended alterations to tax policies that would not apply to him?

Remember the last time you were in Vegas playing Blackjack and the person seated next to you kept asking for the dealer’s opinion on strategy?

Remember the last time you were walking down a near-empty sidewalk or hallway while a person was walking toward you, and that person chose to move to their left instead of their right as you were about to pass each other?

Remember the last time you sat at a bar and overheard someone respond to the bartender’s “Whaddya havin’?” with a “Whaddya got?”

I’m certain that all of those people are undecided voters.

If you are an undecided voter, please take the following to heart: I don’t care who you vote for anymore, just fucking pick someone and cast your ballot.  Flip a coin if you have to.  Make it a best-of-seven series if you need some excitement.  Write in your dog’s name if you simply can’t choose.  Just get it over with and shut up about it, the rest of America is sick of hearing about you and your fear of commitment.

Think You Know Obama? Update

Here is a response to my blog post, “Think You Know Obama?” that I received via Facebook:

“Not so much enlightening, as exhausting/overboard…one wonders how long it must’ve taken to go to such great lengths to “correct” or shall I say “nit-pick” each and every one of the claims made. As far as I’m concerned, the “corrections” did not at all redeem the candidate. I think this will be obvious to anyone who read your “politically correct” blog response. I’m so glad I haven’t had to worry about going to such great lengths to defend and justify the actions, etc, of the candidate I support.”

You may be interested to know that the person who wrote that response grew up in the same town and went to the same schools that I did.  For more on that topic, read this post of mine.

Anyway, in keeping with the title of this blog, I figure I can best respond with a series of my very own, original one-liners:

“Not so much enlightening, as exhausting/overboard…”

Though the truth is often cumbersome, its necessity can not be ignored.

“…one wonders how long it must’ve taken to go to such great lengths to “correct” or shall I say “nit-pick” each and every one of the claims made.”

In the pursuit of truth, time is of little consequence.

“As far as I’m concerned, the “corrections” did not at all redeem the candidate.”

What hell it must be to live in your world, where the truth serves not as salvation from falsehoods, but as a tool for their reinforcement.

“I think this will be obvious to anyone who read your “politically correct” blog response.”

We’ll never know for sure as very few of my readers bother to leave comments :(

“I’m so glad I haven’t had to worry about going to such great lengths to defend and justify the actions, etc, of the candidate I support.”

Perhaps that is because you have never attempted to form a logical and rational public argument in defense of Sarah Palin.

All of that said, she missed my point.  I wasn’t attempting to get her to change her vote, in fact I don’t really care who she votes for.  As I said before, I’m sure that her entire county will vote for McCain.  I was simply doing what I could to offer her and many others the chance to make a better-informed decision next week.  It’s one thing to vote for a candidate because you agree with their stance on issues, but choosing to vote for their opponent solely because you believe a long list of ridiculous and disparaging lies that have been propagated about them is quite another.  To twist the quote by Bodie Thoene, “Ignorance is the glove into which politicians slip their hand.”

On the Issue of Race

Much has been said regarding Barack Obama’s historic Presidential run, and few things have been mentioned more frequently than his race.  A quick search on CNN yielded several news stories, and Google News has plenty of them as well, regarding the issue of race in this election.  The opinions found in those stories vary quite a bit: some people think it will matter in the election, others think it won’t, and others attempt to persuade their readers that it shouldn’t matter, even if it does.  Having been raised in a so-called ‘battleground state,’ and in a predominantly-white area of that state, I can tell you from personal experience that race most certainly matters to some people, and likely will matter in this election.

When school let out for winter break in December of 2006, I flew back to my hometown where I met a veteran of the Vietnam War and a self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat.  We discussed the next Presidential election and upon learning of his political affiliation, I asked his opinion of Barack Obama, who I had heard was considering running for President.  This man admitted that he didn’t know much about Obama, and that he would never vote for a black person because he had learned during his time spent in Southeast Asia that “…they [black people] can’t be trusted.”  I returned again in December of 2007 during the next winter break, and I ran into the same guy.  Unfortunately, his position had yet to change, and he still would not be voting for a black candidate.  Perhaps most interesting to those of you who didn’t grow up in the same area as I did is that I wasn’t at all surprised by his statements.  Racism was and apparently still is normal, acceptable behavior for some people in that part of the country.

How normal was it?  Funny you should ask:

When I was in second grade, I was made fun of by my classmates for wearing ‘n—-r pants,’ which were black khakis that my grandmother had bought for me.  Like a lot of grandmothers, she chose a pair that were several sizes too big so that I could ‘grow into them,’ a hold-over from the Depression Era, I suppose.  However, her decision had the unfortunate and unintended consequence of making me look like MC Hammer, according to the kids at my school.  I remember sitting at a table in the cafeteria at my high school as one of my classmates explained to me why using the word ‘n—-r’ is acceptable.  I would have said ‘one of my white classmates,’ but aside from the adopted Korean girl, all of my classmates were white, as were all of my teachers and school administrators from kindergarten through graduation.  The parents of a friend of mine adopted a child and upon doing so, were asked by their priest to not return to their church because that child was black.  For more than a year I dated a girl who isn’t white and there were people in my life who I never introduced her to for fear of what may have transpired solely because of the color of her skin.

Just to be clear, I don’t think that a majority of people from my hometown harbor racist opinions, but there are a few.  The point of this post is that Ashland is just one small sliver of the American population and it is moronic to think that there aren’t a number of people across the country who share the views of the people I have mentioned here.

I’m saying it here first: even if Barack Obama wins a majority of Ohio’s 88 counties, you can bet that on November 4th, Ashland County will be blood-red just like it was in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 and 1984.  Why?  Hopefully because the majority of Ashlanders are Republican and vote with their party.  But based upon personal experience I’m guessing that it will be, at least in part, because race matters to some people regardless of whether or not the rest of us like or accept it.

UPDATE 1 – Nov. 10, 2008: My prediction was correct, John McCain won Ashland County with 60% of the vote.

Think You Know Obama?

On October 16th, 2008, one of my Facebook Friends posted a note on her profile titled “Think you know Obama?”  While reading the note, I was surprised to find out what she apparently believes to be true about the current Democratic candidate for President.  Through the comments left regarding that note, I realized that she may not have been the original author, instead receiving it perhaps through e-mail.  What is for sure, though, is that she posted it on her Facebook profile and I can only assume that she believes the content of the note to be true.  It is because of the many factual inaccuracies contained within that note, and also that the note may have been sourced from a chain e-mail with countless numbers of people reading it (and possibly believing it to be true), that I have decided to take it upon myself to dispel the rumors now and set the record straight by responding directly to the author(s).

Lines appearing in bold are those of the original note, those in plain-text are mine, and because I am performing the ‘copy/paste’ direct from Facebook, any spelling or grammatical errors in the bold lines were there long before I ever saw them.

Claim #1: His father was a black african muslim from kenya .

Barack Obama Sr. was raised as a Muslim, but by the time he met Stanley Ann Dunham (Barack Obama II’s mother), he had been an atheist for quite some time.

All people from Kenya are, by definition, African. Muslims also make up roughly 10% of the Kenyan population, compared with about 0.6% of the people in the United States, so it isn’t really all that unusual that his father would have been raised as a Muslim, given where he was born. We also know that he has been married at least three times and has at least seven children, though the only child he had with Ms. Dunham was Barack II.

Claim #2: We have seen pictures of his african family.

Although I have not seen pictures of all members of his ‘African’ family, it is possible that they are out there. Regardless, what relevance does this have to the Presidential election?

Claim #3: His mother was a white american atheist from kansas .

Perhaps true, though her daughter, Barack Obama II’s half-sister Maya, describes their mother as an agnostic. While it is true that she was born in Kansas, she had moved with her parents from Kansas to California, to Texas, to Washington state and then to Hawaii before she had even turned 18.

Claim #4: Where are the pictures of his american family?

His mother, Ann Dunham, died in 1995 of ovarian and uterine cancer, which is why there haven’t been any recent photos of her circulated, not to mention the fact that her death may be a sensitive topic. There is a picture of her on the top of that linked page.

He has no siblings from his mother’s marriage to his biological father, and probably because of that, no pictures of these non-existent people have ever been taken.

His sister, Maya, from his mother’s second marriage (to Lolo Soetoro) was born in Indonesia though she moved to Hawaii with her mother at age 9 (following her parents’ divorce) where she continues to live and work as a high school history teacher and college professor. There is also a picture of her on that page with her husband, a Canadian of Chinese descent, and their daughter (who is a mix of Caucasian, Chinese and Pacific Islander ethnicities).

Here is a picture of Barack Obama II and his maternal grandparents on the day of his high school graduation. It is also worth noting that his grandfather died in 1992 and that his grandmother is alive, still living in Hawaii.

You may also be interested in the surviving members of his “American as Apple Pie” nuclear family.

Again, though, I don’t see how this is relevant.

Claim #5: His father deserted his mother when he was only two years old and went back to Africa by way of harvard university .  How? Was his father wealthy?

In 1959 Kenya was still a colony controlled by the British, and there was no university anywhere in the entire country. To help educate his fellow countrymen, a Kenyan man named Tom Mboya raised cash (partially from American athletes and movie stars) to send 81 of the most intelligent young Kenyans to America where they would receive a free college education. One of those 81 students was a 23-year-old Barack Obama Sr., who had grown up herding goats.

He enrolled in classes at the University of Hawaii as an Economics major where he met Ann Dunham and, in short, they got married in 1961 (she was 18, he was 25) and had a kid six months later. In 1963, Obama Sr. had graduated with his degree in Economics from U of H and was accepted as a doctoral candidate into the Economics program at Harvard, which he chose to pursue, while Ann chose to remain in Hawaii with their son.  The operative word in that last sentence is ‘chose.’  No desertion, no abandonment, just two adults exercising their right to choose their paths in life.

Claim #6: His mother married an indonesian muslim and then moved to jakarta where he was enrolled in a muslim school .

Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in 1967 while both were studying at the University of Hawaii. It is true that he was from Indonesia.

Mr. Soetoro was raised as a Muslim, though his devotion to that faith is, at best, suspect. He was essentially a ‘non-practicing’ Muslim, as witnessed by the fact that he frequently drank alcohol, something that Islamic law (known as Sharia) forbids, even dying of liver failure in 1987 at the age of 51. It should be mentioned that Indonesia has the world’s largest concentration of Muslims, as roughly 86.1% of its people follow that faith.

True, they moved to Indonesia’s capital city in 1967 soon after they were married, taking then-6-year-old Barack Obama II with them.

Barack Obama II lived in Indonesia for four years, from the age of 6 until the age of 10. During those first three years, he attended a Catholic school, and in the last year, he attended a state-run (read: secular) school, one of the most competitive and elite in the country. His mother moved him from the Catholic school to the secular school because she was worried about the quality of the education he was receiving, which leads us to your next point…

Claim #7: When he reached high school age his mother sent him to hawaii to be with his white grandparents and he was put into an expensive private school.  He later went to Harvard University .  How? Were his grandparents rich?

Barack did indeed move back to Hawaii in 1971 at the age of 10 to attend a college-prep K-12 school, and he lived with his grandparents (who were not rich by my standards) during that time. As for the cost, it depends upon your definition of ‘expensive.’ Tuition for the 2007-08 school year was over $15k, but compared to some schools in the northeastern US that charge in excess of $30k, it’s a bargain. Regardless, it’s important to note how Obama II’s primary and secondary education was financed: partially by scholarship and partially by his grandparents.

As for college, he spent two years at Occidental College in Los Angeles then finished his BA in Political Science at Columbia University in New York City. Afterward, he attended Harvard Law School, where he became the first black president in the school’s history of the “Harvard Law Review.”  Though his two years at Occidental were free because of an athletic scholarship, his years at Columbia and those spent at Harvard were financed by student loans, well over $40k worth, and financial aid.

Claim #8: He lives in a $1.4 mill ion house obtained through a deal with a wealthy fundraiser.  How?

You’re wrong on both counts. Barack Obama and family actually live in a house they purchased for $1.65 million in June of 2005, though it is unclear whether cash was paid or if it was mortgaged.  I assume this ‘wealthy fundraiser’ you’re referring to is Tony Rezko, a housing developer. If that’s the case, then you’re wrong again, as Obama purchased his home from a doctor, not a housing developer. The only Rezko connection here is that Tony’s wife, Rita, bought the empty lot next door to the Obama’s new home, one-sixth of which the Obamas then purchased in December of 2005 at a price of $104,500.

As for the ‘how,’ have you ever heard of The Audacity of Hope? How about Dreams From My Father? They’re both best-selling books authored by Barack Obama. The audiobook versions of both of them, spoken by Obama himself, each won a Grammy with Dreams winning in 2006 and Audacity winning in 2008. How much do you think all of this success was worth? How about $1.2 million just for paperback sales of Dreams? Follow that up with a $1.9 million advance in 2006 from the hardcover-publisher of Audacity for a three-book deal, not to mention whatever royalties he earned from sales of those books.  Interestingly, Obama’s books have outsold those authored by McCain so far in 2008.  So as of 2006, he had likely earned in excess of $3 million just from book sales, and when he bought his house, he had already pocketed $1.2 million of that.

Claim #9: He ‘worked’ as a civil rights activist in Chicago .

I realize that this post is getting a bit long, so in the interest of concision, read this and then take comedian Ron White’s advice: the next time you have a thought…let it go.  Implying that what activists do isn’t work, or that Civil Rights isn’t a worthwhile cause, or whatever agenda you’re pushing with this claim, is simply astounding.

Claim #10: He has never held a productive job or received a pay check that was not government-funded and/or taxpayer supported.

First, go back and read my response to Claim #9, and read the linked page.  In there, you will find that the organization he worked for as a Community Organizer was run by the Catholic Church (which is most certainly not government-funded).  Prior to that, he worked as a research analyst for a consulting company.  During his time at Harvard Law he worked for a prestigious law firm in Chicago.  Upon graduating magna cum laude, he chose a low-paying position as a public-interest lawyer in Chicago where he “…worked on cases involving voting rights, employment discrimination and low-income housing.”  Obama also used to lecture at the University of Chicago Law School.  Whether or not any of those jobs were ‘productive’ is decidedly subjective, though I think it is fair to assume that he was not compensated with taxpayer funds.

Claim #11: The presidency is not a civil rights position, nor is it subject to affirmative action set asides; on-the-job training won’t cut i t.

First, I have yet to hear anyone say that Obama should win the Presidency based solely upon his race, which is what I think you’re alluding to with this statement.

Second, “on-the-job training” is really the only training there is for the job of President.  The required qualifications to become President, as laid out in Article Two of the Constitution, are: 1) be a natural-born citizen of the United States, 2) be at least thirty-five years old and 3) have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.  That’s it, though there are some things that can occur in a person’s life that will disqualify them, none of which apply to either Barack Obama or John McCain.  Apparently, our Founding Fathers and those who have come after them with the power to make changes to this policy have thought that “on-the-job training” would most certainly cut it, otherwise more would be required of our President prior to taking office.

Claim #12: He entered politics at the state level and then the national level where he has minimal experience.

This depends upon your definition of ‘minimal experience,’ but it is, for the most part, true.

Claims #13 – #15: He is proud of his ‘african heritage’ (a father who got a white girl pregnant and deserted her).  Where is the pride in his ‘white heritage’? (a mother who flaunted convention and did not believe in god).  Some might think there was not much to be proud of either way.

I already offered evidence that essentially disproves the ‘desert[ion]‘ statement back in Claim #5.  As for his mother, she was a child who came of age in the 1960s. I suggest you read more about that time in American history, because you clearly do not understand that almost nothing was ‘conventional’ during those years. I’ve already offered evidence that her daughter disputed the atheist claims back in Claim #3, but even if she hadn’t, so what? Is it not the right of every American to make their own choices about faith, including the choice to not have any?  As for your thoughts on pride, some might also think that your entire note, one filled with intolerance for those of differing races and religious beliefs, is un-American.

Claim #16: He belongs, and has belonged for over 20 years, to an ‘afro-centric’ church in Chicago that hates whites, hates jews, and blames america for all the world’s perceived faults (including the creation of the aids virus in order to inflict it on Africans).

Due to the inherent impossibility of disproving a negative, I was unable to find a single source that refutes these claims.  Instead, I’ll follow the accepted American tradition and let the burden of proof lie on those making the accusations.

It is interesting, though, to consider the logic, if this claim were true, of someone like the Obama that is described.  This would be a person who follows the teachings of a church that hates whites, even though he’s half-white; that hates Jews even though he spent his days working with Jews as a Community Organizer; that he wants to lead a country which he has been taught to despise.

Claim #17: He could not confront his pastor but he wants us to believe he can confront North korea and Iran ? Right…

Um…what?  Confront his Pastor about what?  Why would he be confronting either North Korea or Iran?

Claim #18: During his very brief time in the united states senate he has managed to amass the number one ultra liberal voting record out of the one hundred members.

True.  He’s a Democrat, they tend to vote in favor of liberal issues.  You want to know some other words and phrases that are synonymous with ‘liberal?’  Try ‘progressive,’ ‘open-minded,’ ‘advanced,’ ‘unconventional,’ ‘nontraditional,’ ‘unbiased,’ or ‘tolerant.’  Liberals were the ones who started, fought and won the American Revolution.  Liberals ended slavery.  Liberals allowed women the right to vote.  ‘Liberal’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Democrat,’ and I urge you to remember that.

Claim #19: He has voted consistently for bigger government and higher taxes.

I like to think that all politicians want to appease their constituents, which inevitably costs money.  The primary source of income for government entities comes in the form of taxes.  If more is spent, more has to be collected.  John McCain wants to spend $300 billion buying so-called ‘bad’ mortgages, you think that won’t cost anything?  Bear in mind, that only helps out people who were stupid enough to enter into mortgages they couldn’t afford, and lenders who were stupid enough to fund the doomed venture.  You know what it’s called when government privatizes formerly-public industries and markets, like the housing market?  Socialism.  Obama isn’t the only one guilty of leaning that way.

Claim #20: He has voted for big entitlements and legislation that would severely curtail america ’s ability to fight terrorism and to protect our borders and our national interests around the world.

Just like Claim #16, I can’t prove that something didn’t happen, it’s up to the accuser to prove that something did happen.  Until such time that this claim gains any merit, I’m calling your bullshit.

Claim #21 – #24: But, he is a good orator. Isn’t that a comfort? Yeah, i think i see how well he could unite the country. I think the truth is that he hopes no one will put the pieces together.

As the polls show, most people seem to have already put those pieces together.

Claim #25: Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to our new chief pilot. He has never flown an airplane, in fact he has never even sat in the cockpit, but he says he has ridden on planes before. We are sure he will guide us safely through the storms we may encounter on this flight.

I see your point…Barack Obama will be a shitty President because he lacks ATP Certification.

Claim #26: People what are you thinking? Have you never heard the story about the wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing so he can destroy them from with-in ? The hand writing is on the wall, do you not have eyes to see it ?

What am I thinking?  I’m thinking that Sarah Palin is a complete moron who shouldn’t be allowed out of Alaska, let alone anywhere near the Oval Office.  I have heard the story about the wolf who hides in the skin of a sheep.  You know what’s most interesting about that story?  It never fucking happened.  It’s a fable.  Perhaps you should use logic, reasoning and verifiable evidence the next time you decide to make an argument instead of endless rhetoric and blatant racism, which is all that my eyes see in this note.

What Bothers Me Most About Sarah Palin

The most difficult part about listing off the things I dislike about the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate is a toss-up between where to begin and where to stop.  Seriously, I’ve been struggling with it all day.  I don’t like most of the things that everyone has already heard about, such as her inexperience in every political scenario that doesn’t solely involve Alaska.  I don’t like her voice.  I don’t like her view on religion and how she intends to apply it to American foreign policy if elected.  I don’t like that she portrays herself as a typical American when her net worth exceeds $1 million.  I don’t like that despite her wealth, she managed to get her political party to fund an extravagant and expensive shopping spree.  I don’t like her insistence that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her meaningful foreign policy experience.  I don’t like her views on abortion.  I don’t like her insinuation that urban centers are breeding grounds for un-American sentiment, and that only people who live next door to livestock are ‘real’ Americans.  I don’t trust her to make the right decision in the event of an ethical dilemma (think: ‘Troopergate’).  I don’t like that when faced with the outcome of the initial Troopergate investigation, she lied about the findings.  I don’t like her inability to speak in coherent sentences, as showcased during her interview on CBS with Katie Couric.  I don’t like her ignorance of American politics as she displayed during her interview on ABC with Charlie Gibson.  I don’t like the McCain-Palin campaign’s supposed belief that she is ready and able to serve as a competent President if McCain were to die on January 21st, 2008.  As I said, choosing where to stop is tough…

I didn’t particularly like Bill Clinton, and I certainly don’t care for George W. Bush, but their existence doesn’t anger me.  Clinton may have under-funded the military, and Bush may have made some decisions that turned out to be wrong in the long run.  Despite that, I like to think that Bush made the best decision he could at the time, and I respect him for having the balls to make a tough call.  Joe Biden has a tendency to say things he probably shouldn’t say in a political arena, but he’s got a ton of foreign policy experience that is an asset to this country regardless of his political leanings.  I’m annoyed by John McCain’s constant ‘my friends’ and ‘Joe the Plumber’ statements, and I don’t buy his ‘I know how to do it’ claims regarding finding Osama bin Laden and fixing the economy, but I still respect the guy.  I don’t like either major-party candidates’ plans for America, though I think Barack Obama’s vision is more realistic and will leave the country better off than McCain’s.  It feels like Hillary Clinton is just a bit too eager to prove herself capable of being President, which is unsettling enough that I do not want to see her in office.  Oddly, this is one of the things that worries me about the prospect of a McCain Presidency.

However, what bothers me most about Sarah Palin is her lack of redeeming qualities.  All of the other politicians mentioned in this post, despite their drawbacks, have several good things going for them, especially Barack Obama.  But what positives, politically-speaking, does Palin offer?  What could she possibly bring to the White House that nobody else in this race can, besides a hyperactive uterus and critical-thinking skills on par with those of the average third-grader?  Being attractive, being a good mother, being governor of a state that contains only 0.22% of the total American population and being devoutly religious are all completely irrelevant in the arena of global politics.

So why is the reality of this situation, that within the next few years we could be using the phrase, *gulp*, President Sarah Palin, outside the context of a joke, apparently not sinking in with a vast majority of American pollees?  Is there something I’m missing about Palin’s appeal?

Dear Joe: Shut Your Hole

Dear Joe Biden-

I understand that you are trying to help Barack Obama win the 2008 Presidential Election.  I assume that you are doing so not only because Senator Obama chose you as his running mate, but also because you believe that he is the right man for this job.  However, when you say things like this, you may be doing more harm than good.

I get what you meant, that following a change in power other countries may be inclined to test the mettle of the new leaders, and that it may happen regardless of who is elected.  I’m also sure that you were attempting to build faith in the electorate by verbalizing your confidence in Obama’s ability to lead our nation through that sort of crisis with his bionic vertebrae.

As expected, your opponent, Oldie McCrankypants, decided to slice up your words and insert them into some typical negative campaign ads like this one.  I get that it’s tough to speak on the record as frequently as you do without saying something that can be used against your campaign, but due to the importance of this election, perhaps you could stick to a pre-written and pre-approved speech.

It is with that thought in mind that I ask, nay beg, of you: please shut your fucking hole.  Let me discuss the unknowable and drone on endlessly about ‘what-if’ scenarios, and you can stick to focusing on not losing this election.

Regards,

-Kyle, writing on behalf of ‘All Americans That Don’t Want You To Fuck Up This Election For Us’

The American Marriage Obsession

Quick!  Name the top five social issues currently dividing American politics!  Don’t worry, I couldn’t think of five either, although not due to any sort of indecisive behavior.  After marking off abortion and gay marriage, I was out of ideas long enough to lose interest in searching further, though I admit that the television was on and that it may have played a role.  Americans are obsessed with marriage regardless of which people are involved, or for that matter, how many people.  Why is gay marriage a big deal?  Because in this country marriage is a big deal.

Take this woman, for instance, who is seriously attempting to raise $3 million via her website to purchase 30-seconds worth of television ad-space during next year’s Super Bowl.  What does this 40-something supposed Mensa member want to advertise to the millions of people watching that event?  She wants to inform the world that she is single and desperately seeking a good man to marry.  It’s an expensive, nationwide twist of the bathroom-stall classic, “For a good time call…”  While I can understand that some people have a strong desire for companionship, this seems to be more than just a bit extreme.

Where I grew up, a person’s life generally follows a basic, well-established course: birth, high school graduation, meaningless job, marriage, kids, retirement and death.  With 7 meaningful events in a person’s life, only five of which are memorable, and only three of those five have any realistic potential of being joyous events or periods of time, it’s easier to understand why marriage is such a big deal to people living in a place that has been economically stagnant for as long as I can remember.  But this chick lives in Manhattan, a far cry from life in the rural Midwest.

Despite the excessive lengths to which this woman is going, I think that this case is indicative of the general obsession American society has with the antiquated concept of marriage, that once people have ‘grown up,’ they are supposed to get married and start a family (biologically or otherwise).  I suppose it makes sense in that the desire for procreation solely for the survival of the species is probably why the urge to engage in sexual activity is so explicitly primal.  Long ago there was probably also an issue with genetics assuming that there were fewer people around, hence the logic behind spreading (while being mindful to not blend) the gene pool.  But what does that have to do with our apparent desire to continue the marriage ‘tradition’ in 2008?  In a word: nothing.

Anymore, it seems as though people get married for any combination of only a few reasons: 1) it’s expected by society, 2) the perceived security offered by a lifelong commitment, 3) religion and 4) money.  The first shouldn’t matter to an intelligent, independent adult, the second is illusory, the third is a pathetic attempt at rationalizing an irrational behavior, and the fourth can be denied by a solid prenuptial agreement or extensive litigation after the divorce or the death of the wealthy half of the marriage.  So why bother?  I really don’t know.  But for whatever reason, the desire persists for many.

As I told a friend of mine in a Statistics class one semester: “Guys never have to worry about getting married.  There is always going to be some chick with some set of circumstances who will be willing to marry virtually anyone for whatever reason.”  Now I can add: “There’s even a woman from NYC who tried to spend $3 million on a 30-second TV commercial perfectly illustrating my point.”

PG Porn

Ok, so the last few posts have been relatively-serious in nature, so I’ll lighten it up today with something everybody can get excited about: pornography.

Earlier today I came across what is probably the funniest fucking thing I’ll see this week: PG Porn. Yeah, PG, as in the movie rating often given to family-friendly holiday classics.  I thought that the porn aired late at night by both Cinemax and HBO was pretty tame, but apparently it’s far too risque for some people.  It’s this demographic that PG Porn is apparently after, as evidenced by their tag line: “PG Porn: For people who love everything about porn… Except the sex.”

Thing to look for while watching the video:

-The actors looking off-camera to the crew for stage directions and on-the-fly acting lessons.

-Acting worse than what you’ll see in a ‘normal’ porn.

-The actors referring to each other by different names throughout the scene.

-The hilarious ending.

The Politician’s Take on Personal Freedom

Anyone can and likely will tell you that ‘personal freedom for all’ was the central theme surrounding the creation of the United States. But like most great ideas it exists only in theory and has never truly been tested. Merriam-Webster defines freedom as “…the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” While a society that offers that level of freedom to its citizens wouldn’t likely last very long, it is a goal towards which America should strive to align its policies as close as possible.

Essentially, freedom in this country means that any citizen can do whatever they want, so long as it doesn’t harm any other person. It’s a nice idea, but as I stated earlier, it doesn’t work that way in practice. Why? Because of what I believe is the typical definition of freedom as held by most American politicians: “Citizens can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, or if we say otherwise.”

In a perfect representative democracy in a perfect world, legislators would never make any law that would infringe upon the personal freedoms of any member of the populace. That could never happen, though, unless every member of the nation agreed completely on everything. There is always going to be some collateral damage, and we place our collective trust in our elected officials to enact legislation that makes the smallest mess. In doing so, some people will unfortunately have their toes stepped on. Take DUI laws, for example, in which you can and likely will face consequences if caught driving under the influence of alcohol, even if you don’t hurt anyone else. Though preemptive in nature, an attribute of laws that I am usually in opposition of, I agree that these laws are generally a good thing as it only infringes upon the rights of people who wish to drive while intoxicated; an action that has a decent chance of harming innocent people.

But what about laws enacted to prevent behavior that doesn’t affect other people in any respect? The best example that I can think of is gay marriage. I understand that most people who are against it choose their position based upon religious convictions, a topic I’ll leave for another day, but that doesn’t explain the criminalization of marijuana.  In my experience, this substance has never proved to be harmful to anyone, though I have met people who are nauseated by it (talk about irony). Regardless, our government has made it illegal, and the question remains: what right is it of the state to make illegal an action that has no effect on anyone beyond those performing the action?  Why criminalize so-called ‘victimless’ actions?  Does that not go against everything we say that we love about this country?  These examples are indicative of what I think may be the general attitude that most legislators take, which is “Our job is to make their decisions for them because they’re too fucking stupid to be trusted with doing it themselves.” It is in that spirit that I think that most politicians go about performing their duties. When the outcome of any choice is void of any professional gain for the politician, he chooses to work for personal gain, a decision that I think would be made by most people. However, the politician is in a unique position in that he has the ability to work toward making America the kind of place he wants it to be, like the kind of place where the laws of his country and the laws of his religion are in perfect harmony.

Career Politicians

Politics is a word that is considered to be so vile by some people that it borders on profane.  Governmental politics has proved so divisive that it even made its way on to the short list of things people are not supposed to discuss in so-called ‘polite’ conversation.  While there are probably numerous reasons for the demonization of all tiers of American government, I think the real problem can be defined with a single word: corruption.  Our elected officials are supposed to represent, and advocate on behalf of, the majority of their constituents.  However, it seems logical that politicians would be inclined to serve primarily those entities that do the most work in getting them elected, even if that ‘work’ consists solely of writing a check with lots of zeros.  It is this disconnect that is, in my opinion, the corruption of the worst kind.  I can’t fault the politicians, though, as I think that most people are inherently selfish and spend their lives doing what they can to better their own situation with little regard for how it affects other people.  This is a problem because politicians, though they may not always seem like it, are people too.  Because of this, and because of the need for political leaders in our society, the only solution to this broken system is to end the practice of allowing lifelong careers in politics.

We could sign into law regulations that limit people to two terms in any elected office, make those terms last for no more than four years each, and not allow any one person to serve for more than twelve total years.  While this would go a long way toward eliminating corruption, another step could be taken that would help as well, and it deals with campaign finance.  Allow people to spend only public money on their campaigns, meaning the candidates could receive no donations from individuals, corporations or even their own bank accounts.

These regulations would prevent anyone from establishing an exceptionally-long history that lesser-known candidates would have to contend with when pursuing a position in public office.  They would also prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from unfairly influencing those who institute public policy, something that the average American is unable to do.  Most important though, they would remove any incentive on the part of the official to choose any option in any decision other than what they think is the best one for their constituents.  This purity in politics is something that will never be realized unless it is made impossible to do otherwise.

With these laws in place, though, who would bother running for office?  The short answer is “very few people who currently do so.”  It would be limited only to those who truly wanted to serve their country as an elected official.  The Oval Office would no longer be awarded to the most well-connected and well-funded person.  Instead, it would be occupied by accomplished lawyers, doctors, academics, businesspeople and the like; the same people who would run for congressional positions.  I think that this would go a long way toward restoring our confidence in our leaders, and perhaps more importantly, it may alter our country in a way that can only be described as ‘overwhelmingly positive.’

Roger Ebert’s Relevance to a 20-Something

While perusing Fark.com the other day I came across an interesting headline, something about Roger Ebert, the famed movie critic, being some sort of scary religiophile (Yup, new word. You’re welcome, World.) The linked page was an article supposedly written by Ebert in which he ‘answers’ questions commonly thrown at the Creationism argument and in doing so, espouses all of the tenants of said argument, including some of the usual headliners: Earth is only a few thousand years old, Noah really did have a giant boat (and even though nobody ever mentions it, I’m relatively certain that the boat was largely a floating toilet), something other than the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon, and so on. After I finished reading the article, I was left with a kind of “Huh…who knew?” sort of feeling, and I went on with my day.

Just a few moments ago I was back on Fark.com and noticed that there was a new link posted, this one as a follow-up piece to Ebert’s previous article. This new article was also authored by Ebert, and was written in response to the “…firestorm on the web…” created by his earlier post. In it, Ebert was attempting to show the general public how frequently we accept at face-value the things we hear, articles we read, political advertisements we see on television and virtually anything else to which we are exposed. In his opinion, we too rarely bother with trying to figure out the author’s intended meaning of any communication, and instead we assume that if the author wanted to say something, he would just come out and say it. Whether or not that is true is hardly the sort of thing I have any interest in discussing, mostly because there is no way to know for sure without performing several gigantic studies, though the “…firestorm…” offers evidence that it may be true.

Ebert’s big problem, though, was that so few people ‘got it,’ and I have to admit that I was one of them. When I read the original article I assumed that Roger Ebert was simply using his celebrity as a platform from which to inform the world of his views on Creationism and, as the article suggests, offer an informal Q&A to anyone who happened to read it. Interestingly, though, the reason I didn’t ‘get it’ is not what Ebert suggests, that I have a “…decay[ed] … sense of irony and instinct for satire.” Rather, I didn’t ‘get it’ because I don’t know shit about Roger Ebert.

As of two weeks ago, this is all I knew about Roger Ebert:

He’s a white guy who is significantly older than me. He co-hosts a television show (which I’ve never seen a full episode of) on which he critiques movies.

That’s it.

I don’t know where he’s from, I know nothing of his marital status or, come to think of it, his sexual orientation. I’m unaware of any of his political or religious affiliations, whether his books are funny or serious, or even what movies he likes (how’s that for irony?).

How am I supposed to pick up on irony or satire when I can’t fairly consider the source? Moreover, his entire piece about Creationism is believed as fact by literally millions of people around the world. Is it so unlikely that some guy on TV who talks about movies could also be one of them? Tom Cruise thinks he’s an expert on antidepressants, why can’t Roger Ebert be a Bible thumper?

It’s not that we can’t identify irony, satire or even outright lies when we come across them, it’s that these messages are often delivered without the information required to identify them as such. Some would probably say that that is the point, but I disagree. Irony only works if you understand the topics and agents utilized in the example. For instance, I could say “A bleezit was killed yesterday while driving a borzeg,” and most reasonable people would stare at me blankly before asking me about recent drug use. However, if I said “A NASCAR driver was killed yesterday while driving a pedal-powered kiddie car,” most people would recognize the irony almost instantaneously, even if they couldn’t identify it as such.

So when Roger Ebert pens an article espousing the virtues of Christianity, socialism, Pinacate Beetles or anything else in which I have limited interest, I’ll stare blankly, shrug, and go on living my life, continuing to believe that anybody is free to believe anything they want and to talk about it all they want. Although, if he were to write about the evils of movies and television and the people associated with those industries…

Profanity

A topic that I have often found incredibly interesting is that of profanity in American culture. I’m sure that this will be just one of several posts on the topic, as I am constantly finding myself being angered by the restrictions placed upon me by other people because of their irrational and inexplicable fear of certain words.

I realize that to some of you the phrase ‘American culture’ is a humorous oxymoron. Regardless, I believe that American culture exists primarily in the difficulty found in attempting to describe it. That there are so many facets of our culture, and so many large groups existing within America’s borders that have few things in common, is exactly what makes fairly defining and thoroughly explaining our culture so difficult. Though an interesting topic itself, I’ll leave that to another day.

I want to know why it is that a certain series of sounds can be deemed offensive, while numerous others are not. To me, words are simply signs that have an assigned and agreed-upon meaning as determined by the society in which they are used. As our society morphs into a more intelligent, knowledgeable and tolerant one while continuing to hold true to its principles of freedom, I fail to understand how it is that we can so blindly continue to believe that words have ever hurt someone. I can think of no person who has collapsed and died because the moral center of their brain exploded upon being exposed to profanity.

While I would imagine that it doesn’t feel great when your mother tells you to “…fuck off,” the reason it hurts has little to do with the words. For those of us who have heard our mothers say the word ‘fuck’ before, we can say that it didn’t hurt; nor did it hurt when she said the word ‘off.’ But chaining those two together, oddly enough, does. However, what most people fail to realize, is that it isn’t the direct content of the phrase, as it can be interpreted with multiple meanings depending upon the context in which it was said (as a joke compared to a request, for example). What hurts is the implication of the statement: that your mother doesn’t want you around her.

Perhaps the most bizarre thing about this issue, is the idea that word replacement is an acceptable alternative to swearing. When I was a child, saying ‘heck’ instead of ‘hell’ was perfectly acceptable, even preferable in some circles, even though everyone knew what you meant. Also, spelling ‘hell’ by saying ‘h-e-double hockey sticks’ was alright, even in school. Saying ‘crap’ instead of ’shit,’ or ‘frick’ instead of ‘fuck’ (as popularized on the TV show Scrubs), even though virtually everyone knows what is meant is perfectly acceptable. Because of this, it is clearly not the meaning of the word that we take issue with, so I can only conclude that it is the sound. ‘Shit’ must sound like nails being scratched across a chalkboard and ‘fuck’ must sound like Gilbert Gottfried’s voice to those hell-bent on maintaining some sort of linguistic purity in American English, as though there could ever be such a thing.

George Carlin, renowned for his ‘Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television’ bit, lived a pretty fantastic life, and a relatively long one at that, having died at 71 years of age. So if profanity is as ‘bad’ (check out the ‘Comments’ section, too) as some believe, why did he seem to do so well? Shouldn’t he have been ostracized by our society, thrown out on the street and left to die while cold, hungry and alone? Regardless of your thoughts on the last couple of questions, the fact remains that we lifted him up on a pedestal, made him famous, rich and a cultural icon. Strangely, we continue to celebrate the lives and work of other people who have followed Carlin’s lead, while simultaneously condemning them for it.

We Americans seem to have a bizarre desire to continue to separate our truths and our reality from our utopian ideals and perceived desires.  Virtually all of us say that we support the right to free speech, yet we do little to ensure that that right can be freely exercised.  Instead, we actively work toward silencing those with whom we disagree under the guise of safeguarding the easily offended or the highly impressionable.

My Neighbor

I came home from dinner with friends a few hours ago, and as we were sitting outside on my patio having drinks, I overheard a female complaining to (presumably) another person. Here are some exact quotes from said-female that I could hear from about 50 feet away, all of which are intermixed with bouts of sobbing and full-on crying:

1) I can’t understand why I’m not married. I mean…why? Why am I not married yet? I don’t understand.

2) I talked to my Dad about it, and he doesn’t get it either. He thinks I’m pretty, why don’t other guys?

3) Yeah, maybe I could stand to lose a few pounds.

4) I hate my parents. Except my Dad. [a few seconds of inaudible conversation pass by] And I don’t hate my Mom.

5) Fuck you! Fuck you, [inaudible]! Don’t you fuckin’ tell me what isn’t possible! (sound of breaking glass)

6) Oh my God, [inaudible]! Oh my God! I’m so sorry! I didn’t mean that to happen [inaudible]!

———————————————————————————————–

If the woman who spoke the above words happens to read this, I’m here to help you.   Below you’ll find my thoughts on each statement you made, and perhaps you’ll gain some insight regarding the inner-workings of the male mind.

1) I can’t understand why I’m not married. I mean…why? Why am I not married yet? I don’t understand.

Lying to yourself isn’t healthy.  We both know why you’re single, so stop whining about it and set your sights on someone who you can realistically expect to see naked.

2) I talked to my Dad about it, and he doesn’t get it either. He thinks I’m pretty, why don’t other guys?

I do think you’re pretty, but only while in a poorly-lit bar.  At 2:15 AM.  On a Tuesday. Oh, and by the way, your Dad was just being polite.

3) Yeah, maybe I could stand to lose a few pounds.

Honesty is the best policy, and I’m glad to see you embracing it.  Anyway, I’m also a bit overweight, which is why we are both still inside this bar at 2:15 AM on a Tuesday. It’s one of those unwritten rules of the bar that also applies to life in general: fat and ugly people only hook up due to a combination of desperation and a lack of options.  Unless large sums of money are involved, then there are no rules.

4) I hate my parents. Except my Dad. [a few seconds of inaudible conversation pass by] And I don’t hate my Mom.

If you weren’t drunk when you made these statements, then it doesn’t matter what you look like. Look at Jessica Simpson: gorgeous and stupid, also single (last I heard, anyway).

5) Fuck you! Fuck you, [inaudible]! Don’t you fuckin’ tell me what isn’t possible! (sound of breaking glass)
6) Oh my God, [inaudible]! Oh my God! I’m so sorry! I didn’t mean that to happen [inaudible]!

Check, please. Gotta get out of here before she decides to throw something heavier than a pint glass.

Free Speech on Campus

Today, I was sitting in a Business Writing class. Next to me sat a girl who I’ve come to know over the past couple of months, and whose company I find tolerable. She spends most of her time in class on MySpace, typing unusually long messages to people who I can only assume belong to some sort of book club. Seriously, these messages easily approach 1,000 words (or so it would seem), and she types at least one per day of class.

I have this incredibly bad habit of saying the word ‘yo’ to people, usually tacking it on the end of a common phrase. I blame a friend of mine back in my hometown for this, as he was constantly saying ‘word’ to everything, and eventually, that morphed into ‘word, yo’, which I then picked up (against my will, no less) and began using. Like most everything else, I found that me, a white boy from farm country, saying the phrase “Word, yo,”, especially to ethnic friends, is hilarious. I can’t think of a time when it made anyone else laugh, but I used to get a kick out of it.

Anyway, I was sitting there, and when she walked in, I said “What’s up, yo?” I then explained to her that I had made a New Year’s resolution to stop using the word ‘yo’. She giggled politely, and the class started. Near the end of the class, I said this phrase in response to something another girl at our table said to me: “Alright, thanks yo. GOD DAMN IT!” I was cursing myself for using the word ‘yo’ by using a phrase I easily throw around with little regard for its meaning to other people.

In other words, by saying “god damn it” I am not asking any god to damn anything, I’m simply expressing frustration. However, plenty of people of a variety of faiths find this particular order of verbal utterances to be blasphemous, and this girl happens to be one of them.

She explained, in so many words, that she “…[is] a Christian,” that those words were offensive to her and then she ordered me not to “…say that around [her].”

I had only one response: “You must be joking.”

She wasn’t. Of course, I didn’t care. I explained that to her, and that I could not guarantee I wouldn’t say that phrase around her again.

Would it be difficult to stop using that phrase? Yes, probably just as difficult as stopping myself from using the word ‘yo’, and from using my old nemesis, the phrase “fair enough.” I still occasionally use that one, and every time, I chastise myself by saying in a slightly louder, exasperated tone, my phrase-of-choice: “GOD DAMN IT!”

As it was very near the end of class, and other people were working in a relatively quiet room, I didn’t have the time nor the desire to enter into an argument about which of us had what rights, and whose rights should be deemed more important.

What I would have said though, is that she has no right to not be offended. Nobody in America has that right.  I do, however, have the right to free speech, which includes words that others may find offensive.

Out of curiosity, I checked our school’s Student Code of Conduct to see if it had anything to say on the topic.  While there is a provision to protect the right of all students to speak freely, there is an interesting clause that prohibits any person or entity from infringing upon that right.  It was comforting to know that whoever wrote the Code was intelligent enough to include that language, but the feeling of comfort I had was trumped by the elation I felt due to winning an argument with a self-righteous religious zealot.