Glenn Beck has pushed my FUCK YOU Button

It's been a too long while since my last post. So many ideas have fluttered past me. But something tonight has gone too far.



Glenn Beck, please don't blame the disorganized band of free thinking atheists for the fact stupid teachers make kids sing stupid songs about Barack Obama. The idiotic idolatry of any mortal man is not the fault of disbelief in God.



Hell, I think sometimes self-proclaimed atheists do substitute tangible icons and people for a notion of God, but just because some worship Obama doesn't mean it is the fault of atheism. Rather, it is the fault of the underlying human psychological need for faith and belief in something greater than themselves. That's right, the mental desire to love Obama or bow down to Jesus are one and the same.

And, come on, there are many religious people who are also absolutely in love with the man. So, please stop blaming atheists for weak minded folks who need a shepherd to follow. In my mind, idolizing Obama, God, Vishnu, celebrities, sports players, scientists, family or trees, is all the same. It does no good, it does no harm.

And PLEASE stop saying that disapproving of mounting the 10 commandments in a court ='s thinking they are invalid ideas. If you think that it's very godless, I'll get the eight-fold path and the Islamic Prohibitions and put 'em up too. I just don't think there's room for any of them. We don't need the 10 fucking commandments, or prohibitions, or the sayings of 8-armed goddesses when we have FUCKING LAWS. LAWS, GODDAMNIT.

That's all. I think.

Simout.

Pissing Follow Up

I realized that I really want to say something about bathrooms being divided by gender. Ok. Here goes. An anecdote from my girlfriend, paraphrased, recounts of a visit to the Eiffel Tower wherein she had to piss real bad and there was a long line for the women's room. Yet the men's room was open.

It would be far more efficient just to let everyone into every bathroom. I personally don't feel any more comfortable pissing in front of men than I do in front of women.

People are just uncomfortable with the notion of shared bathrooms. Because people are retarded. Whether you question gender duality or hold very strongly to it, it shouldn't matter. I say there's nothing to lose by making bathrooms open for everyone.

We should grow up, get over the fact everyone has to pee, be sexually mature enough to see that there's nothing taboo is peeing in the same room as some one with the opposite gender, and just open up all bathrooms to everyone.

And that way, we avoid the little idea of special rights for transgendered people, because not only some guys can use the girls room, all guys can. In fact, everybody in Massachusetts (and any other state that allows choice bathroom use based on gender identity) should use the opposite restroom until no one gives a shit where you piss. Freedom for everyone!

Simout.

I Piss, You Piss, We All Piss

"BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a bill that would end discrimination based on transgender status.

The bill would add "gender identity and expression" to the state's discrimination and hate crime laws. "
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2292561/posts

Work place discrimination is not ok. That's obvious. For any reason. Duh. If it happens. Fight against it. More background- According to a Mercury News article, a man named Ethan St. Pierre was the target of gender-identity based discrimination back around 2001:

"Once they saw the changes that my body was making they decided that I could no longer do my job," said St. Pierre, 47, a transgender man living in Haverhill, Mass. "They started taking my responsibilities away from me one at a time until finally they told me that I was no longer welcome."

Supporters of a transgender rights bill making its way through the Massachusetts Statehouse say their goal is to give transgender people like St. Pierre legal protections at work, in public accommodations and in housing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12836228?source=rss

I mean, that makes sense. If St. Pierre's gender-identity was the reason for him being fired, he has every right to challenge, sue, and bring disrepute to the business he was working for. The business should get in trouble. Bang. Ok.

The only thing that bothers me is that apparently it's legally necessary to specify gender-identity within the hate crime laws. It should be obvious. In a free country, an individual has every right to be whatever the heck they want. And it confuses me why it isn't already obvious, with the previous hate crime legislation, that transgendered people- and all people- should not be discriminated against.

But I guess it's impossible to have, in legal jargon, "you can't discriminate against someone for anything they cannot control or has no direct influence on you." I mean, whether someone is a gypsy, transgendered, or a fan of baseball has nothing to do with job performance, and if someone can prove that they were discriminated against for one of these reasons they should be able to bring the issue to court.

But now for the even stupider:

Timothy Tracey, a lawyer with the conservative Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, told members of the Committee on the Judiciary that the bill infringes on the religious rights of those who believe that men and women are different.

"The First Amendment mandates that no individual should be required to affirm, in act, word, or deed, that a man is a woman, or a woman is a man, against their sincerely held religious beliefs," Tracey said. "Yet this is precisely what (the bill) will do."

This is retarded. Plain retarded. The First Amendment shouldn't protect people's feelings on gender. Just as the First Amendment doesn't protect someone's racism: if I was a part of a religion that believed all Armenians are evil and must clean the streets, letting Armenians have jobs other than cleaning streets is not against my First Amendment rights.

Tim's confusion partly comes from an upset over the bill's allowing for an individual to enter the gender-based bathroom they identify with. If someone who feels they are a woman goes into the women's rest room and is not a woman, apparently that discriminates against Timmy's ability to call that person a man. Here's my tip for Tim: chill the fuck out. Just as a transgendered man is allowed to think he is a woman, you are allowed to think he is a man. But it's confusing, I guess, since we all discover someone's gender based on which bathroom a person goes into.

There's also the strange idea that if a man goes into the women's restroom, he'll rape everyone.

"Opponents said the bill would lead to a breakdown in privacy in rest rooms, locker rooms and other single-gender facilities and would open women's bathrooms to sexual predators."

As far as I know, nothing other than the punishment for being a sexual predator has stopped sexual predators from going into women's rest rooms. Besides, if a trans-gendered person is convincing enough, you won't even know the dude pissing next to you once (or still) has a snatch.

And the broader anti-gay concern is that opening single-gendered facilities like this to non-genetically based but emotionally based credentials forces the "gay agenda" or "transgender agenda" down their throat. But isn't that what makes America great? People's stupid identities are pushed down our throats when we're in public. We can't escape people, or who they are, or what they feel while we're among them. There's no reason to be upset if a Christian were allowed to piss in the same bathroom I was, even though I could say allowing a Christian to piss with me pushes his religious identity down my throat. In fact, all this mentioning of pushing things down my throat is pushing the image of fellatio down my throat. I'm against that.

Where I go to school, most our bathrooms are "uni gendered," meaning everyone pisses in them. I prefer to say most our bathrooms are bathrooms. Because I don't give a shit what gender you are, your employer shouldn't, the person pissing next to you shouldn't, and the government shouldn't either. But, maybe the government has to in order to protect? That may end up being the unfortunate truth...

Piss off, Timmy.

Marijuana Musing

One of the proposed solutions for the California deficit theoretically kills two birds with one stone: it would decriminalize recreational marijuana use by making it legal (and thus save a lot of money and time wasted on persecuting harmless pot heads) and would raise money for the state by taxing the drug. All in all, a noble solution.

Portugal in 2001 decriminalized the use of many drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine. And so far, studies from organizations such as the CATO Institute show it hasn't caused many problems:

"The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, 'that is the central concession that will transform the debate.'"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

To me, even though I've never used any recreational drug (other than several failed attempts to enjoy a sip of alcohol) it's always seemed obvious to me that most recreational drugs should be legal. I know very few users who I would classify as criminals, but according to the law they are. So it's strange. Of course, many people get away with it, but it's unfair to the few who are arrested and to the tax payers who want to use their money for something useful (like maybe government sponsored rehabilitation clinics or therapy) but are forced to pay coin for a pointless 'war on drugs.'

So I agree with a lot of the ideas this ad puts forth. And even though some see this as a controversial subject, it really isn't. Watching an episode of Conan today, Mr. O'Brian mentioned the decriminalization ad and most of the audience cheered. According to the white house, in 2001 41.7% of Americans reported having used marijuana in their life. And, it seems as though our last three presidents have had drug experiences themselves.

Now, according to these statistics, four out of ten Americans (including three presidents, presumably) could get in trouble with the law for having used marijuana. Something that most likely never directly harmed someone else. Does this make any sense? Are all these Americans bad people? Is 41.7% of America totally messed up in the head cause of the reefer? Of course not. And, between you and me, I bet the statistic is actually higher. Hehe. Get it? Higher?

But I don't want to just pile on evidence for marijuana use. You can find that yourself. However, I did want to point out something weird about this ad...

The lady interviewed points out that she and other marijuana users want to pay taxes for weed. Want to. WANT to. As if all stoners were actually planning to bail out California, if only marijuana were taxed! Why must you stand in the way of them giving money to the State, guys!

And marijuana is difficult to tax. Because you can grow it. At least I think you can. And how long after these hippies manage to legalize it and tax it will another group of hippies start getting angry at the Government taxing something the Earth has given us?

But I'm getting ahead of myself. You don't have to be a pot head to know that pot should be legal. And it could be taxed... for a while. But I'll give California some time- maybe if pot's legal, more people will want to legalize same sex marriage.

Kill two birds with one stone...r.

The McCain Partisanship Hubub

Something happened recently that reminded me of something that really grinds my gears. Really rips out my eyes. It has to do with partisan fuckery.

John McCain (disgruntled old man who, after losing a recent political election, flew away to South America in a house attached to balloons) has come out and said that his former opponent has "done well" in office:

"Sen. John McCain says his opponent in last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama, has 'done well' in his first five months in the White House."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_go_co/us_mccain_obama

Here's a video.

Now, I don't really care what McCain thinks. Or what many people think. I'm still holding my judgment of Obama for myself. The funny thing isn't the news itself, because this isn't really news, but rather people's anonymous reactions as embodied in comments on articles about this, because it seems that John has dug a little hole for himself. Meaning, everyone now hates McCain. Left wing comments included calling John McCain a "mental midget compared to the genius of Obama."
Whereas, on the right, people are calling McCain a turncoat of sorts.

"That's exactly why McCain lost the election. He's almost as liberal as the radical liberals. Cub got it right... there were TWO Democrats running for the Presidency. McCain is a RINO and I wish he'd just go away or STFU."
from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/21/mccain-obama-has-done-well/comments/

Isn't it just silly? Reading these has just reminded me of my main frustration with the presentation of certain candidates. To some people, John McCain is too liberal and will be socialist evil man taking away our guns or some stupid shit like that. To others, he will be a war mongering conservative dick only interested in making money.

So everyone's hated him for a while, for opposite reasons. Like, since the election. Here's an old post:

"In many states it now rings popular to call oneself a conservative, even if one truly resembles a liberal. As with any popular movement, dilution occurs, opportunists blow with the wind, and pretenders abound. John McCain is one of these pretenders. He is a leftist in disguise, using his popularity and charisma to masque his liberal leanings. In reality, McCain resides as far to the Left as John Kerry. Anyone who thinks otherwise deludes himself."
http://gunowners.org/mcdisguise.htm

And from the other side, leftist celebrities like Susan Serandon and Seal had threatened to leave the country if McCain won.

With so many... different reactions to the man, it's hard to really know what to think. Maybe, because everyone hated him, he would've been a good choice? Nah. I'll stick with the vote I made. But still... some on the left said he'd be like George Bush, some on the right compare him to John Kerry. People have stopped judging candidates on their merits, and on an individual basis, but rather on which party or candidate they resemble. What the fuck does it mean to be "too liberal"? Or "too conservative"? Nothing in the end. Unfortunately, with this... duality... and two-party system we have... it's going to be very difficult to just vote for the candidate we think is the best. There is no real possibility for middle ground, and people are going to want to live in extremes.

Oh well.

Pride and Prejudice

Oh, truth and truth and truth... George Carlin hits it on the head. Too bad he's dead. But I feel this video is fitting three days before Happy America Day.

One of the biggest problems in the world (at least, according to me, and I'm writing so fuck you) is what I like to call "Pride in the Irrelevant." This includes racial, ethnic, national, gender-based, and sexual pride. Familial pride. Pride in anything one does not achieve. Now, in a perfect world everyone would be judged by their merits, their accomplishments, their kindness, their ability to love, forgive, etc., etc. and none of those respectable things is influenced by descent, sexuality, or gender. Maybe the content of an accomplishment or feat is dictated by one's "culture," but the feat itself is created only by the individual. Not their culture, their family, their heritage. Influenced by, maybe. But not created by.

However, the world ain't perfect. People are tread upon. So, people who are oppressed band together in groups, call for awareness and fairness, and all that is fine and dandy. Until there's pride.

Now, pride may seem like an obvious reaction to counter disapproval, hate, or lack of understanding But, in the end, it alienates more than it connects. It does not bridge gaps, it reinforces differences. The oppressors in this world ended up causing most of the problems that are out there because of their pride: a sense of Western superiority in colonialism, racial pride in Nazi Germany, the KKK, and many other genocide-riden countries.

Pride in the irrelevant will always alienate. That's why over patriotic people seem like assholes. That's why "Death to America" people seem like assholes.

I just hope that those who are out their fighting for equality and justice realize how flawed fighting pride with pride is before it's too late. Because there are radical people who, because of pride begot oppression, start generalizing the enemy as "white people" or "men":

"All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."
Marilyn French

And in turn, some radicals respond to that with more pride. It seems like a never ending cycle. Because people are unable to separate individuals from groups. Because our descent and family and other irrelevant things are, to many people, very relevant. Oppression begets pride, pride begets oppression, and it goes on and on. Hate, alienation, segregation, pointless squabbling.

If anything, that makes me NOT proud to be human. But, I guess that's irrelevant too... it just needs to stop. We need compassion, empathy, and understanding. No more pride of the irrelevant.

The Difference is Intent

This is kind of a followup to my last post. Kind of.

Couple of days ago I defended Betsy Perry for the unlawful and out of proportion hate she was getting for simply saying things about Mexico in her blog. Strangely enough, something similar actually happened in Boston recently with talk radio personality Jay Severin, who "said things about Mexico" during a broadcast and is getting in a little bit of trouble. But the two cases are very different. Perry used sarcasm, exaggeration, and other humorous techniques in her post and was labeled ignorant for it. Jay Severin has also gotten hate for simply saying things, and has been suspended from WTKK-FM radio for his comments. He's also been called racist, and ignorant, and all in all bad person. Here's a bit of what he said:

"So now, in addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico - women with mustaches and VD - now we have swine flu."

"It's millions of leeches from a primitive country come here to leech off you and, with it, they are ruining the schools, the hospitals, and a lot of life in America."

Now here comes the dilemma. I support freedom of speech in all of it's forms, whether or not it is the most hateful bullshit ever uttered. I will defend hateful speech. That's bad, I know, but it's necessary. But in the case of Jay over here, I understand why he's been suspended. I understand why people are angry.

People could then say to me, well, dude, why don't you understand why people are angry at Betsy Perry? If you read her blog post (linked in my previous post) you'll get why. The difference is intent. I will not empathize with people who are upset because they've misinterpreted a rather insignificant rant. One that came to no heart-felt conclusions and pushed no agenda.

I understand anger at deliberate hate. At intentional generalization, and close minded words that actually represent the speaker's point of view. What Jay said is what he thought, he can think what he thinks, but he better understand why people are angry. The man can say what he wants, but in the context of his radio program he was showing a great deal of ignorance. He wasn't mocking the hate, he wasn't being satirical, he was simply saying mean things about an entire country.

Now, whether you agree with Mr. Severin or not doesn't really matter. There is nothing wrong with being very anti-illegal immigration, or even anti-Mexico, that is simply Jay's opinion. Where the issue arises is in how he dealt with the presentation of his opinion. He could stand on a soap box, be very preachy and use scary, angry words like "leeches" or "primitives" but he did it on someone's radio station. He shouldn've thought twice. Granted, he had balls, he risked saying something that could be interpreted as very inappropriate, but what he said wasn't entirely necessary. If he had thought twice he would've realized "you know, if I make my claims like that I'll come off as kind of ignorant and dumb and maybe racist. I honestly am very upset at illegal immigrants, and since I'm passionate about this I will be very serious and deliberate in my commentary on the issue."

So, defending Severin has nothing to do with his ideas. Rather, it's his methodology, and WTKK doesn't seem to be forced by some oppressive censoring agenda to get rid of him. He's being punished because WTKK wants to uphold it's image. The company has it's own agenda. If Severin wants to comment on the issues in his own special way, he might have to go to another radio station because obviously WTKK didn't approve of that methodology.

But words are fine, depending on intent. Depending on the anger that's behind them. I don't feel bad by saying "All my Mexican lady friends have moustaches and VD." Because I don't believe it. It's an unreasonable thing to believe. But it's funny to say, because it makes little sense. Severin could probably be really funny, if he wasn't serious. So sorry you got in trouble, Jay, but that's WTKK's choice, and by not being sophisticated enough in your approach it's kinda your bad.

So the difference is intent, right? The difference between Jay and Betsy in their comments about Mexico.

Well, now let's look at the difference between this and this. Recently some Gay-rights activists have expressed concern about the content of the upcoming film by Sacha Baron Cohen, Bruno:

"Several liberal groups claimed this week that Bruno's behaviour and image – he has bleached hair, wears copious amounts of make-up, and appears to strip-wax his legs, buttocks and chest – will actually end up promoting rather than undermining homophobia."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gay-lobby-doesnt-get-the-bruno-joke-1704817.html

In the movie Cohen embodies the character of a gay Austrian fashion reporter, and through interactions with Americans exposes ignorance and idiocy in the funniest of ways. But apparently some groups think this means people might see Cohen's gay character as a bad person and begin to believe the stereotypes he portrays. With this claim comes the request that the movie should get some kind of warning label:

"Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay lobbying organisation in the US, has even called for filmgoers to be instructed about the "message" they should draw from the film."

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Comedy, art, literature, creativity does not require a warning label. They're not cigarettes. Simply seeing an individual character embody a stereotype does not generate hate. Intelligent people do not base their interpretations of people on the exaggerated images they see in the media. Obviously, what these activist groups are doing is calling most of America stupid. Alright. They can do that. And maybe all these movie goers are dumb. But if someone doesn't understand Bruno it's not Sacha Baron Cohen's fault.

And of all things, he is not encouraging homophobia! He is not saying gay people are evil and are hurting our freedoms! Considering the fact that one of the main opposing arguments against gay marriage (a stupid argument, honestly) is that legalizing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedoms of citizens, and thus their freedom of speech, an over-zealous gay-rights group moderating film content is more likely to encourage homophobia than Bruno is.

The difference is intent. And the intent can speak for itself. Bruno is not an undercover movement against gay-rights, it has no intention of hurting gay people. Nobody put a warning label on Huckleberry Finn saying "though Twain may appear to fall short in his humanization of Jim and black Americans, this book is trying to attack racism." And banning Huckleberry Finn is so 1885.

"The Concord (Mass.) Public Library committee has decided to exclude Mark Twain's latest book from the library. One member of the committee says that, while he does not wish to call it immoral, he thinks it contains but little humor, and that of a very coarse type. He regards it as the veriest trash. The library and the other members of the committee entertain similar views, characterizing it as rough, coarse, and inelegant, dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people." - 1885
http://books.google.com/books?id=fdrBtpSSCisC&pg=RA1-PA116&lpg=RA1-PA116&dq=hemingway+%22huckleberry+finn%22+%22green+hills%22&source=web&ots=BIzUvlS8O2&sig=tFc7B8esmZs6DT0gLwx-0uxRgxY#PRA1-PA119-IA5,M1

Wait, what? Huckleberry Finn was the fifth most frequently challenged book in the 90's? The 1990's? Well. I guess we haven't learned anything.

Most importantly, Bruno hasn't even been released, and people should hold judgment until it actually comes out.

That is all. Simout!

Montezuma's Revenge (On Betsy Perry)

On April 30th Huffington Post blogger Betsy Perry posted a short (what I saw as satirical) rant about the American media's portrayal of Mexico. (you can read it right here)

In short, the blog danced around in Mexican stereotypes, mentioning all the bad news that comes from Mexico: crime lords (whom she jokingly calls "Bandidos"), corrupt police, drug dealers, etc., etc, all in all making the point that, at the moment, Mexico is getting a lot of bad PR. She jokes that "Nowadays the best PR Mexico has is the movie Beverly Hills Chihuahua."

And then she makes an interesting point:

"...can it be we have been looking for just this swine flu excuse to close our borders to Mexico?"

Could this be true? People have advocated closing the border because of swine flue. According to Democratic Representative Eric Massa (N.Y):

"The public needs to be aware of the serious threat of swine flu, and we need to close our borders to Mexico immediately and completely until this is resolved."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lawmaker-wants-border-closed-over-swine-flu-2009-04-25.html

Anti-immigration activists have also used swine flu as a reason to close off the States from Mexico. So, interesting- there are a lot of people who strongly dislike Mexico, illegal immigration, and all that Jazz, and swine flu could be, as Perry states, the excuse they've been looking for.

Perry also makes the point that Mexico is losing it's tourists to other destinations, like Miami, and that she wouldn't go to Acapulco these days even if she was paid. And perhaps she's right, Mexico is having a lot of headaches.

But the whole blog was merely a rant, an observation, and some questions, quickly thrown out and said. Maybe she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Whatever. No big deal, right? Well apparently I'm wrong. Here are some of the comments made on that entry:

"This article was filled with negativity and ignorance. Not all mexicans are bandidos, and [if you] want to find some bandidos, I suggest watching western movies." inc300

"What I'm trying to say by this is that your article is based on ignorance and xenophobia." Efraim

"How can anyone express this way about a whole nation?" PPGzz

"You little piece of unprofessional mind. Poor woman, you really need to get to know the world a little bit better, travel, learn languages, study and please stop writing!" Daniela Vizcaino

"Betsy may have not realized that she arrogantly CROSSED all HUMAN RESPECT and DIGNITY boundaries by verbally abusing Mexico" LatinAmericano

"Does she really believe that 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was filmed in Mexico? Does she really believe that 'Banditos' are Mexican?" emorales

Uh... what? Did we read the same blog? No, no, I'm being serious! Did we read the SAME FUCKING BLOG?! A lot of other comments made sure to say that (and I paraphrase) "hey, I know free speech is good and all, but this is really bad stuff, Miss Perry!!!"

All I can say is What. The. Fuck. People. No where in the article does she say all Mexicans are bandidos. No sane person thinks all Mexicans are bandidos. There is more ignorance in jumping to the conclusion that someone is generalizing than there is in the mocking usage of a stereotype. No part of the article contains the words "Mexico is ____" or "All Mexican People are _____," other than when Perry states that "Mexico is going to get a big time out and spend years on the naughty chair list" if it doesn't take care of some of it's bigger problems.

What happened to the use of humor, satire, sarcasm? What happened to the artist's right to be witty, funny, and exaggerate? What ever happened to the reverence of works like A Modest Proposal, wherein Johnathan Swift suggests that "the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies."

Was he serious? No! Does Perry actually "believe that 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was filmed in Mexico" as emorales asks? No. Fucking. No.

But people are sensitive about stereotypes. They are. Sometimes using them as a joke can be misinterpreted, because stereotypes and generalizations are sometimes used to oppress verbally. Well, fine, I guess. So Perry in her rant was offensive, but she was far from xenophobic and hating of all Mexican people. I don't know her, but I can most likely say that she probably doesn't hate Mexico, either. But maybe the content was just too extreme for Huffington Post. Maybe you're not supposed to say things like "bandidos" or "Montezuma's Revenge."

Oh wait:

"Karl Rove is one of those legendary mythological creatures: half doughy man-boy, half ratfucker. It's his nature. Once a ratfucker, always a ratfucker... Ratfucking in the private sector. Ratfucking at the mall. Ratfucking in the self-checkout aisle at the grocery store." Bob Cesca

"I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired of pink men spouting nonsense on TV. I am so tired of pink men arguing, blathering, bloviating, predicting the future--usually wrongly--and telling women to shut up." Erica Jong

So, it's ok to talk about Karl Rove "ratfucking" and purposefully overuse the possibly offensive term for comedic and emotional effect? And it's ok to generalize about "pink men" being lazy at home, spending all their wives' money, and lying on television- as if all "pink men" were the same?

Well, to be honest, it IS ok. To generalize. Nobody wants to make sure Bob Cesca doesn't think Karl Rove isn't human, he's being sarcastic to make a point about his dissaproval. Erica Jong (hopefully) doesn't hate all white men, no, she used repetitive sentence structure, the reoccuring use of the phrase "I am so tired of pink men," in order to make a point and make her commentary.

None of them were spammed with angry comments. None of them have stopped posting at Huffington Post. And I bet they've gotten a lot less hate mail. And none of them lost their membership on a board because of these posts. At least, I don't think they did. But you know who did?

That "poor woman," Betsy. Because of overwhelming pressure, and the fear that this pointless fucking debacle would be a distraction to Mayor Bloomberg of New York, she stepped down from her post as a member of the Women's Commission.

"Betsy Perry, the Women's Issues Commission member who drew fire for her anti-Mexico essay last week, has resigned, the Bloomberg administration said Tuesday."
NY Daily News

So even the news is calling it an "anti-Mexico essay" and an "anti-Mexico rant." What a sad place we live in. And oh yeah, she volunteered under Mayor Bloomberg. On the Women's Commission. She wasn't part of anything regarding Mexico, immigration, social studies and Mexican Education or anything remotely involving her little rant. But she had an important position as part of "an advisory body to the Mayor on matters impacting the lives of New York City women." (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cwi/html/about/about.shtml)

And people are proud of this.

"The Mexican and Mexican-American communities scored a victory when they sent a clear message to the administration of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: We will not tolerate being insulted and being called 'bandit swine flu carriers,' as Betsy Perry called us."
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/372/editorials/editorials/

Well, good job entire Mexican and Mexican-American community (because I'm sure its fine to generalize in this instance and say that all Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are better because of this. All of them. Every single fucking one of them!) you got her to resign. You made one lady, who apparently made a silly mistake of judgement by saying things, to step down from a relatively important position. Bravo. Bravo.

And she never said that Mexicans were all "bandit swine flu carriers." Anything close to that wasn't serious, was sarcasm. Sure, she may have an irrational fear of Mexico because of all the scary news, but whatever. She didn't hurt anyone.

She didn't hurt anyone.

So basically, I'm tired of selective free speech. Free speech being ok only when certain people like it. People had to right to get angry at Betsy. They did. But she should have fought for her right to say what she said. We all have freedom of speech, as long as we fight for it, and I'm sad that Betsy tried to keep things low-key, normal, and safe by stepping down. I'm a little upset she didn't stand up more for herself. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe she didn't have the choice.

Whether she did or not doesn't matter now. All that matters is that if this ever happens to me, I make the choice to stand up for myself, even if it isn't a feasible option. Because if I don't, I'm wrong, and I don't have freedom of speech.

That is all. Simout!

Seal of Dissaproval

PETA. They'll probably be a regular here. For lot's of reasons. But I'll start with something relatively new. Some time this year PETA launched a "campaign" against the Vancouver Winter Olympics called Olympic Shame. Their reason? Because of seal hunting which, according to the wikipedia, kills over 200,000 seals annually. I guess that's fucked up. Seals are cute, right?

I'm not going to have an opinion on the seal clubbing. I'm only going to judge to protests from both sides, especially the idiocy on PETA's part. I repeat: I will not have an opinion on seal hunting. Why? Because I eat veal. I eat dead baby cows. And I love the way it tastes. For me to give a shit I'd be a huge hypocrite. And I try not to be one. I don't wanna look like an asshole, like this guy protesting fur in a leather jacket. (Courtesy of deceiver.com)

So, PETA's tactics have always been a bit... radical. Almost funny in their obsessive use of violence and sex to sell animal rights. When you see their ads and their protests, it's hard to take them seriously. I mean, what the fuck? Being naked, in a shallow pool, in front of a large American flag has nothing to do with fur! PETA must hate our ancestors from thousands of years ago who lived in cold areas like Canada and had to wear fur to keep warm. Those assholes! They shoulda gone naked!

And this new website is nothing new. It's got a style reminiscent of Cooking Mama and Super Chick Sisters. (God, I hate giving them free hits... but the shit can only be mocked) The flash animations used are cartoony, almost as if they were directed towards kids. (like these comics that were handed out to kids) And the manipulation and fear tactics are very obvious. The home page has a video of cute seals with soothing music for the first half, and the second half has cheesy horror music and video of people clubbing and killing seals. Luckily, people aren't as easily swayed by this anymore. At least, I hope that if someone is shown a video consisting of cute kittens and then evil people killing the kittens they aren't completely prone to manipulation.

So the website asks people to do several things. First off, obviously, is raise awareness. Fine. Second, donate to PETA to help raise awareness. And thirdly, boycott Canadian maple syrup, which is, to say the least, retarded. PETA says this about the maple syrup:

"Canada produces approximately 85 percent of the world's maple syrup, with the U.S. as its largest consumer, and by buying this Canadian product, you are supporting Canadian cruelty."
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2209

Ok... so it might seem like a good idea to stick it to the Canada Man by refusing to buy their syrup, but as far as I'm concerned seal hunting and syrup making are two completely fucking different industries. If Canada really does produce 85% of the world's maple syrup we can assume it's one of the biggest industries in Canada, thus hiring a lot of people for sales, production, management, farming, etc, etc. So by boycotting something that isn't related to seal hunting, PETA is encouraging people to hurt the Canadian work force. Luckily, since PETA is not too large of a group, their influence will be insignificant and any economic issues they do cause with the boycott will only make them look like the problem.

So I don't agree with PETA's methods. In fact, they're kinda like the KKK (not really, but hear me out): if the KKK supported some candidate or issue, that person or problem would suddenly lose some face. Look stupid. Bigoted. Evil, per se. Same thing with PETA. In fact, their shock based campaigns are probably not helping at all. I feel like the people at PETA have more fun protesting against the cruelty and murder of animals than actually getting results, seeing as they don't mind euthanizing pets themselves. I mean, what could be more fun than posing naked and rolling around in blood naked or hitting plush baby seals? The only thing that would make it more fun is if they beat the stuffed seal toys with baseball bats while naked.

And the stupid thing is, what PETA is doing is unnecessary. People are going through the right channels to stop the seal hunting already. In fact, the members of European parliament recently passed a law banning import of seal products from Canada. Of course, PETA claims that this was because of them:

"Following our campaign in which over 100,000 letters and emails were sent by compassionate PETA supporters... the MEPs have voted in favour of the seals. Well done everybody!"
http://blog.peta.org.uk/2009/major-victory-for-seals-slaughtered-in-canada

But I have a different example. An old example. From nineteen fucking seventy-two. The Marine Mammal Protection Act. Bam.

"MMPA prohibits the taking of marine mammals, and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, along with any marine mammal part or product within the United States."

So people with actual influence (ie: the United States Government) have been pressuring Canada to stop this. With relevant boycotts. For over thirty years. And recently more governments are going to do the same thing. So, PETA, step back, and let the big boys take care of this. Anything you do would be minor. The most you could do is hurt Maple Syrup factory workers. I know you don't care about people, but c'mon. Just chill.

I'm not telling you to stop protesting. You gotta find some way to have fun.

But what's also ridiculous is the reaction on the part of Inuit leaders in Canada, who are upset because seal sales are a big part of their economy.

"Nunavut sealers harvest about 35,000 seals per year, with about 10,000 to 11,000 sold on the open market. Seals also provide an essential food source for Inuit in Nunavut communities, said Daniel Shewchuk, the territory's environment minister."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/05/06/inuit-seal-eu-reax.html

I think this is retarded. Retarded. If the world community wants to enforce laws to end cruelty to cute little seals, people shouldn't get all hot and bothered because "how important seals are to [their culture]." They can adapt, can't they? Let's put it this way, if a native population of some country has historically made money selling flesh and skin (how about, human flesh and skin? Like a sex trade?) and this trade is being recognized as wrong and out of hand, that community shouldn't be able to claim cultural right to the trade.

Even if the Inuit are "humane" with the killings, if some people are given special rights to hunt seals, it could be manipulated. Like casinos on Indian Reservations. I know I sound like an asshole, but c'mon.

That is all. Simout!

Ingeo Bioplastics is in the House! Or: how much I hate water bottles.

Old news. Hate me. But it's my first actual post with substance. I missed this tidbit from last September borderline October:

"As part of its Green the Capital program, the House of Representatives has replaced plastic water bottles sold in its cafeterias with compostable bottles."
http://www.greenerdesign.com/news/2008/10/01/corn-based-water-bottles

So a bunch of hippies would probably jump for joy upon hearing that. Oh boy, the government is actually attempting to green shit! (Note: The only green shit I'm familiar with is a byproduct of blue-raspberry sherbert at Baskin Robins) Everything is apparently very awesome once corn plastic products are announced. At least, it seems as though people are excited about little stuff like this. Aren't you a Facebook fan of Ingeo, the corn-based polylactic acid product?

Moving on:

"Bill Horner, president and CEO of Naturally Iowa, said that controlled tests show that the bottles can compost in less than 30 days in ideal conditions in an industrial composter."

Well, I'm sure that's all fine and dandy and environmental friendly and whatnot, but now for a little bit of the negative: The corn used for these plastics is diverted from the world food supply. But, I mean, we eat the most food already, what's a little bit more? And secondly: the corn plastics require very specialized conditions to biodegrade. So even if the House already has a place to send all their compost that will properly disentigrate this stuff, some bottles are going to "accidentally" end up in trash cans, or recycling. Ingeo can't be recycled, and will not degrade quickly in a land fill, despite Bill Horner's claim that it would (depending on where it landed, apparently). In fact, Ingeo won't even biodegrade in your personal compost. Because I know we all have one. Whatever. To me, all that pocket pool is besides the point.

But what is the point, you ask? Simple.

Instead of banning non-biodegradable bottles from their food courts, the Legislative Branch should stop buying fucking water bottles. I mean, I understand it when some idiot gets finagled into buying the cool Alpine water taste, or the natural God's piss flavor bull shit (or, in this case, the taste of Grand Springs) but a fucking politician? I mean, I thought they were supposed to be smart. Didn't they graduate from college, or something? Like, get grades and shit? 'Cause they're excellent liars. I usually expect liars to be a little smarter, but I guess not.

And apparently these cafeterias sell over 100,000 water bottles annually. Fuck the environment for a second: that's a waste of money. A waste of my money! Even if it is a few cents per tax payer, I want to let it be known that if I'm paying for drinks in the House it better be Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. Water is something we're already paying for. And you'd figure some politicians would get that. If they're thirsty, they should drink from a fountain, or the tap. If there aren't any water fountains, well there are alternatives. Here's my eight step guide to getting water without wasting money on fucking bottled water:

1. When you're about to leave you're nice fancy home, go to the cupboard in your kitchen.
2. No, not that cupboard. To the left one.
3. That's right. Now open it. Look inside.
   
4. See the cups?
5. Grab one.
6. Put it in your satchel.
7. When you're thirsty, go to the bathroom to fill up your cup.
8. No, not like that. With the faucet.

See? It's a fucking piece of cake! And if you did this, you could have Tay Zonday approved drinks in no time. Plus, if you wanna be a real stickler for green shit, have it be Ingeo plastic Dr. Pepper.

That's all. Simout!

EDIT: Forgot to post this, the facts on why tap water is safer and better than bottled.

A Blog

I've long despised. Hated. Darn tootin' looked down upon. With one of those sickly faces of disgust. But I'm douchey enough. Fucking douchey enough. To think that I can write what I think and press a button an' make it like real life. For real.

So to keep up with the times but not tweet like the fuck-holes who tweet (you know who you are. If you don't, check with your PR crew, because someone is sending out tweets to improve your image) I've decided to try out a blog. I wanna see if people are interested enough in my musings. See, there's the title. Musings + Simonet= musingonet. It's fucking clever. Blow me. I deserve a kneeling ovation.

If this picks up, I'll use my own domain. Jack off with the written word under a totally legit url. And maybe make some dough. Y'know, like, real life style. And pay for college. Because that's the point of it all. Paying. And college. Especially when it's expensive. Boom chacalaca.

I read up on all the tips to make a successful blog. But it was bull shit. Kinda, at least. It's the kinda shit that encourages social marketing, and interweb niches of sorts, where people of like interests "gather together" and "form a community." Bull shit. I don't want no part in that fuckery. So this isn't for an interest. This isn't a home base for people who like cooking for furries or anything. This is what I like. This is what I want to say. This is my little world.

But the great thing is that it's open. We'll never be a community, but rather, a dialogue. If you want to. A dialogue between You and Me. So come to disagree, attempt to prove me wrong, or simply to just witness. Because, afterall, I'm just talking to thin air until you come knocking.

So if you've arrived, enjoy the ride!

NOTE: The ride is not eco friendly. To make up for the fact this will all be online I burn a forest daily.

That is all. Simout!