I was reading Mutant Cat's blog and decided I could one-up her on the attention grabbing post title.
So aside from silly search engine manipulation games, I wanted to alienate some readers today. Well, actually I don't really want to alienate readers but I suspect my angry rant today can't help but put some people offside. The reason is statistically, it's a safe bet that at least 25% of people reading this blog are smokers and there's no nice way to say this: smoking is really fucking stupid.
I recognise that the previous sentence is technically inaccurate: there are potentially many nice ways to say smoking is stupid. Fucked if I can be bothered coming up with one though.
Smoking is expensing, stinky, disgusting, insulting and offensive to people around you, destroys your quality of life and ENDS UP FUCKING KILLING YOU! Usually in a slow, painful, disgusting manner. There is no rational defence to smoking. It isn't a personal choice that you should have the right to. Unless you want to limit your smoking to a closed room somewhere AND NEVER FUCKING DO IT IN PUBLIC WHERE I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT! Seriously, if you want to assert your right to smoke do it in your own home and don't interfere with my fucking right to breathe!
And fuck the idea of smokers' rights! What about axe murderer's rights? Axe murderers kill way less people than smoking (like, several million less) but the law is all over axe murderers. The best I can hope is that bans on smoking in public places continue to spread. Count yourself lucky smokers, axe murderers aren't even able to indulge in the privacy of their own homes without "the man" getting all up in their face.
The only downside to banning smoking in public is that prohibition gives it an aura of rebellion. To really fucking stupid people. I might add that these stupid people are often very intelligent in almost every other aspect of their life but they make this one really dumb choice. I remember a quote from Timothy Leary where he said something along the lines that when he was once told it was illegal to smoke in an airport, he blew smoke in the person's face saying he was "proud to be a criminal". And if I'd been there I would've been proud to smack him in the fucking mouth for saying something so irredeemably stupid.
If you want to make me really angry, proclaim that you're a radical lefty while smoking. Yeah right, you're radical. While supporting some of the biggest most corrupt corporations on the planet who kill people with their lies, coerce third world farmers into growing the cash crop of tobacco rather than food that might actually keep people alive and refuse to accept their moral responsibility for marketing a product whose sole side effect is death. There is no safe level of smoking.
The only justification I'll listen to from a smoker is "I got suckered into smoking and now I'm hopelessly addicted to this disgusting habit and I'm incapable of giving up." Anything else is bullshit. And the only justification I'll accept from someone who insists on screwing up public spaces with smoking is "This is a suicide attempt - I want you to strangle me."
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Of Phones and Phone Companies
One of my readers, Dr Nazli, suggested to me that mobile phone phone reception was worth getting angry about. I certainly agree but I wasn't sure how to approach it as the subject of mobiles feels like it has been done to death. I ruminated for a while, and the more rum I drank, the angrier I got. I tried to explain to the police officer that the rum drinking was absolutely necessary but he seemed to have his own opinion on the matter. The consensus is - we'll let a judge sort it out.
Which has very little to do with mobile phones.
The development of mobile phone services in Australia, and telecommunications generally, has been a bit weird. Not unique, but from what I read it's certainly been different here to many other developed nations. We had a big incumbent government-owned telco (now knows as Telstra) who up until recently (the 90's) ran the entire phone service as a monopoly. At the time I thought this had some pluses and some minuses but in retrospect it seems to have been a shitload of minuses that totally outweighs the pluses.
One of the pluses is coverage being mandated by law where there may not be any commercial incentive to provide coverage. In short, Australia is a big place with lots of empty or almost empty spaces. Phone companies can't make money providing service to people in really remote areas unless they charge them about a million bucks so, unless you're Ayn Rand, it's kind of fair to subsidise rural communities. Another plus is that as new companies entered the market they were forced to make their services totally compatible with other providers. I've heard in the US there can be quite severe connectivity problems between providers and text/sms is basically a no-go.
We don't have that problem so sms has been a big thing here for years. They rates we get charged are absolute bullshit but there is a bit of an issue with the fact that economies of scale that are available in Europe, Asia, and the Americas don't really exist here. As a former prime minister put it, in many ways this is "the arse end of the world." All of which doesn't tell you what I'm angry about.
I've had problems with mobile reception, in fact there's some weird anomaly with my apartment building being this huge old structure with thick walls that cuts off my mobile reception almost completely when I'm at home. But that's never made me particularly angry. What makes me angry is the constant self-interested lying by phone companies. From what I've seen, this problem is world-wide. A few local examples:
It used to be illegal to buy or sell phone handsets that weren't provided by Telstra. This ban was couched in terms of safety and while there are some legitimate safety issues, it was largely bullshit. It was little more than artificial market control and it helped nobody - not even Telstra when you look at the explosion of services available now.
When faxes were new, Telstra convinced everybody you needed a "special" phone line for them. You couldn't use an existing phone line - you had to pay for another line to be installed and it was more expensive to run. More bullshit.
In the early days of the net we came perilously close to having timed local calls "to stop internet users from overloading the phone system". The idea put about by Telstra and the government minister was that people were connecting to the net and (shock, horror!) staying connected for a really long time which would ultimately result in you not getting a dial tone when you picked up the phone because all the lines were busy. BTW, sucks to be you if you do have timed local calls where you live. If this had gone through, it would have strangled internet growth and cost billions in lost business opportunities and productivity. It never went in and surprise, surprise, the phone system never ground to a halt.
Sometimes you have to protect morons from themselves.
We still have really low broadband penetration because it's too fucking expensive. And you'd think by now phone companies would realise how valuable the net was to them and they'd stop fucking around with it. If you want evidence of how depressingly greedy telcos are world-wide, spend a bit of time on the Electronic Frontier Federation's web site, specifically look at the issue of net neutrality.
These scumbags are trying to screw up the internet for everyone while lining their pockets, all the while saying it's their right. Crooks and liars.
Which has very little to do with mobile phones.
The development of mobile phone services in Australia, and telecommunications generally, has been a bit weird. Not unique, but from what I read it's certainly been different here to many other developed nations. We had a big incumbent government-owned telco (now knows as Telstra) who up until recently (the 90's) ran the entire phone service as a monopoly. At the time I thought this had some pluses and some minuses but in retrospect it seems to have been a shitload of minuses that totally outweighs the pluses.
One of the pluses is coverage being mandated by law where there may not be any commercial incentive to provide coverage. In short, Australia is a big place with lots of empty or almost empty spaces. Phone companies can't make money providing service to people in really remote areas unless they charge them about a million bucks so, unless you're Ayn Rand, it's kind of fair to subsidise rural communities. Another plus is that as new companies entered the market they were forced to make their services totally compatible with other providers. I've heard in the US there can be quite severe connectivity problems between providers and text/sms is basically a no-go.
We don't have that problem so sms has been a big thing here for years. They rates we get charged are absolute bullshit but there is a bit of an issue with the fact that economies of scale that are available in Europe, Asia, and the Americas don't really exist here. As a former prime minister put it, in many ways this is "the arse end of the world." All of which doesn't tell you what I'm angry about.
I've had problems with mobile reception, in fact there's some weird anomaly with my apartment building being this huge old structure with thick walls that cuts off my mobile reception almost completely when I'm at home. But that's never made me particularly angry. What makes me angry is the constant self-interested lying by phone companies. From what I've seen, this problem is world-wide. A few local examples:
It used to be illegal to buy or sell phone handsets that weren't provided by Telstra. This ban was couched in terms of safety and while there are some legitimate safety issues, it was largely bullshit. It was little more than artificial market control and it helped nobody - not even Telstra when you look at the explosion of services available now.
When faxes were new, Telstra convinced everybody you needed a "special" phone line for them. You couldn't use an existing phone line - you had to pay for another line to be installed and it was more expensive to run. More bullshit.
In the early days of the net we came perilously close to having timed local calls "to stop internet users from overloading the phone system". The idea put about by Telstra and the government minister was that people were connecting to the net and (shock, horror!) staying connected for a really long time which would ultimately result in you not getting a dial tone when you picked up the phone because all the lines were busy. BTW, sucks to be you if you do have timed local calls where you live. If this had gone through, it would have strangled internet growth and cost billions in lost business opportunities and productivity. It never went in and surprise, surprise, the phone system never ground to a halt.
Sometimes you have to protect morons from themselves.
We still have really low broadband penetration because it's too fucking expensive. And you'd think by now phone companies would realise how valuable the net was to them and they'd stop fucking around with it. If you want evidence of how depressingly greedy telcos are world-wide, spend a bit of time on the Electronic Frontier Federation's web site, specifically look at the issue of net neutrality.
These scumbags are trying to screw up the internet for everyone while lining their pockets, all the while saying it's their right. Crooks and liars.
What are you lookin' at?
You know those moments when you make eye contact with someone inadvertently, then you hold it too long so you end up having a conversation that goes:
"What?"
"What?"
"What?"
"What?"
Yep. One of those days.
"What?"
"What?"
"What?"
"What?"
Yep. One of those days.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Not Without My Foreskin
Where do my blog ideas come from? Sometimes from the most innocent of beginnings - I'm sure some of the people involved in conversations with me would be mortified at the blog postings that come out of my casual chats. Last weekend was no exception. A perfectly normal conversation that somehow got around to circumcision that made me exclaim "Oh my god, do you know there are losers out there who obsess so much about being circumcised that they go to a huge amount of trouble to 'reclaim their foreskin'?" Nobody else had heard of this or was interested in discussing it further.
A blog post is born.
It strikes me as absurd and perhaps more than a little sick, that in a world so full of problems and injustice, some men can treat the fact they were circumcised as one of the biggest travesties of modern life. Hey guys, you're free to wish it had never happened to you, your free to pursue your weird foreskin-extension programme, but don't you think you should get a bit of fucking perspective?
I will go on record as saying circumcision is unnecessary. I don't think anyone's built a compelling case for a medical need or even significant benefit for circumcision. Some people have tried - Dr John Harvey Kellog (yes, the cornflakes inventor) proclaimed: "The remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision." Yeah, nice one Dr K. I'm circumcised and, not that I'm of the opinion that masturbation needs to be "cured", I can safely assure the good doctor that he was off the mark with that idea.
Actually, the best pro-circumcision argument I've ever heard comes from gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage who says, gay or straight, circumcised boys will get more blowjobs. The line forms over there fellahs.
So it's perfectly possible to mount a good case that circumcision is unnecessary. I just think you're undermining your case when you say things like "these doctors... have blood on their hands from torturing and mutilating thousands of baby boys." Oh, and forming associations like the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, the National Organisation to Halt Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) and Brothers United For Foreskin (BUFF) might make you feel important, but to rational people it makes you look like a dork.
And the solution these obsessive types have is sometimes surgical but most often a stretching regimen that last for a year or two. Then these lucky men are "re-uncircumcised". I might be overly suspicious but after doing research on the web sites for these "fauxskin" evangelists, I got the creepy feeling this was just a bunch of guys who wanted to stretch and contort their dicks and are dressing this fetish up as a noble cause.
I'm sure these foreskin evangelists will say that I, as a circumcised male who doesn't give a shit, am in denial. But excuse me if there's a few injustices I want to sort out before I bother with "the crime of circumcision".
A blog post is born.
It strikes me as absurd and perhaps more than a little sick, that in a world so full of problems and injustice, some men can treat the fact they were circumcised as one of the biggest travesties of modern life. Hey guys, you're free to wish it had never happened to you, your free to pursue your weird foreskin-extension programme, but don't you think you should get a bit of fucking perspective?
I will go on record as saying circumcision is unnecessary. I don't think anyone's built a compelling case for a medical need or even significant benefit for circumcision. Some people have tried - Dr John Harvey Kellog (yes, the cornflakes inventor) proclaimed: "The remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision." Yeah, nice one Dr K. I'm circumcised and, not that I'm of the opinion that masturbation needs to be "cured", I can safely assure the good doctor that he was off the mark with that idea.
Actually, the best pro-circumcision argument I've ever heard comes from gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage who says, gay or straight, circumcised boys will get more blowjobs. The line forms over there fellahs.
So it's perfectly possible to mount a good case that circumcision is unnecessary. I just think you're undermining your case when you say things like "these doctors... have blood on their hands from torturing and mutilating thousands of baby boys." Oh, and forming associations like the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, the National Organisation to Halt Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) and Brothers United For Foreskin (BUFF) might make you feel important, but to rational people it makes you look like a dork.
And the solution these obsessive types have is sometimes surgical but most often a stretching regimen that last for a year or two. Then these lucky men are "re-uncircumcised". I might be overly suspicious but after doing research on the web sites for these "fauxskin" evangelists, I got the creepy feeling this was just a bunch of guys who wanted to stretch and contort their dicks and are dressing this fetish up as a noble cause.
I'm sure these foreskin evangelists will say that I, as a circumcised male who doesn't give a shit, am in denial. But excuse me if there's a few injustices I want to sort out before I bother with "the crime of circumcision".
Milestones
A few things I can't be angry about:
I do this blog on both Blogger and Wordpress. The content is identical - I'm trying to decide which software I prefer. Not only am I leaning towards Wordpress because of some of its features, but since around the 400 visitors mark the Wordpress blog viewings have been growing at around twice the rate of this one. Yesterday I hit three milestones with the Wordpress blog: over 1000 total viewings, more than 100 viewings in a single day (for the first time) and more than 200 comments total. Even after I deleted the comment spam. Small potatoes in the big world of blogging but I feel good this morning. I love each and every one of my readers! On both blogs. If I add them together I guess I'm approaching 2000 views which is pretty cool.
One thing I'm sad about:
I just found out that Grant McClennan of the Go-Betweens died on Saturday night. They were a great band, not may favourite but McClennan was responsible for on of my all-time favourite song lyrics:
The white moon comes out
Like a hole in the sky
The mangrove goes quiet
They were at their height in the 80's (in my opinion) although they had reformed six years ago and seemed to be getting some mainstream attention lately. So how can I explain them for you kids who never heard of them? Put it this way: without The Go-Betweens there is no Belle and Sebastian.
I promise to write an angry post later today. I think it will be about foreskins.
I do this blog on both Blogger and Wordpress. The content is identical - I'm trying to decide which software I prefer. Not only am I leaning towards Wordpress because of some of its features, but since around the 400 visitors mark the Wordpress blog viewings have been growing at around twice the rate of this one. Yesterday I hit three milestones with the Wordpress blog: over 1000 total viewings, more than 100 viewings in a single day (for the first time) and more than 200 comments total. Even after I deleted the comment spam. Small potatoes in the big world of blogging but I feel good this morning. I love each and every one of my readers! On both blogs. If I add them together I guess I'm approaching 2000 views which is pretty cool.
One thing I'm sad about:
I just found out that Grant McClennan of the Go-Betweens died on Saturday night. They were a great band, not may favourite but McClennan was responsible for on of my all-time favourite song lyrics:
The white moon comes out
Like a hole in the sky
The mangrove goes quiet
They were at their height in the 80's (in my opinion) although they had reformed six years ago and seemed to be getting some mainstream attention lately. So how can I explain them for you kids who never heard of them? Put it this way: without The Go-Betweens there is no Belle and Sebastian.
I promise to write an angry post later today. I think it will be about foreskins.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The Church of Colbert
One week on and Stephen Colbert is no less a god and the US media and right wingers are no less a pack of weenies. So I have decided to make it official.
I am convening the international inter-faith non-demoninational Church of Colbert.
He is the god of all who want to stand up to bullies and the patron saint of bravery. You don't have to renounce any other faith to join the Church of Colbert just take the daily challenge:
Did I do anything today that measures up to facing down the president of the United States and calling him a lying sack of shit to his face?
I know for myself the odds are the answer will always be no. But keep trying. Maybe you can do better.
I am convening the international inter-faith non-demoninational Church of Colbert.
He is the god of all who want to stand up to bullies and the patron saint of bravery. You don't have to renounce any other faith to join the Church of Colbert just take the daily challenge:
Did I do anything today that measures up to facing down the president of the United States and calling him a lying sack of shit to his face?
I know for myself the odds are the answer will always be no. But keep trying. Maybe you can do better.
Angry at Blog Advertising?
Yes dear readers, there's a question mark in that heading and it's deliberate. There is certainly some blog advertising that makes me angry but it doesn't make me angry by definition. I'm not planning to put advertising on this blog anytime soon but, hey, if I ended up with a million readers I'd want to try and screw some cash out of the situation. I can't imagine using anything much more intrusive that Google Adsense unless of course I come up with some Mr Angry merchandise like "I sodomise wallabies and I vote" bumper stickers.
I've seen some personal blogs where people go a bit hard at the "monetising" idea - to the point where you can't work out if there's any actual content on the site. Often there isn't, it's a whole page of ads but it takes you five minutes to work that out. Virtually every big blog has advertising and they handle it different ways from relatively understated to horrifically intrusive. What got me thinking about this was reading a blog called 37 Signals where some people were getting really vitriolic about advertising in their comments. It surprised me that people could still get so worked up at the concept of advertising so I thought I'd ask my eminently intelligent readers for their opinion.
For an example of a big blog that has lots of advertising done in a way that I think is acceptable look at BoingBoing. Not to everyone's taste but I think it's OK. For an example of badly done ads look at the Dilbert blog published by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. I'm not going to link because his site spawns pop-ups and pop-unders and annoying fucking flashing ads and I don't feel like inflicting that on you. Go check it out if you want. It's easy to find. Scott Adams is rich and popular and often very funny and as far as I'm concerned he's sending a big "fuck you" to his fans.
He doesn't need to have advertising this abusive, he could make a fortune out of text-only ads because, simply put, advertisers would pay whatever he asks in order to reach his readers. On top of that, he's been guilty in the past of advertising products like "free" cursors and screensavers that install spyware on your computer. Call me crazy but I think all advertising decisions have a moral dimension and it really sucks when you have the opportunity to make better decisions and you make really crap decisions.
So what do you think dear readers? Is advertising on a blog acceptable? Are there any limits? Enlighten me.
I've seen some personal blogs where people go a bit hard at the "monetising" idea - to the point where you can't work out if there's any actual content on the site. Often there isn't, it's a whole page of ads but it takes you five minutes to work that out. Virtually every big blog has advertising and they handle it different ways from relatively understated to horrifically intrusive. What got me thinking about this was reading a blog called 37 Signals where some people were getting really vitriolic about advertising in their comments. It surprised me that people could still get so worked up at the concept of advertising so I thought I'd ask my eminently intelligent readers for their opinion.
For an example of a big blog that has lots of advertising done in a way that I think is acceptable look at BoingBoing. Not to everyone's taste but I think it's OK. For an example of badly done ads look at the Dilbert blog published by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. I'm not going to link because his site spawns pop-ups and pop-unders and annoying fucking flashing ads and I don't feel like inflicting that on you. Go check it out if you want. It's easy to find. Scott Adams is rich and popular and often very funny and as far as I'm concerned he's sending a big "fuck you" to his fans.
He doesn't need to have advertising this abusive, he could make a fortune out of text-only ads because, simply put, advertisers would pay whatever he asks in order to reach his readers. On top of that, he's been guilty in the past of advertising products like "free" cursors and screensavers that install spyware on your computer. Call me crazy but I think all advertising decisions have a moral dimension and it really sucks when you have the opportunity to make better decisions and you make really crap decisions.
So what do you think dear readers? Is advertising on a blog acceptable? Are there any limits? Enlighten me.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Angry at Drug Policy
I'm veering into local politics today, although there's some application to the wider world. Most afternoons as I drive home from work I listen to Triple J on the radio. For non-Australian readers Triple J is a little hard to explain, I'm not sure of any international equivalents. It's a nation-wide, non-commercial, youth-oriented network. It's government owned so it's paid for out of tax dollars not advertising which means they can be a lot more "out there" than mainstream stations. They have a half-hour current affair program called "Hack" that runs Monday to Friday at about the time I'm usually driving home so most days I listen to it.
The stories they cover can be quite interesting and lately they've run a few stories on some unusually intelligent seminars being held on the topic of illicit drugs. One was an academic forum that dared to raise the topic of "people do drugs because it's fun". The other was a government inquiry that seemed to be headed by a conservative politician who actually wanted some honest insight from young drug users about their experiences and some input on what might work in the realm of education/enforcement/harm minimisation.
I'll tell you what's always made me angry about drug policy here (and most overseas drug policy we hear about) - it's based on lies. And young people know it's lies. They know "old people" and authority figures (parents, teachers, cops, politicians) lie to them all the time. You see an anti drug campaign saying "ooo drugs are bad, you'll ruin your life, take drugs once and you could die from an overdose." You look around and see in real life lots of people are doing drugs with no apparent problems. It's easy to find evidence that prohibition doesn't work, that corrupt cops and politicians are involved in the drug trade, that alcohol and cigarettes cause way more damage to society than illegal drugs. So you come to the obvious conclusion:
They're all talking shit and I shouldn't listen to anything they say.
When you know most of what you're being told about the risks of drug-taking is bullshit, it's a short leap to thinking everything you're being told is bullshit. "I don't have to listen to anything they say because it's all crap, I can do speed and ecstasy all weekend for years on end with no side-effects and give up whenever I want." And so these young, immortal people put themselves in harms way because it's so fucking hard to get some honest advice on what you should and shouldn't do. Your parents say "don't do any drugs ever" and your friend say "let's do drugs all the time" and, well, your friends are way cooler than your parents and you don't wanna look uncool so what way do you go?
Duh!
I have a slightly unusual history with drugs. I didn't do them at all in school or college. College was a bit of a struggle because I went to major party college where people were doing drugs all the time. I was probably offered drugs for free a couple of times every week while I was at college. I also didn't drink alcohol at all while I was at college. My excuse - I was weird enough without artificial additives. Truth be told, I was more than a little worried how I would behave. Anyone reading this blog might notice I have... strange thought processes. I have always been this way. I was more than a little worried how far I might go off the rails if I took drugs.
I did get into drugs and partying in my 20s, not in a particularly excessive way but I had a lot of fun. I decided to stop altogether when my first-born arrived. I hated the idea that there might come a time she was dependent on me and I couldn't help her because I was fucked up on drugs. It was strange to me (ironic?) that some people who applauded this decision were pretty serious drinkers and of course they couldn't help their child if they were drunk. Back to the central hypocrisy issue I guess.
Anyway, my honest drugs policy? Listen up kids:
Most people do drugs because it's fun. There are lots of other reasons people take drugs; painful experiences (physical or emotional), feeling desperate, as a response to abuse, that old standby "peer pressure" (although I think this is hugely over-emphasised by those damn old people). But if you ignore the fun factor you aren't being honest.
Most people who do drugs don't get addicted. Some do, and addiction is really fucked. It's perfectly possible to recover from addiction but you probably will fuck up your life in the meantime. There are levels of addiction. Some drugs are worse for addiction, as in you're more likely to get addicted and the effects of addiction are worse. The warning signs: if you're saying things like "I can't have fun without drugs (or alcohol)" or "I have to take way more than I used to just to get a buzz" you're in trouble. Stop. Simple as that. Stop taking them for a while. You get two good effects: one, your body recovers and you might realise you don't actually need to take them any more. Two, if you go back to using after a while it will be more fun. Sorry if that upsets anyone but it's true.
Despite the scare tactics bullshit it is actually possible that a single dose of drugs can kill you, or at least put you in a really bad situation. Quite frankly, a lot of people who take drugs are filthy fucking skeezes or at least halfway decent people who act like filthy fucking skeezes when they're on drugs. If somebody is trying to coerce you into taking drugs and you're not sure - don't do it. It's more than likely anybody who tries to pressure another person into doing drugs is a rotten piece of shit (and to indulge in a stereotype here, I'm thinking mainly of males coercing females). Be safe. Think things through. Don't do drugs alone. Make sure you're with people you can trust. And, like a designated driver, have a designated "clean and sober" person - the one who stops you from choking on vomit and calls the ambulance when it's necessary.
Anyone who takes drugs and is honest knows they can fuck you up. The thing that makes me angry is that authority figures won't admit it's possible to have fun with drugs without fucking up. And so the natural rebellion of youth kicks in. I've seen first hand examples of people descending into smack addiction, having full-on psychotic breaks from speed/amphetamine abuse, damage their brains with acid and well, everyone's seen the pathetic stoner fuck-up who smokes too much dope.
So my policy is that if you're honest about everything (drugs can be fun!) then the health and safety message (drugs can fuck you up!) is more likely to get through. Because it's bloody obvious the current approach isn't working.
The stories they cover can be quite interesting and lately they've run a few stories on some unusually intelligent seminars being held on the topic of illicit drugs. One was an academic forum that dared to raise the topic of "people do drugs because it's fun". The other was a government inquiry that seemed to be headed by a conservative politician who actually wanted some honest insight from young drug users about their experiences and some input on what might work in the realm of education/enforcement/harm minimisation.
I'll tell you what's always made me angry about drug policy here (and most overseas drug policy we hear about) - it's based on lies. And young people know it's lies. They know "old people" and authority figures (parents, teachers, cops, politicians) lie to them all the time. You see an anti drug campaign saying "ooo drugs are bad, you'll ruin your life, take drugs once and you could die from an overdose." You look around and see in real life lots of people are doing drugs with no apparent problems. It's easy to find evidence that prohibition doesn't work, that corrupt cops and politicians are involved in the drug trade, that alcohol and cigarettes cause way more damage to society than illegal drugs. So you come to the obvious conclusion:
They're all talking shit and I shouldn't listen to anything they say.
When you know most of what you're being told about the risks of drug-taking is bullshit, it's a short leap to thinking everything you're being told is bullshit. "I don't have to listen to anything they say because it's all crap, I can do speed and ecstasy all weekend for years on end with no side-effects and give up whenever I want." And so these young, immortal people put themselves in harms way because it's so fucking hard to get some honest advice on what you should and shouldn't do. Your parents say "don't do any drugs ever" and your friend say "let's do drugs all the time" and, well, your friends are way cooler than your parents and you don't wanna look uncool so what way do you go?
Duh!
I have a slightly unusual history with drugs. I didn't do them at all in school or college. College was a bit of a struggle because I went to major party college where people were doing drugs all the time. I was probably offered drugs for free a couple of times every week while I was at college. I also didn't drink alcohol at all while I was at college. My excuse - I was weird enough without artificial additives. Truth be told, I was more than a little worried how I would behave. Anyone reading this blog might notice I have... strange thought processes. I have always been this way. I was more than a little worried how far I might go off the rails if I took drugs.
I did get into drugs and partying in my 20s, not in a particularly excessive way but I had a lot of fun. I decided to stop altogether when my first-born arrived. I hated the idea that there might come a time she was dependent on me and I couldn't help her because I was fucked up on drugs. It was strange to me (ironic?) that some people who applauded this decision were pretty serious drinkers and of course they couldn't help their child if they were drunk. Back to the central hypocrisy issue I guess.
Anyway, my honest drugs policy? Listen up kids:
Most people do drugs because it's fun. There are lots of other reasons people take drugs; painful experiences (physical or emotional), feeling desperate, as a response to abuse, that old standby "peer pressure" (although I think this is hugely over-emphasised by those damn old people). But if you ignore the fun factor you aren't being honest.
Most people who do drugs don't get addicted. Some do, and addiction is really fucked. It's perfectly possible to recover from addiction but you probably will fuck up your life in the meantime. There are levels of addiction. Some drugs are worse for addiction, as in you're more likely to get addicted and the effects of addiction are worse. The warning signs: if you're saying things like "I can't have fun without drugs (or alcohol)" or "I have to take way more than I used to just to get a buzz" you're in trouble. Stop. Simple as that. Stop taking them for a while. You get two good effects: one, your body recovers and you might realise you don't actually need to take them any more. Two, if you go back to using after a while it will be more fun. Sorry if that upsets anyone but it's true.
Despite the scare tactics bullshit it is actually possible that a single dose of drugs can kill you, or at least put you in a really bad situation. Quite frankly, a lot of people who take drugs are filthy fucking skeezes or at least halfway decent people who act like filthy fucking skeezes when they're on drugs. If somebody is trying to coerce you into taking drugs and you're not sure - don't do it. It's more than likely anybody who tries to pressure another person into doing drugs is a rotten piece of shit (and to indulge in a stereotype here, I'm thinking mainly of males coercing females). Be safe. Think things through. Don't do drugs alone. Make sure you're with people you can trust. And, like a designated driver, have a designated "clean and sober" person - the one who stops you from choking on vomit and calls the ambulance when it's necessary.
Anyone who takes drugs and is honest knows they can fuck you up. The thing that makes me angry is that authority figures won't admit it's possible to have fun with drugs without fucking up. And so the natural rebellion of youth kicks in. I've seen first hand examples of people descending into smack addiction, having full-on psychotic breaks from speed/amphetamine abuse, damage their brains with acid and well, everyone's seen the pathetic stoner fuck-up who smokes too much dope.
So my policy is that if you're honest about everything (drugs can be fun!) then the health and safety message (drugs can fuck you up!) is more likely to get through. Because it's bloody obvious the current approach isn't working.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Double Standards in Health Advice
Today I'm angry at my ear specialist for doing the exact opposite of what ear specialists (or doctors generally) always tell you to do. And for inflicting incredible pain on me. You see, I've troubles recently with an ear infection which spooked me because I had to have major ear surgery as a teenager to fix a previous infection and this was looking like it could be a return bout of those problems. And I'd really rather not go deaf. Or have my head collapse as my brain is consumed by some evil infection monster.
So, off to the doctor I go! A round of antibiotics and eardrops later - the infection is gone. Hurrah! But I don't want to take risks so I see a specialist to make sure there's nothing worse going on. The good news is it looks like all is basically OK. The bad news is he says there's a bunch of gross smelly crap in there (I wish he wouldn't use such big scientific words - it was so hard to understand him) and he has to clean it out.
I know what's coming now. This is what happened to me as a teenager. When an ear specialist cleans out your ear it means sticking this long skinny pointy thing (again with the scientific terms!) right in there EXACTLY LIKE THEY TELL YOU NEVER TO DO and scraping stuff right off the surface of your eardrum. Which really fucking hurts. And because it's your ear canal being worked on you get the bonus of disgusting sound effects.
So he wedges my earhole open with some sort of metal funnel then goes to work on me while looking through a microscope. He warns that I shouldn't move because if I move even a millimetre it goes out of focus. This I take as a not-so-subtle threat: "Piss me off and I'll jam this spike right through your fucking brain." So I'm trying not to move or scream even though these are the natural reactions when someone goes spelunking in your head with sharp objects. Occasionally, when it really hurts, I make a pathetic grunt which is my manly way of saying "I hope this isn't going to go on for much longer because I'm about to start crying like a little schoolgirl."
Finally it's over and he even has the temerity to show me all the crap he scraped out and complain how gross it is. Listen buddy, you chose to spend your live probing people's face-holes; don't blame me when you find something gross.
So, off to the doctor I go! A round of antibiotics and eardrops later - the infection is gone. Hurrah! But I don't want to take risks so I see a specialist to make sure there's nothing worse going on. The good news is it looks like all is basically OK. The bad news is he says there's a bunch of gross smelly crap in there (I wish he wouldn't use such big scientific words - it was so hard to understand him) and he has to clean it out.
I know what's coming now. This is what happened to me as a teenager. When an ear specialist cleans out your ear it means sticking this long skinny pointy thing (again with the scientific terms!) right in there EXACTLY LIKE THEY TELL YOU NEVER TO DO and scraping stuff right off the surface of your eardrum. Which really fucking hurts. And because it's your ear canal being worked on you get the bonus of disgusting sound effects.
So he wedges my earhole open with some sort of metal funnel then goes to work on me while looking through a microscope. He warns that I shouldn't move because if I move even a millimetre it goes out of focus. This I take as a not-so-subtle threat: "Piss me off and I'll jam this spike right through your fucking brain." So I'm trying not to move or scream even though these are the natural reactions when someone goes spelunking in your head with sharp objects. Occasionally, when it really hurts, I make a pathetic grunt which is my manly way of saying "I hope this isn't going to go on for much longer because I'm about to start crying like a little schoolgirl."
Finally it's over and he even has the temerity to show me all the crap he scraped out and complain how gross it is. Listen buddy, you chose to spend your live probing people's face-holes; don't blame me when you find something gross.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
What's in a Name?
OK, I've had enough with the cynical exploiting of the fact that Stephen Colbert is the number one topic in the blogosphere at the moment. I've said all I need to about Stephen Colbert. Just because mentioning Stephen Colbert means that new people might find my blog I'm not blogging about Stephen Colbert today.
Stephen Colbert.
What I really want to blog about today is how some parents make me angry because of the stupid names they choose for their kids. Now, a lot of people will say names are a personal thing and there is no right and wrong. To a degree, they're right. Names are personal - for the kid. I have a simple rule when choosing kid's names: will it get the kids beaten up at school? This is not even a recent problem - anyone remember Johnny Cash singing "A Boy Named Sue"? If you can't honestly answer that the name isn't going to result in noogies and swirlies for years on end, then you're staring down the barrel of a cheap-ass nursing home. Kids will get their revenge, it's only a matter of time.
But if you really want to make me angry, spell a name wrong. My daughter has a traditional Irish name that a lot of people seem to have a real fetish for spelling wrong. They don't spell it "differently", they don't spell it "creatively", they aren't being "individual" - they're wrong! I could spell "chair" as "Khaiyre" and that wouldn't make me creative - it would make me a bad speller.
It's bad enough calling a kid Salange, Jayleen or Shaniqua (all real names of people I've met) but spelling names wrong is opening up a world of pain. These sorts of names don't make your kid "memorable" to people, at least not in a good way. People don't remember made-up names and they don't remember how to spell misspelled names. People will end up having conversations about that go "And how about whatshername, you know, Weirdy McWeirdname."
And you get to look forward to a lot of christmases alone wondering why your kids never visit. It's because they're in bars abusing their stupid fucking parents for ruining their lives. And they're looking for the shittiest, most disease ridden nursing home in the world to lock you away in.
To end on a light note: have you ever met someone with a funny name and you realise the parent probably didn't consider it was funny? Because their parent's minds weren't as twisted as yours? I went to school with a girl called Kerry Hunt. If that isn't funny to you, look up spoonerism on Wikipedia.
Stephen Colbert.
What I really want to blog about today is how some parents make me angry because of the stupid names they choose for their kids. Now, a lot of people will say names are a personal thing and there is no right and wrong. To a degree, they're right. Names are personal - for the kid. I have a simple rule when choosing kid's names: will it get the kids beaten up at school? This is not even a recent problem - anyone remember Johnny Cash singing "A Boy Named Sue"? If you can't honestly answer that the name isn't going to result in noogies and swirlies for years on end, then you're staring down the barrel of a cheap-ass nursing home. Kids will get their revenge, it's only a matter of time.
But if you really want to make me angry, spell a name wrong. My daughter has a traditional Irish name that a lot of people seem to have a real fetish for spelling wrong. They don't spell it "differently", they don't spell it "creatively", they aren't being "individual" - they're wrong! I could spell "chair" as "Khaiyre" and that wouldn't make me creative - it would make me a bad speller.
It's bad enough calling a kid Salange, Jayleen or Shaniqua (all real names of people I've met) but spelling names wrong is opening up a world of pain. These sorts of names don't make your kid "memorable" to people, at least not in a good way. People don't remember made-up names and they don't remember how to spell misspelled names. People will end up having conversations about that go "And how about whatshername, you know, Weirdy McWeirdname."
And you get to look forward to a lot of christmases alone wondering why your kids never visit. It's because they're in bars abusing their stupid fucking parents for ruining their lives. And they're looking for the shittiest, most disease ridden nursing home in the world to lock you away in.
To end on a light note: have you ever met someone with a funny name and you realise the parent probably didn't consider it was funny? Because their parent's minds weren't as twisted as yours? I went to school with a girl called Kerry Hunt. If that isn't funny to you, look up spoonerism on Wikipedia.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
The Colbert Report and The Daily Show
After my earlier post on Stephen Colbert making George Bush his bitch, I spent a while ruminating. And I realised there was something else I was angry about. Why is it that the only source of honesty and real insight in American media is from a fucking comedy show? How is it even possible for public discourse to sink so low that the most intelligent, incisive take of current affairs is from a bunch of funnymen? (I'm not absolutely sure but I think most if not all of the cast of these shows are men)
I don't understand how those sad, pathetic, toadying jellyfish masquerading as journalists in the US media can look at themselves in the mirror.
We're slightly spoiled in Australia because along with the commercial drivel we have the flawed but reasonably objective and intelligent news and current affairs services of ABC (about a billion miles removed from the American ABC) and SBS. Mind you, we are cruelly abused by the total lack of the Daily Show and Colbert Report.
I want to highlight two particularly good clips featuring Jon Stewart (host of the Daily Show) that you can find on Youtube (and probably other places but I find it easiest to find videos on Youtube.)
A quite famous piece that is not actually from the Daily Show is when Jon Stewart appeared on CNN's "Crossfire", ostensibly to promote the Daily Show book America - Democracy Inaction. In a move not totally dissimilar to what Colbert did to Bush, Stewart took the show's hosts off-guard and went for their throats. The format of Crossfire (it's been taken off air now - maybe because Stewart made them look like idiots) was two talking head bickering over current events. One was a loudmouth right wing dickhead wearing a bow tie and the other supposedly represented the left but was a pathetic weenie (right wingers feel free to say this is a fair representation of all lefties - my witty rejoiner is "fuck you in the neck with a butter knife").
Instead of getting some free publicity Stewart spent time upbraiding them for what a travesty and a waste their show was. In his words, he wanted them to "stop hurting America." They were completely incapable of dealing with this - he totally showed them up for the chumps they are. Search for it with the keywords "Jon Stewart CNN Crossfire" and you'll find it.
Another piece you can find is the Daily Show's first broadcast after the terrorist attacks of September 11. The show didn't broadcast for a week or two after the attacks (I think most people were finding it more than a little difficult to think of laughing at the time). It was clearly difficult for Stewart to do the show and it is a bit difficult to watch but it's incredibly moving. Use the keywords "Jon Stewart Daily Show September 11" to find it.
What watching this brought back to me was the intensity of feelings at the time, I'd almost forgotten that. At the time I thought it was actually possible some good might come of the attacks. I hesitate to even mention good in relation to those barbaric acts (pick whatever the worst eternal punishment offered by your belief system may be - that's what these scum are experiencing now). There were actually two positive things I thought might come of all the pain and sadness.
One, the people and politicians of America might come to understand what's known quite well across Europe, Africa and much of Asia: political and military decisions can have very personal repercussions. And sometimes you can suffer terrible, terrible losses from attacks on your own soil. I think places that have been largely spared destructive international wars on their own soil, like Australia and America, can be very detatched from that possibility.
The second thing was that it seemed like this was such a terrible, previously unimaginable thing that everybody was going to pull together. Differences would be forgotten and decent people would pull together for mutual support. It was strange that something so sad could generate such positive feeling. And then Bush and his cronies went and fucked it all.
Watch the clip. It will break your heart.
I don't understand how those sad, pathetic, toadying jellyfish masquerading as journalists in the US media can look at themselves in the mirror.
We're slightly spoiled in Australia because along with the commercial drivel we have the flawed but reasonably objective and intelligent news and current affairs services of ABC (about a billion miles removed from the American ABC) and SBS. Mind you, we are cruelly abused by the total lack of the Daily Show and Colbert Report.
I want to highlight two particularly good clips featuring Jon Stewart (host of the Daily Show) that you can find on Youtube (and probably other places but I find it easiest to find videos on Youtube.)
A quite famous piece that is not actually from the Daily Show is when Jon Stewart appeared on CNN's "Crossfire", ostensibly to promote the Daily Show book America - Democracy Inaction. In a move not totally dissimilar to what Colbert did to Bush, Stewart took the show's hosts off-guard and went for their throats. The format of Crossfire (it's been taken off air now - maybe because Stewart made them look like idiots) was two talking head bickering over current events. One was a loudmouth right wing dickhead wearing a bow tie and the other supposedly represented the left but was a pathetic weenie (right wingers feel free to say this is a fair representation of all lefties - my witty rejoiner is "fuck you in the neck with a butter knife").
Instead of getting some free publicity Stewart spent time upbraiding them for what a travesty and a waste their show was. In his words, he wanted them to "stop hurting America." They were completely incapable of dealing with this - he totally showed them up for the chumps they are. Search for it with the keywords "Jon Stewart CNN Crossfire" and you'll find it.
Another piece you can find is the Daily Show's first broadcast after the terrorist attacks of September 11. The show didn't broadcast for a week or two after the attacks (I think most people were finding it more than a little difficult to think of laughing at the time). It was clearly difficult for Stewart to do the show and it is a bit difficult to watch but it's incredibly moving. Use the keywords "Jon Stewart Daily Show September 11" to find it.
What watching this brought back to me was the intensity of feelings at the time, I'd almost forgotten that. At the time I thought it was actually possible some good might come of the attacks. I hesitate to even mention good in relation to those barbaric acts (pick whatever the worst eternal punishment offered by your belief system may be - that's what these scum are experiencing now). There were actually two positive things I thought might come of all the pain and sadness.
One, the people and politicians of America might come to understand what's known quite well across Europe, Africa and much of Asia: political and military decisions can have very personal repercussions. And sometimes you can suffer terrible, terrible losses from attacks on your own soil. I think places that have been largely spared destructive international wars on their own soil, like Australia and America, can be very detatched from that possibility.
The second thing was that it seemed like this was such a terrible, previously unimaginable thing that everybody was going to pull together. Differences would be forgotten and decent people would pull together for mutual support. It was strange that something so sad could generate such positive feeling. And then Bush and his cronies went and fucked it all.
Watch the clip. It will break your heart.
Fair and Balanced
I commented in a recent post how right-wing wack-job Michelle Malkin had been subjected to a bunch of stupid racist and sexist insults after posting personal contact details for some protestors on her blog. This sort of response is completely unnecessary - if someone's a shrieking truth-denying nutbag there's no need to bring issues of race or gender into it.
The right got all up in arms about this disgraceful behaviour. Good for them. I wonder if they'll be as even-handed with their outrage towards right-wing fuck-knuckles who attack someone on the left? Ever wondered who the 32% are who still think Bush is doing a good job? Check out this example of the moral superiority of the right:
Peace Takes Courage - The 32%
The right got all up in arms about this disgraceful behaviour. Good for them. I wonder if they'll be as even-handed with their outrage towards right-wing fuck-knuckles who attack someone on the left? Ever wondered who the 32% are who still think Bush is doing a good job? Check out this example of the moral superiority of the right:
Peace Takes Courage - The 32%
Angry at Stephen Colbert
I am soooo angry an Stephen Colbert today. Angry because I can't see him on TV and angry because he has more guts than I'll ever have. Now, non-US readers may need some background, so here it is:
Stephen Colbert gained fame on the Daily Show, which is an amazingly funny spoof news show and also possibly the only trustworthy news source on US television. And I can't damn well watch it in Australia because nobody screens it not even the 70 cable channels I pay and this pisses me off soooooo much. But anyway, Colbert now has his own spin-off show, The Colbert Report. Which I also can't watch. fuckshitpissbuggercockbite
In this show, Colbert achieves the seemingly impossible task of creating a character with his own news/talk show who is more ignorant, self-obsessed and in denial of truth than Bill O'Reilly. Oh, and the fucking cable service here shows Bill O'Reilly. So I can subject myself to 24 hours of Fox News but can I watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? Nooooo. God hates me.
If it wasn't for Youtube I'd never get to see any of this. But Youtube got blocked at my workplace which may or may not be directly related to me watching gigabytes of Daily Show clips and 70-odd episodes of Red vs. Blue during my lunch hours. I am totally getting broadband at home so I can see all this stuff via BitTorrent.
Anyway, Colbert's in the news a bit at the moment because he performed at the Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night. This is a cute little event where Washington journalists, the president of the day and a few notables get together and have a good old laugh. There are normally some good natured jokes at the president's expense and he laughs along to show what a great guy he is. But last Saturday, someone booked Stephen Colbert as the main performer.
This is either the work of an idiot or an evil genius. Possibly an idiot, because if they thought Colbert was going to go easy, they were dead wrong. Possibly an evil genius because they knew what Colbert was going to do and they let him loose. Either way, I reasonably sure that the person who booked him is unemployed today. There's a transcript at the end of this post, it's long but it's worth reading.
What Colbert essentially did was rip W and the gutless media new arseholes. And he did while standing only metres away from Bush. And I assume a bunch of secret service agents. Who had guns. And were probably a hair's breadth from whacking him. I am in absolute awe of this man. The guts required to face off the president of the United States is almost beyond my comprehension.
Lord knows, nobody else has done it.
The real travesty is that the mainstream media are almost completely ignoring this. They keep showing Bush being pally with this look-alike and not even mentioning Colbert. The message: the prez is a great guy who can take a joke, there is no dissent, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. When it is mentioned the comments are along the lines of "Colbert crossed the line" and "The president wasn't laughing/was offended."
I hate it when people go in for overblown hyperbole about the power of the internet in general and blogging specifically, but it was reasonably accurate when a poster on the Huffington Post said "Back before blogs and C-Span, we wouldn't even know about it"
The thing is, he didn't get a lot of laughs during the performance and I'd say there are two reasons for this. One, he was also attacking the pathetic, spineless media who made up most of the audience and two, it must have been really uncomfortable to sit in the same room as Dubya while this was going on. read the transcript and decide for yourself if it's funny:
"Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin, I've been asked to make an announcement. Whoever parked 14 black bullet proof S.U.V.'S out front, could you please move them. They are blocking in 14 other black bulletproof S.U.V.'S and they need to get out.
Wow, wow, what an honor. The White House Correspondents' Dinner. To just sit here, at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush, to be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what, I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face.
Is he really not here tonight? The one guy who could have helped. By the way, before I get started, if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. Will be right over with a cocktail.
Mrs. Smith, ladies and gentlemen of the press corps, Mr. President and first lady, my name is Stephen Colbert and it's my privilege tonight to celebrate our president. He's no so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brain backs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the fact (police). We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say I did look it up, and that's not true. That's but you looked it up in a book.
Next time look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works. Every night on my show, the Colbert report, I speak straight from the gut, ok? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the no fact zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term.
I'm a simple man with a simple mind, with a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists.
My gut tells me I live there. I feel that it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I strongly believe it has 50 states. And I cannot wait to see how "the Washington Post" spins that one tomorrow. I believe in democracy. I believe democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out in plastic for three cents a unit.
In fact, ambassador, welcome, your great country makes our happy meals possible. I said it's a celebration. I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.
I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's yogurt. But I refuse to believe it's not butter. Most of all I believe in this president.
Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full. 32% means the glass -- it's important to set up your jokes properly, sir. Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.
Folks, my point is that I don't believe this is a low point in this presidency. I believe it is just a lull, before a comeback.
I mean, it's like the movie "Rocky." The president is Rocky and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world. It's the 10th round. He's bloodied, his corner man, Mick, who in this case would be the Vice President, and he's yelling cut me, dick, cut me, and every time he falls she say stay down! Does he stay down? No. Like Rocky he gets back up and in the end he -- actually loses in the first movie. Ok. It doesn't matter.
The point is the heart-warming story of a man who was repeatedly punched in the face. So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't.
I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.
Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite powered car.
And I just like the guy. He's a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She's a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma'am. I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.
The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will.
And as excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story, the President's side and the Vice President's side.
But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on N.S.A. wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished.
Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the affect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home.
Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction.
Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.
Now, it's not all bad guys out there. Some heroes, Buckley, Kim Schieffer. By the way, Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to be on my show. I was just as shocked as everyone here is I promise you. How is Tuesday for you? I've got Frank Rich, but we can bump him.
And I mean bump him. I know a guy. Say the word.
See who we've got here tonight. General Mowsly, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld.
Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired generals causing all this trouble, don't let them retire. C'mon, we've got a stop loss program, let's use it on these guys. If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle. C'mon.
Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier.
Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.
Justice Scalia's here. May I be the first to say welcome, sir. You look fantastic. How are you? (imitates hostile gestures Scalia was reported to have made)
John McCain is here. John McCain John McCain. What a maverick. Somebody find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you wasn't a salad fork. He could have used a spoon. There's no predicting him. So wonderful to see you coming back into the republican fold. I have a summerhouse in South Carolina, look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University. So glad you've seen the light.
Mayor Nagin is here from New Orleans, the chocolate city. Yeah, give it up. Mayor Nagin, I would like to welcome you to Washington, D.C., The chocolate city with a marshmallow center. And a graham cracker crust of corruption. It's a mallomar is what I'm describing, a seasonal cookie.
Joe Wilson is here, the most famous husband since Desi Arnez. And of course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god! Oh, what have I said. I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife, Joe Wilson's wife. Pat Fitzgerald is not here tonight? Dodged a bullet.
And we can't forget man of the hour, new Press Secretary, Tony Snow. Secret service name, Snow Job. What a hero, took the second toughest job in government, next to, of course, the ambassador to Iraq. Got some big shoes to fill, Tony. Scott McClellan could say nothing like nobody else.
McClellan, eager to retire. Really felt like he needed to spend more time with Andrew Card's children.
Mr. President, I wish you hadn't made the decision so quickly, sir. I was vying for the job. I think I would have made a fabulous press secretary. I have nothing but contempt for these people. I know how to handle these clowns. In fact, sir, I brought along an audition tape and with your indulgence, I'd like to at least give it a shot. So, ladies and gentlemen, my press conference. "
After this Colbert ran a video. Go look on Youtube, I'm sure you'll find it.
Stephen Colbert gained fame on the Daily Show, which is an amazingly funny spoof news show and also possibly the only trustworthy news source on US television. And I can't damn well watch it in Australia because nobody screens it not even the 70 cable channels I pay and this pisses me off soooooo much. But anyway, Colbert now has his own spin-off show, The Colbert Report. Which I also can't watch. fuckshitpissbuggercockbite
In this show, Colbert achieves the seemingly impossible task of creating a character with his own news/talk show who is more ignorant, self-obsessed and in denial of truth than Bill O'Reilly. Oh, and the fucking cable service here shows Bill O'Reilly. So I can subject myself to 24 hours of Fox News but can I watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? Nooooo. God hates me.
If it wasn't for Youtube I'd never get to see any of this. But Youtube got blocked at my workplace which may or may not be directly related to me watching gigabytes of Daily Show clips and 70-odd episodes of Red vs. Blue during my lunch hours. I am totally getting broadband at home so I can see all this stuff via BitTorrent.
Anyway, Colbert's in the news a bit at the moment because he performed at the Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night. This is a cute little event where Washington journalists, the president of the day and a few notables get together and have a good old laugh. There are normally some good natured jokes at the president's expense and he laughs along to show what a great guy he is. But last Saturday, someone booked Stephen Colbert as the main performer.
This is either the work of an idiot or an evil genius. Possibly an idiot, because if they thought Colbert was going to go easy, they were dead wrong. Possibly an evil genius because they knew what Colbert was going to do and they let him loose. Either way, I reasonably sure that the person who booked him is unemployed today. There's a transcript at the end of this post, it's long but it's worth reading.
What Colbert essentially did was rip W and the gutless media new arseholes. And he did while standing only metres away from Bush. And I assume a bunch of secret service agents. Who had guns. And were probably a hair's breadth from whacking him. I am in absolute awe of this man. The guts required to face off the president of the United States is almost beyond my comprehension.
Lord knows, nobody else has done it.
The real travesty is that the mainstream media are almost completely ignoring this. They keep showing Bush being pally with this look-alike and not even mentioning Colbert. The message: the prez is a great guy who can take a joke, there is no dissent, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. When it is mentioned the comments are along the lines of "Colbert crossed the line" and "The president wasn't laughing/was offended."
I hate it when people go in for overblown hyperbole about the power of the internet in general and blogging specifically, but it was reasonably accurate when a poster on the Huffington Post said "Back before blogs and C-Span, we wouldn't even know about it"
The thing is, he didn't get a lot of laughs during the performance and I'd say there are two reasons for this. One, he was also attacking the pathetic, spineless media who made up most of the audience and two, it must have been really uncomfortable to sit in the same room as Dubya while this was going on. read the transcript and decide for yourself if it's funny:
"Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin, I've been asked to make an announcement. Whoever parked 14 black bullet proof S.U.V.'S out front, could you please move them. They are blocking in 14 other black bulletproof S.U.V.'S and they need to get out.
Wow, wow, what an honor. The White House Correspondents' Dinner. To just sit here, at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush, to be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what, I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face.
Is he really not here tonight? The one guy who could have helped. By the way, before I get started, if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. Will be right over with a cocktail.
Mrs. Smith, ladies and gentlemen of the press corps, Mr. President and first lady, my name is Stephen Colbert and it's my privilege tonight to celebrate our president. He's no so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brain backs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the fact (police). We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say I did look it up, and that's not true. That's but you looked it up in a book.
Next time look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works. Every night on my show, the Colbert report, I speak straight from the gut, ok? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the no fact zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term.
I'm a simple man with a simple mind, with a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists.
My gut tells me I live there. I feel that it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I strongly believe it has 50 states. And I cannot wait to see how "the Washington Post" spins that one tomorrow. I believe in democracy. I believe democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out in plastic for three cents a unit.
In fact, ambassador, welcome, your great country makes our happy meals possible. I said it's a celebration. I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.
I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's yogurt. But I refuse to believe it's not butter. Most of all I believe in this president.
Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full. 32% means the glass -- it's important to set up your jokes properly, sir. Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.
Folks, my point is that I don't believe this is a low point in this presidency. I believe it is just a lull, before a comeback.
I mean, it's like the movie "Rocky." The president is Rocky and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world. It's the 10th round. He's bloodied, his corner man, Mick, who in this case would be the Vice President, and he's yelling cut me, dick, cut me, and every time he falls she say stay down! Does he stay down? No. Like Rocky he gets back up and in the end he -- actually loses in the first movie. Ok. It doesn't matter.
The point is the heart-warming story of a man who was repeatedly punched in the face. So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't.
I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.
Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite powered car.
And I just like the guy. He's a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She's a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma'am. I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.
The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will.
And as excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story, the President's side and the Vice President's side.
But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on N.S.A. wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished.
Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the affect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home.
Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction.
Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.
Now, it's not all bad guys out there. Some heroes, Buckley, Kim Schieffer. By the way, Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to be on my show. I was just as shocked as everyone here is I promise you. How is Tuesday for you? I've got Frank Rich, but we can bump him.
And I mean bump him. I know a guy. Say the word.
See who we've got here tonight. General Mowsly, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld.
Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired generals causing all this trouble, don't let them retire. C'mon, we've got a stop loss program, let's use it on these guys. If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle. C'mon.
Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier.
Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.
Justice Scalia's here. May I be the first to say welcome, sir. You look fantastic. How are you? (imitates hostile gestures Scalia was reported to have made)
John McCain is here. John McCain John McCain. What a maverick. Somebody find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you wasn't a salad fork. He could have used a spoon. There's no predicting him. So wonderful to see you coming back into the republican fold. I have a summerhouse in South Carolina, look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University. So glad you've seen the light.
Mayor Nagin is here from New Orleans, the chocolate city. Yeah, give it up. Mayor Nagin, I would like to welcome you to Washington, D.C., The chocolate city with a marshmallow center. And a graham cracker crust of corruption. It's a mallomar is what I'm describing, a seasonal cookie.
Joe Wilson is here, the most famous husband since Desi Arnez. And of course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god! Oh, what have I said. I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife, Joe Wilson's wife. Pat Fitzgerald is not here tonight? Dodged a bullet.
And we can't forget man of the hour, new Press Secretary, Tony Snow. Secret service name, Snow Job. What a hero, took the second toughest job in government, next to, of course, the ambassador to Iraq. Got some big shoes to fill, Tony. Scott McClellan could say nothing like nobody else.
McClellan, eager to retire. Really felt like he needed to spend more time with Andrew Card's children.
Mr. President, I wish you hadn't made the decision so quickly, sir. I was vying for the job. I think I would have made a fabulous press secretary. I have nothing but contempt for these people. I know how to handle these clowns. In fact, sir, I brought along an audition tape and with your indulgence, I'd like to at least give it a shot. So, ladies and gentlemen, my press conference. "
After this Colbert ran a video. Go look on Youtube, I'm sure you'll find it.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Isn't it Ironic?
Now, any regular readers will know I have a bit of a thing about proper language usage. And if you don't know that, go read my archives. Are you back? Good. As I was saying, I think proper grammar, word usage etc. is important. I even get a little worked up about it sometimes. Dare I say... angry. Not as angry as some people, like this chap who wrote this piece for McSweeneys.
I read that when it was published back in 2003 and I've never forgotten it. Way better grasp of the nuances of English than me. Funnier too. And angrier.
One of the many things that has the capacity to make me angry is misuse of the term "ironic". I don't get too worked up because I'm not too sure I always use it accurately. The simplest dictionary definition is "An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning." In other words, the literal meaning of your words is the opposite of what you intend to convey. But you also get into Socratic irony and dramatic irony and it really gets complicated. I actually did research for this piece (besides reading McSweeneys) and found a piece, via Wikipedia, that is both an excellent explanation of irony and a lot of fun to read. It's much better researched than anything I could do and also funnier.
Guardian Article: The Final Irony
Suffice to say, people are almost always wrong when they say "isn't that ironic?" More often it's simply a coincidence or bad luck. For instance, Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic" doesn't contain a single example of true irony (is that ironic?)
Anyway, believe it or not, the whole reason that I started struggling with the proper use of irony was that I was thinking of George Bush. I am continually appalled at the shit he gets away with. Being a lefty, I start from a default position that a right-winger is going to piss me off but Bush even betrays traditional Republican values. Not that I'm a fan of many traditional Republican values but it freaks me out that he pisses all over their core tenets like fiscal responsibility and small government and all the while he has these rabid cheerleaders asserting he can do no wrong. Any pity the traditionalist who speaks up about this betrayal. The goon squad are all over them, branding them disloyal and unpatriotic.
You could be a dyed-in-the-wool lifelong Republican but if you question the glorious leader, his slavering minions will rip you limb from limb. And I get more than a little spaced at how quickly the baying mob can flip from championing a particular commentator to publicly eviscerating them because they dared to question Bush. Not matter how self-evident their observation is, like, ummmm... he's a fuckwit.
To be fair, I can't nominate a conservative who actually called Bush a fuckwit. I'm reading between the lines.
But there are signs Bush's most ardent supporters might ba about to turn on him. It isn't about lying, it isn't about screwing up Iraq, it isn't about encouraging torture. It's about immigration. Bush seems like he's actually about to do something halfway decent regarding the millions of (mainly Mexican) illegal immigrants in the US. In an acknowledgement that the economy is essentially dependent on these workers, he's trying to find a reasonable compromise. And his "base" are turning on him over it.
So that's the point of this whole screed: Bush spends his whole tenure committing a seemingly endless cavalcade of incompetent and illegal acts and gets a free pass. He attempts to do one halfway decent thing and his shrieking cheerleaders turn on him.
Is that ironic?
I read that when it was published back in 2003 and I've never forgotten it. Way better grasp of the nuances of English than me. Funnier too. And angrier.
One of the many things that has the capacity to make me angry is misuse of the term "ironic". I don't get too worked up because I'm not too sure I always use it accurately. The simplest dictionary definition is "An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning." In other words, the literal meaning of your words is the opposite of what you intend to convey. But you also get into Socratic irony and dramatic irony and it really gets complicated. I actually did research for this piece (besides reading McSweeneys) and found a piece, via Wikipedia, that is both an excellent explanation of irony and a lot of fun to read. It's much better researched than anything I could do and also funnier.
Guardian Article: The Final Irony
Suffice to say, people are almost always wrong when they say "isn't that ironic?" More often it's simply a coincidence or bad luck. For instance, Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic" doesn't contain a single example of true irony (is that ironic?)
Anyway, believe it or not, the whole reason that I started struggling with the proper use of irony was that I was thinking of George Bush. I am continually appalled at the shit he gets away with. Being a lefty, I start from a default position that a right-winger is going to piss me off but Bush even betrays traditional Republican values. Not that I'm a fan of many traditional Republican values but it freaks me out that he pisses all over their core tenets like fiscal responsibility and small government and all the while he has these rabid cheerleaders asserting he can do no wrong. Any pity the traditionalist who speaks up about this betrayal. The goon squad are all over them, branding them disloyal and unpatriotic.
You could be a dyed-in-the-wool lifelong Republican but if you question the glorious leader, his slavering minions will rip you limb from limb. And I get more than a little spaced at how quickly the baying mob can flip from championing a particular commentator to publicly eviscerating them because they dared to question Bush. Not matter how self-evident their observation is, like, ummmm... he's a fuckwit.
To be fair, I can't nominate a conservative who actually called Bush a fuckwit. I'm reading between the lines.
But there are signs Bush's most ardent supporters might ba about to turn on him. It isn't about lying, it isn't about screwing up Iraq, it isn't about encouraging torture. It's about immigration. Bush seems like he's actually about to do something halfway decent regarding the millions of (mainly Mexican) illegal immigrants in the US. In an acknowledgement that the economy is essentially dependent on these workers, he's trying to find a reasonable compromise. And his "base" are turning on him over it.
So that's the point of this whole screed: Bush spends his whole tenure committing a seemingly endless cavalcade of incompetent and illegal acts and gets a free pass. He attempts to do one halfway decent thing and his shrieking cheerleaders turn on him.
Is that ironic?
Monday, May 01, 2006
Hang Them All!
Let the punishment fit the crime, I say. In line with this, I will now identify a dangerous and clandestine group who are threatening to undermine the very fabric of society. The only punishment fit for these people is public hanging. Their crime?
Hanging toilet paper the wrong way around.
You may have thought this was simply a matter of choice. That there was no big difference between the toilet roll with the paper hanging over the front or dangling from behind. You couldn't be more wrong. This is one of those fundamental issues that can shake the very foundations of society. This isn't a situation where allowing a different point of view is a good thing; this is a case of right and wrong.
Sometimes different is good. I would go so far as to say most of the time difference is good. It's one of those things that makes life more interesting - all the little differences between people. For instance, saying you are only going to wear red for a year an/or showing up to an awards ceremony with what appears to be a white swan wrapped around you is good. Quirky, arty, interesting. Hanging toilet paper the wrong way is not "different". It's wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
The important part of this issue is that it isn't a casual occurrence. I have identified the actions of a clandestine group going around hanging toilet paper the wrong way. And they try to poison the minds of others. Sometimes they'll say "it doesn't matter which way you hang the paper," other times they'll go so far as to say "this is the right way." And the poor innocents duped by them have no idea how they're being manipulated.
I recently suffered an invasion of the influence of these miscreants in my own home! Periodically, I would discover that toilet paper was hanging the wrong way at my house even though (it should go without saying) I always make sure to hang it correctly. At first I thought they were sneaking into my home when I was asleep or at work to mess with my head. But then I saw the pattern. These paper reversals coincided with visits from my girlfriend.
Surely she couldn't be one of them? A deep cover agent sent in to undermine my life from within? When I pointed out to her what had happened with the toilet paper she had no idea she'd even been doing it. How sick is that? They'd infected her with some sort of post-hypnotic suggestion so she didn't even realise she was doing their bidding.
It's interesting to note that vampires have this power of mind control. I'm not saying that everyone who hangs the toilet paper the wrong way is a vampire; all I'm doing is putting the idea out there for your consideration.
Thankfully, the situation is now remedied. My girlfriend has been successfully de-programmed and my household toilet paper is secure. So now the bastards are coming at me from another angle.
My workplace, like many, uses bulk toilet paper dispensers. But this dispenser comes straight from the mind of Satan himself! It is constructed in an evil fashion that means if the toilet paper is hung the correct way the dispenser won't work. These sick bastards have won a government contract that lets them fit out workplace toilets in a way that advances their sinister and depraved goals.
Are there no depths they won't sink to?
Hanging toilet paper the wrong way around.
You may have thought this was simply a matter of choice. That there was no big difference between the toilet roll with the paper hanging over the front or dangling from behind. You couldn't be more wrong. This is one of those fundamental issues that can shake the very foundations of society. This isn't a situation where allowing a different point of view is a good thing; this is a case of right and wrong.
Sometimes different is good. I would go so far as to say most of the time difference is good. It's one of those things that makes life more interesting - all the little differences between people. For instance, saying you are only going to wear red for a year an/or showing up to an awards ceremony with what appears to be a white swan wrapped around you is good. Quirky, arty, interesting. Hanging toilet paper the wrong way is not "different". It's wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
The important part of this issue is that it isn't a casual occurrence. I have identified the actions of a clandestine group going around hanging toilet paper the wrong way. And they try to poison the minds of others. Sometimes they'll say "it doesn't matter which way you hang the paper," other times they'll go so far as to say "this is the right way." And the poor innocents duped by them have no idea how they're being manipulated.
I recently suffered an invasion of the influence of these miscreants in my own home! Periodically, I would discover that toilet paper was hanging the wrong way at my house even though (it should go without saying) I always make sure to hang it correctly. At first I thought they were sneaking into my home when I was asleep or at work to mess with my head. But then I saw the pattern. These paper reversals coincided with visits from my girlfriend.
Surely she couldn't be one of them? A deep cover agent sent in to undermine my life from within? When I pointed out to her what had happened with the toilet paper she had no idea she'd even been doing it. How sick is that? They'd infected her with some sort of post-hypnotic suggestion so she didn't even realise she was doing their bidding.
It's interesting to note that vampires have this power of mind control. I'm not saying that everyone who hangs the toilet paper the wrong way is a vampire; all I'm doing is putting the idea out there for your consideration.
Thankfully, the situation is now remedied. My girlfriend has been successfully de-programmed and my household toilet paper is secure. So now the bastards are coming at me from another angle.
My workplace, like many, uses bulk toilet paper dispensers. But this dispenser comes straight from the mind of Satan himself! It is constructed in an evil fashion that means if the toilet paper is hung the correct way the dispenser won't work. These sick bastards have won a government contract that lets them fit out workplace toilets in a way that advances their sinister and depraved goals.
Are there no depths they won't sink to?
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Parking - the Favourite Activity of Anti-social Cretins?
Well, and here's me thinking I was all angried out this weekend. I decided to smoke a lot of crack cocaine this weekend and see how many posts I could fire out. I arrived at my girlfriend's place a little while ago and somebody (probably a reader of my blog who wanted to give me some fuel) manages to fire me up with one of my pet hates.
Why are people such ignorant pricks when it comes to parking? I think I've never seen anything bring out the worst in human nature as much as parking does. Go down to the shops and you will always see somebody acting like a homicidal maniac over something as banal as a parking space. Seriously, you're safer getting between a mother bear and her cub than between some people and parking space they have decided is "theirs". And yes, I've been on the receiving end of some psychopath diving into a parking space I was patiently waiting for, I know how angryfying that is and I'm not excusing it for a second.
That isn't even the variant I'm going mad over tonight. My girlfriend and I both live in an inner-city suburb and street parking is often at a premium, so when I stay at her place it's sometimes a struggle to find somewhere to park. This gets made worse by self centred cretins who take up more than one space. Maybe I'm being too judgemental, I don't know for sure that they're self-centred. They might be really fucking stupid.
What makes people do it? There's a space between two driveways that's clearly the right size for two cars. But not when some cretin decides to park right in the middle. Honestly, my therapist says I take things too personally. I bet that wanker in the van takes it personally when the bomb I wired up to his ignition goes off in the morning.
Why are people such ignorant pricks when it comes to parking? I think I've never seen anything bring out the worst in human nature as much as parking does. Go down to the shops and you will always see somebody acting like a homicidal maniac over something as banal as a parking space. Seriously, you're safer getting between a mother bear and her cub than between some people and parking space they have decided is "theirs". And yes, I've been on the receiving end of some psychopath diving into a parking space I was patiently waiting for, I know how angryfying that is and I'm not excusing it for a second.
That isn't even the variant I'm going mad over tonight. My girlfriend and I both live in an inner-city suburb and street parking is often at a premium, so when I stay at her place it's sometimes a struggle to find somewhere to park. This gets made worse by self centred cretins who take up more than one space. Maybe I'm being too judgemental, I don't know for sure that they're self-centred. They might be really fucking stupid.
What makes people do it? There's a space between two driveways that's clearly the right size for two cars. But not when some cretin decides to park right in the middle. Honestly, my therapist says I take things too personally. I bet that wanker in the van takes it personally when the bomb I wired up to his ignition goes off in the morning.
A Fine Example of the Angry Internets
When I want a break from angry ranting on my blog, I like to do random searches for other examples of angriness online. It's remarkable how un-angry some people seem who describe their sites as angry or even angriest but I did find the following gem:
The Angriest Rice Cooker in the World
It takes a special brand of genius to anthropomorphise a rice cooker to express angriness.
Enjoy!
The Angriest Rice Cooker in the World
It takes a special brand of genius to anthropomorphise a rice cooker to express angriness.
Enjoy!
Post Traumatic Toilet Stress Syndrome
I was reading another blog last night and the author made a random comment that triggered some long-suppressed traumatic memories of my worst-ever workplace. There are many ways an employer can make you feel worthless, constantly belittling you, paying you much less than you know other people are getting for the same work or simply giving you really lousy facilities.
My worst-ever job combined all of these but there were some bizarre twists on what they did with the work environment. Not long after I started there, they moved everybody into one building. Previously, staff had been spread around different offices throughout the city. On the surface, this was a good idea but the twist was that the overall floor space was much smaller - on average, each person's cubicle space was reduced by 1/3 and almost nobody had offices in the new building. Even the managers became cubicle dwellers. And the cubicles had really low walls so there was no more avoiding eye contact with cow-orkers. This didn't bother me so much but you soon found out who the anti-social ones were.
Imagine the fun and games of anti-social office drones with no interpersonal skills being put in a situation where they couldn't avoid face-to-face contact with... humans!
The worst part overall was undoubtedly what they did with the kitchen facilities. They were essentially a crime against humanity. Each floor had a kitchen are that was nothing more than a narrow bench, about two metres long with a sink and a microwave. But that part was just annoying. The horrible part was that this was right next to the toilet doors. As in less than one metre from the toilet to where you were preparing food and beverages. And you know how most communal toilets have some sort of vestibule or at least dog-leg between the outside world and the facilities? So you don't see all the goings-on as soon as the door is open?
Not these ones.
A straight view from your lunch to this tiny toilet facility. And as some female staff members told me, there was no real barrier between the men's urinal and the outside world. If they forgot to avert their gaze while making coffee, they could end up with an eyeful. Although I guess "eyeful" depends who was taking a leak at the time.
So one more tip for the evil bosses out there. Are your workers getting a bit uppity or even comfortable in their lives? Put them in a really demeaning work environment - that'll slap 'em down.
My worst-ever job combined all of these but there were some bizarre twists on what they did with the work environment. Not long after I started there, they moved everybody into one building. Previously, staff had been spread around different offices throughout the city. On the surface, this was a good idea but the twist was that the overall floor space was much smaller - on average, each person's cubicle space was reduced by 1/3 and almost nobody had offices in the new building. Even the managers became cubicle dwellers. And the cubicles had really low walls so there was no more avoiding eye contact with cow-orkers. This didn't bother me so much but you soon found out who the anti-social ones were.
Imagine the fun and games of anti-social office drones with no interpersonal skills being put in a situation where they couldn't avoid face-to-face contact with... humans!
The worst part overall was undoubtedly what they did with the kitchen facilities. They were essentially a crime against humanity. Each floor had a kitchen are that was nothing more than a narrow bench, about two metres long with a sink and a microwave. But that part was just annoying. The horrible part was that this was right next to the toilet doors. As in less than one metre from the toilet to where you were preparing food and beverages. And you know how most communal toilets have some sort of vestibule or at least dog-leg between the outside world and the facilities? So you don't see all the goings-on as soon as the door is open?
Not these ones.
A straight view from your lunch to this tiny toilet facility. And as some female staff members told me, there was no real barrier between the men's urinal and the outside world. If they forgot to avert their gaze while making coffee, they could end up with an eyeful. Although I guess "eyeful" depends who was taking a leak at the time.
So one more tip for the evil bosses out there. Are your workers getting a bit uppity or even comfortable in their lives? Put them in a really demeaning work environment - that'll slap 'em down.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Idiocy, Insanity and Criminality
Just wanted to share another snippet I found when I was looking up the Dubya "I hear the voices" quote the other day. One of the many travesties visited upon the populace by this administration was wholesale illegal phone tapping. His supporters can argue all they want about it being the right thing, it's out and out illegal. And stupid. The bar for these clowns getting wiretaps authorised is so low (they can even can an authorisation after the fact) it beggars belief that they would break the law to do it.
And Dubya doesn't even argue the legality. His "defence" as such seems to be "I'm the president and I can do whatever I want." It honestly seems that descriptions like "imperial rule" aren't hyperbole, they're plain and simple fact. Anyway, he was found out and after agreeing to suppress the story for a year two journalist published the story and have since been awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
Now it isn't surprising Bush supporters bitch and moan about someone revealing their president, you know, broke the fucking law. It is apparently impossible in these people's eyes that Bush could be held accountable for anything. Literally anything. So hearing these foaming at the mouth blowhards saying the journalists should be sent to jail doesn't surprise me. But the level of hypocrisy exhibited by some of them is truly staggering.
One charming chap by the name of Bill Bennett had recently proclaimed himself a champion a free press by saying the press who wouldn't run the notorious Mohammed cartoons had "capitulated to Islamists". My own view of those cartoons is that it's a slightly complex situation but in short, you should be able to publish them and nobody should burn down buildings and kill people because of a fucking cartoon. Anyway, old Bill is all for a free press, publish without fear or favour.
Unless it involves his boy GW. Only a few weeks after championing a free press he say journalists WHO REVEALED ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY THE PRESIDENT should go to jail. Yes, in a democracy. You hear that folks? These champions of freedom think exposing their criminality makes you the criminal.
These people must be utterly incapable of self-reflection. If they even tried to mentally process the mendacity of which they are guilty their fucking heads would explode.
And Dubya doesn't even argue the legality. His "defence" as such seems to be "I'm the president and I can do whatever I want." It honestly seems that descriptions like "imperial rule" aren't hyperbole, they're plain and simple fact. Anyway, he was found out and after agreeing to suppress the story for a year two journalist published the story and have since been awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
Now it isn't surprising Bush supporters bitch and moan about someone revealing their president, you know, broke the fucking law. It is apparently impossible in these people's eyes that Bush could be held accountable for anything. Literally anything. So hearing these foaming at the mouth blowhards saying the journalists should be sent to jail doesn't surprise me. But the level of hypocrisy exhibited by some of them is truly staggering.
One charming chap by the name of Bill Bennett had recently proclaimed himself a champion a free press by saying the press who wouldn't run the notorious Mohammed cartoons had "capitulated to Islamists". My own view of those cartoons is that it's a slightly complex situation but in short, you should be able to publish them and nobody should burn down buildings and kill people because of a fucking cartoon. Anyway, old Bill is all for a free press, publish without fear or favour.
Unless it involves his boy GW. Only a few weeks after championing a free press he say journalists WHO REVEALED ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY THE PRESIDENT should go to jail. Yes, in a democracy. You hear that folks? These champions of freedom think exposing their criminality makes you the criminal.
These people must be utterly incapable of self-reflection. If they even tried to mentally process the mendacity of which they are guilty their fucking heads would explode.
The Pundits Calling the Kettle Black
The whole idea of the role and prominence of pundits has been bubbling away in my mind since reading of a recent stir involving right wing pundit and blogger, Michelle Malkin. She seems to be one of the pin-up girls of the right, the other (who seems to be their favourite) is Anne Coulter. And let me just say, I really don't agree with the idea that Anne Coulter is sexy. Ignoring for a moment that she's clearly insane, the woman's a skank. To quote a tasteful bit of Australian venacular - I wouldn't touch her with someone else's dick. After thinking about it for a while - why does the right put forward Coulter as sexy when Malkin is way hotter - all I can come up with is she isn't white enough for the majority of their tastes.
Which brings me to the subject of race, which is at the centre of Malkin's little storm. Malkin has come down firmly against recent protests by Mexican nationals, protests centering on their status as illegals within the US. One of the things Malking did on her blog (she's in Technorati's top 10 so it actually matters what she does in her blog - unlike my inconsequential ramblings) was post the names and home phone numbers of some protestors.
Now this is fucked up. These people had to endure harassment and death threats from the shit-heels who like the reactionary crap Malkin goes on with. She copped a pretty severe blowback over this and received a torrent of abuse. No surprise that a lot of it was sexist (she's female) and racist (she's of Asian descent). This is plain stupid and it always happens. When you can easily attack someone simply on the grounds they're a fuckwit, why bother with racism and sexism?
But we pass through the looking glass when the lunatic fringe right gets up in arms over this abuse. Yeah, right - they're never sexist or racist. I agree that anyone who indulged in this gutter level response should be ashamed and I'll distance myself from them as far as possible. But I don't need these right wing pigfuckers who base what passes for their public discourse on racism, sexism, homophobia and lies moralising to me. I like the idea of pounding their Neanderthal skulls with a heavy cast-iron soot-blackened kettle.
It's intellectual violence! You see? You're the pot! You called the kettle black. Now the kettle is saying "Fuck you, shithead!"
Which brings me to the subject of race, which is at the centre of Malkin's little storm. Malkin has come down firmly against recent protests by Mexican nationals, protests centering on their status as illegals within the US. One of the things Malking did on her blog (she's in Technorati's top 10 so it actually matters what she does in her blog - unlike my inconsequential ramblings) was post the names and home phone numbers of some protestors.
Now this is fucked up. These people had to endure harassment and death threats from the shit-heels who like the reactionary crap Malkin goes on with. She copped a pretty severe blowback over this and received a torrent of abuse. No surprise that a lot of it was sexist (she's female) and racist (she's of Asian descent). This is plain stupid and it always happens. When you can easily attack someone simply on the grounds they're a fuckwit, why bother with racism and sexism?
But we pass through the looking glass when the lunatic fringe right gets up in arms over this abuse. Yeah, right - they're never sexist or racist. I agree that anyone who indulged in this gutter level response should be ashamed and I'll distance myself from them as far as possible. But I don't need these right wing pigfuckers who base what passes for their public discourse on racism, sexism, homophobia and lies moralising to me. I like the idea of pounding their Neanderthal skulls with a heavy cast-iron soot-blackened kettle.
It's intellectual violence! You see? You're the pot! You called the kettle black. Now the kettle is saying "Fuck you, shithead!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)