World of Suck

Zach Wigal is a 17 year old junior in high school.

He had a vision. Not like a prophetic one, but a figurative one. He was going to hold a tournament. A Halo2 tourney to be exact. He gathered up $650 and set out on his mission. He got a permit to use the school commons area. Printed up fliers and advertised on the internet. He got a list of 300 players who would be willing to pay the $5 entry fee. Talked 10 parents and teachers into chaperoning. Set a prize at $300 for 1st place and $150 for second.

Basically, he showed initiative and organization and put something together that would be enjoyed by many people, while giving him valuable experience for a young adult.

But he made a mistake. He called the cops to give them a courtesy call that the event was taking place.

Big mistake. Turns out, instead of having all of his planning paying off and rewarding him, he got to learn another lesson: People suck.

Let me back up some. When Zach approached the school to get permission to hold the event, they raised a concern. Halo2 is rated M. Mostly due to language. Zach explained at that time that the Mutliplayer version doesn't include bad language so it shouldn't be an issue. The school agreed.

But the cops... they cops... four days before the event... contacted the school and suggested that the school cancel the event because Halo2 was rated Mature, just like other games like Manhunt, Grand Theft Auto, and 25 to Life, which all have been in the media spotlight recently.

Having played Halo 2, this type of comparison is Bullshit. Pure and simple.

The decision to cancel the event... just four days before the event... four FUCKING days...just goes to show how large the gap is between gamers and the rest of the world. Because some schmuck cop got his panties in a twist and scared off the school administration. Zach was unable to find a new location and had to cancel several months worth of work, and lost all the money he spent. All because they didn't take the time to actually look into the game. To actually see if if comparing it to GTA was valid.

Fuck 'em. The pig cops and the pussy school admins should be burned at the stake.

From the NY Times: Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

"Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

[...]

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

I'm sure that for those who knew all along that a government run by some of the richest, fat cats in America weren't at all interested in seeing anyone below them catch up... the numbers support you.

For those delusional bastards who felt that electing an "average joe like me" or "a family values representative", well I'm sure there are lots of excuses you can make to rationalize the fact that our President and his government never really had your interests in the first place. Enjoy.

Apparently Iran, confident that the US and UK are tied up in Iraq is pushing to make all the trouble it can. The idea being, naturally, that while the big boys have their hands full, they can get away with anything they please - from actively pursing nukes to snatching British sailors that wander too close to their border.

Clearly the other big dogs, Russia and China, are on their side. Unwilling to take any action against Iran and actively impeding any other countries that want to. Seems like a field day for Persia.

It's really not all that atypical behavior for the Middle East, where saber rattling and chest pounding is what symbolizes a "man" and social or political reforms are not even on the horizon.

Still it takes some nads for a government to actually take hostages in this day and age. Genuine members of the international community do not hold hostages, stage mock trials, or parade foreign nationals on TV. It essentially validates the position that they are really nothing more than a bunch of terrorists in suits.

While I hate people that feel compelled to talk and drive I am willing to give credit to people who go "hands free". Ok so you gotta talk? Fine, keep both hands on the wheel and I'll live with it. At least in an emergency you have the ability (even if not the attention or reflexes) to deal.

Bluetooth headsets are a dime a dozen. Frankly, the $40 unit I got for free with my last cell-renewal didn't even get a single bid on ebay at a starting price of $20. NIB even. The point is that they're cheap, easy to use and serve the purpose for hands free.

The question I run into, however, is why the fuck don't women seem to use them? Especially when they're driving? Women are supposed to be great mutli-taskers. Their brains are wired to process multiple signals in parallel, sure - maybe on paper that would seem to be an advantage in doing more than one thing at a time - but in practice? I'm sorry there's no two ways about it - the majority of fuckheads I see swerving around, missing stop signs, trailing into other lanes, cutting over three lanes at the last second and overall acting like diabetics about to collapse are women jawing away on the phone.

Maybe it's because most of the headsets look stupid when you wear them. Maybe it's because they don't fit with big, garish earrings. Perhaps it's simply because women don't dig technology enough to find headsets to be cool. Whatever the reason here's my big "fuck you" to all the Ho's who couldn't shut the fuck up long enough to turn their head before driving into my lane while I was still in the space next to them.

Please, next time, try it with a wall instead mmm'k?

Why do parents live in denial?

I've touched on the issue dozens of times over the years (yes... we've been screaming into the ether for years now) but no matter how many times it comes up, I still don't get it. What causes the parents of so many teenagers to be so drastically out of touch with the youth culture around little Joe and Sally?

There are fundamental realities that parents need to accept. By age 13, it's virtually certain that your kid knows something about sex in some form or another. Maybe only conceptually. Maybe they know how it all works. Maybe they've HAD sex by then.

There is also a good chance that some of what they know is wrong. Which is why lots of us push for real, honest, informative sex ed classes. That means teaching children more than the physical attributes of a male and female, but how it all goes together. How to determine if they're ready for sex, how to say no, and how to be safe.

I'm consistently amazed that a parent would ever argue against that position. But they do. Fine.

But it's more than that. They're SHOCKED... absolutely SHOCKED when little Billie demonstrates that his 15 year old mind might have wandered onto the subject at some point. Don't they fucking remember that age? If there was a 6 hour period where my mind DIDN'T focus on sex at some point... I would have been shocked.

Take for example the sex edition of a student paper at a high school in New Hampshire. The entire edition was student created. It discussed homosexuality, anal / oral sex, sex myths, date rape and masturbation. Now, some of those topics are/ were taboo for parents. But for people born in the Nintendo generation and later, they're really not shocking or new. They're facts of life facing many high school students. And in my personal opinion, it's better to put the subject out in a way that kids will read than hoping that they'll get everything correct by watching online pr0n. Discuss the actual facts and consequences before Suzie thinks that having an orgy with lots of unprotected friends is a good idea.

Of course the parental reaction to the paper was to stage a massive uproar and demand the removal of the editor. They also would like the school board to censor... I mean... provide administrative control of the student paper from now on.

Look, I get it. you wish your kids would stay kids forever. But you know what, by senior high, you'd better expect your teen to be able to make choices about sex. It's probably better if they're informed choices rather than based on the perpetual myths that always fly around children of that age. The age of consent is between 16 and 18 for most of the US. Lower in a few states. You can't wait until then to inform your kids, because a lot of them don't wait that long to figure it out on their own.

Honestly, it's a mystery to me why a parent would so obviously sabotage their child's ability to understand sexual relationships. I know, they were raised that way. But the mores of the past don't always fit into the reality of today. Kids grow up fast and they have a lot more information a lot younger than they did 50 years ago. Confusion about the subject is bound to happen, and simply blindfolding your child isn't going to change that. Parents should lead the discussion, but with so many teens sexually active, you can't expect the school system to remain silent on such a pressing need for the kids. All the more so since the articles chosen were written by the very teens in question.

It demonstrates that they already know enough to write about it. Parents need to recognize that it also means they're old enough that they need to be treated like adults and have a reasonable discussion on the topic

From CNN news: A teenager and his friends made a bomb based on instructions they got off the internet. It didn't explode right away, but when it did, it nearly blinded the Massachusetts's teen. He may not regain his eyesight for six months. When asked what he learned, he replied: "Not to do something stupid." Well, maybe he will avoid a Darwin award after all?

Ever get the random fax machine that continuously calls your number? I wouldn't mind if it would call once and realize that a voice on the other end saying 'Hello?' would mean that it probably shouldn't call the number again then promptly notify the person using the damn thing that they most likely have the wrong number.

But no.

Today I'm fighting with a fax machine that comes from a number that shows up as 000-000-0000. It's been calling since 7:30am this morning. If I could find it and the person who typed in the wrong number I would.... I would... $%&@#&!!

There was an article recently about a new type of hospice being set up for terminally ill infants. While on the face of it, it seems like a noble cause, enabling parents and infants to spend time together in a less antiseptic setting for the short while they have, but there's actually a more sinister side.

It seems many of these infants were diagnosed in vitro as having terminal conditions... and the parents given the choice of terminating them decided instead to have their child, name it, enshrine it and make it suffer through a brief but agonizing life.

If you really loved someone would you cause them pain and agony knowing with clear certainty they would die? Especially someone who can't speak, can't understand? These parents who choose to have a terminally ill infant claim they want to cherish their brief time together, so as the baby is desperately trying to draw its breath they can grieve together as it dies.

Talk about fucked up.

Here's both barrels: the only reason these people are having terminally ill babies is a perverse Munchausen syndrome whereby they can draw the attention and sympathy through the tool of their child. That's it basically, "Look at me, poor me, my baby is dying and there's nothing I can do"... except of course perhaps make the sympathetic decision to prevent the child from suffering in the first place.

That's not love, it's narcissism.

There are groups of people out there. Many of them young people. They all have one desire. One common thread that binds them together and unifies them as a single culture.

The desire not to have sex. And to sit around and support each other through this trying time.

They're out there, oh yes. I tease them. But not for the reasons you might think. Nope. I don't mock them because I have a problem with their point of view. If that's what they want, that's cool. It's how they feel they must band together to stop the rest of the world from pressuring them.

First off, the reasoning of many of these people is flawed on a deep deep level. Take the Harvard group. They claim that they're pressured to have sex by the college itself. Because, freshman are required to attend a seminar about date rape. Look at the second word there. R-A-P-E. They also claim that the school safe sex program pushed them into doing the deed. Personally. I think both of those reasons are total fucking bullshit.

Date rape programs don't encourage sex, they help people identify rape you fucking idiots!!! And safe sex programs are exactly that. Programs that teach people to have sex safely if they choose to have sex. I know this will be a shock to you, but the MAJORITY of college students fuck like bunnies. 71% of them to be exact according to a recent study. When nearly 3/4 people are doing something, it's probably safe to say that the school has an interest in making sure they do it safely. It's not brain surgery. You people got into Harvard? Seriously? I should have applied.

Secondly, they say that they have to form groups because they are mocked. But, here's the good part... they don't really get mocked until they form the group. It also probably didn't help when they sent newsletters to the entire campus telling students they should wait "because they're worth it". Nothing pisses people off more than being told how to live their life, ya know? So yes... they're certainly mocking you now. Not because you're not having sex, but because you're fucking annoying. And because you've broadcast your particular grievance to the ENTIRE STUDENT BODY, yes... they're going to use that to piss you off / embarrass you.

Finally, this goes out to the 'technical virgins' and 'born again virgins'... you're not FUCKING VIRGINS. You can pretend all you fucking want, but at the end of the day, you've had sex. Maybe it wasn't in the 'proper' place... maybe it's been a while... but you got laid. I don't care if it was a moment of passion or a drunken orgy. You had sex. Don't try to act holier than thou as if it's some big deal that you're holding onto some psychotic mental barrier that you somehow are still a virgin. Your mental disorder has nothing to do with physical reality.

Don't want to have sex? Fine by me. Go for it. I respect your choice. I made that choice for a long time. I didn't need a group to get through it. Turns out, all it takes is the ability to stick up for yourself and say "No, I don't want to." If you need a group to help you resist the urge, that's fine too. But don't go out and tell me the world is pushing you into fucking your date. Your date may be, but the rest of the world doesn't give two shits about when or if you get laid.

Get over yourselves.

PS: Is it wrong that I considered ended this with "Probably wouldn't hurt to go get laid..."? I decided it was too hypocritical, even for me.

Maybe I'm slow. El Presidente stood up and said that he would allow his minions to talk to Congress, but not under oath and not with a transcript.

Ok. So, what does Congress get out of this? Oh... nothing. It's like a reporter with an anonymous source. Nothing useful can be done without corroborating evidence. I mean, it's great in theory, but not in practice. Congress doesn't learn anything that it can use to pursue the investigation. Just some fluff to try to explain things and make this entire debacle fade away?

More importantly, what does it say? It implies that they may lie or mislead the panel. And they would prefer not to commit a crime when they do that. Alternatively, they would like the things they said not to be held against them in the future. Or maybe they just don't want the populace at large to get to see what they say. damn those foundations of democracy. Damn them to HELL!!

Further, El Presidente's reasoning is that it would erode the executive branch. Which is total bullshit, because dozens of other presidential aides and lawyers have testified to congress in the past. What he wants is apprently to INCREASE the authority of the executive branch.

I don't care if the administration did it or not. Well, maybe a little, but not really. But I find this weaseling conniving attitude far more annoying then the fate of 8 lawyers.

It's been all over the news lately that a pet food manufacturer "changed ingredients" which basically killed pets that consumed it. It affected both dogs and cats that ate types of moist food (for the record I only feed my pets dry food 99% of the time). Animals died rapidly from kidney failure.

Not good.

So what did the pet food manufacturer do?

Well it got a bunch of cats and dogs and started feeding them the food to check and see if there really was a problem. Of course a bunch of these "test" animals then died.

That's nice, really. Heartwarming. So basically after animals and owners suffered through agonies of pain and loss, the pet food manufacturer decides to execute a few more animals just to "check". It's nice to know the lives of these test animals were essentially worthless, even more so from a company that supposedly has a consumers interest (and thus their pets interest) at heart.

I suppose actually doing some chemical analysis first and determining the difference in the makeup between the new and old food would have been cost prohibitive as a logical first step.

So to Menu Foods, of Streetsville, Ontario, here's a big fat FUCK YOU. I hope your stock tubes so hard it'll peak in China.

I stumbled upon this little gem on Cooks.com while researching a classic English recipe for Bubble-n-Squeek. The name caught my eye, and like passing a car crash I had to look. I'm sorry I did.

WATERGATE SALAD

1 (20 oz.) can crushed pineapple, undrained
1 (3 1/4 oz.) box instant pistachio pudding mix
1 lg. (12-13 oz.) Cool Whip
1 c. miniature marshmallows
1/2 c. chopped walnuts

Ok.. precisely what part of this constitutes "salad"?

To define what sucks
It is first necessary
To accept your fate

Questions.

Some questions are valid. Some are troublesome. To have doubts, concerns and needs - that's normal. That's human. To question ones existance, wonder about life and relationships - these are things you probably should do. It keeps you from stagnating.

But when you're an adult and you can't seem to move past the five-year old inclination to ask a question about every single damn thing, I want to split your head open.

Here are a few tools to help you not be a dumbass and therefore risk my ire.

Pay Attention
You've made it this far in life. You own a house. You've delt with major life issues. How did you get this far if you can't open your fucking eyes for a second and look at the world around you.

I'm not your keeper.

Help Yourself
Nothing will answer your questions like simply taking a second to investigate the answer yourself. Seriously. It's not that hard.

When you're in a situation, and you have these things called resources available, then you should use them. If I take a second to answer something that you should be able to easily figure out for yourself, then don't ask me again. I told you. I did my job. We all figured it out (whatever "it" is). You can do the same.

I'm not your keeper.

Don't Bite The Hand
I did something nice for you. Imagine it - I thought of someone other than myself. And what do you do? You bitch at me about the delivery, quality and speed.

Ok - that's not you asking some dumbass question that I neither know the answer to or care about giving. But still. Fuck it.

I'm not your fucking bitch.

In short - next time - screw you.

I can't help you as you fumble for all of the crap that you have burdened yourself with. I can't look after your belongings if you forget them. I can't wait for you if you toddle off to get more useless crap. I can't bother to care if you knew about some widget on the web before everyone else did - it doesn't make you cooler in my eyes. It makes you look like you're self-important, which is repulsive.

I won't babysit you as you flail helplessly, awash in your own lifes drama. I'll offer no comfort as you paint yourself into a corner with your own ineptitude, disorganization, and unwavering tunnel vision.

Yep. Screw you.

"Where do I go from here?"

Do you have times in your life when you feel like you're presented with a choice to keep doing things the same old way, more or less the way you know how, or take up a challenge and see what you're made of? I think it's scary for most of us trying to think and be different than we usually are. The older the person the scarier it is, I think, because as a child your job is to learn but as an adult your job is to produce.

As frightening as it is to break out and try something different, even scarier is the feeling that you could upset things that depend on you. It's that sense of dependence that locks the knees and prevents even the slightest inclination to stepping forward. And the end result is anger and frustration "Why can't I change? What's so hard about doing things differently?"

Some people make a lifetime out of change, deliberately reinventing themselves. The rest of us seem more inclined to just roll with what we're dealt, stepping up when we're demanded to but otherwise content to just travel along at a constant velocity on some path we took back when we didn't have much of a clue.

I don't think it's a matter of loving or hating yourself, or other people, it's just a matter of beating the inertia of your own image. Maybe that's the real rock that Sisyphus was pushing up the hill. I think I understand him better now.

Site is temporarily down for service.
Thanks
teh Management.
...
{edit}
Aaaand it's done.
Welcome to 1.9.2.

Enjoy.

"I'm against the death penalty but I make an exception in his case"

The words inspire instant rage. My blood pressure rises. Steam out the ears. A sudden urge to grab up the closest larynx smasher and go to town.

I know it's irrational, but I can't stand people that waver with things like that. For the most part, the death penalty in the US is reserved for heinous crimes. Not just murder, gruesome murder. Even then, most of the time it can be reduced to life sentences or appealed down to something lighter. I understand people that have a moral issue with it. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I support those that do object though. Voice your opinion. Good for you. If your voice is louder than mine, by all means, change the law. Democracy in action. Hoozah!

But... BUT... if you oppose the death penalty out of some sort of moral conviction that killing someone is wrong... don't expect me to go lightly on you when your ass waffles on the issue. I don't care if the fucker was gang raping 6 year old boys on the front steps of the courthouse while sodomizing your mother. I don't care if he slowly mutilated and tortured your best friend's mother to death over the course of a six month kidnapping. You don't get to claim moral authority and then back off when something hits close to home for you. Because murder is always close to home to someone bitch. It's always someone's mother, brother, uncle, cousin, friend or daughter. If you oppose the punishment for them, you damn sure better stick to your guns when the case effects you somehow.

Sorry, no "get-out-hypocrisy-free" cards accepted here. If you accept that one mother fucker can be put to death for his crimes, you accept the argument that some crimes are worthy of the death penalty. If you're against the death penalty, you're against it no matter how vile and disgusting the crime is. If you believe there are crimes that deserve a death sentence, you're FOR the fucking death penalty. You're just arguing over where to draw the fucking line. There isn't a gray area here. Yes or no. Accept it's use or decry it's use. Do or don't.

End of story, end of discussion.

My aunt died. Dad's sister.

We weren't real close. We weren't real distant. Saw each other a couple times a year. Christmas, Mother's day. Maybe once or twice beyond that.

She died fairly suddenly. Week or two notice and she was gone. Funeral is Tuesday. 10am.

I don't want to go. It's not that I didn't like her. It's that I don't get anything out of funerals. There is no sense of closure or goodbye for me.

The only reason I considered going was to be with my Dad. Support him.

I just talked to my mother. She laid down the law. I had to go. She laid down the guilt trip. When that failed, she told me I had to be there. Obviously she can't make me, but mothers like to think they retain some control over their children.

I explained to her that I don't get closure from them. I'm agnostic at best. My aunt lived. Had a good life, more or less. Now, she's dead. Maybe she'll go on to the next life. Maybe there is no such thing. Either way, I'm done with her.

My mother tells me that "the funeral isn't for you. It's for the survivors." That's a verbatim quote. I guess I didn't survive? I know what she means. But it still drives me up a wall that she's trying to force me to go.

I DON'T LIKE FUNERALS. I spend the entire time waiting for the grievers to finish up, the reverend to offer up some old words of comfort, and the people to mill past the corpse with whispered farewells. Then we all pile into cars, drive over to the cemetery, and I get to be a pallbearer. I don't know why, but it always happens, without fail, at every single funeral I've attended since age 12. Even people I don't know. Oh yeah. I've been pallbearer for two people I've never met because I was there as support for a friend/family member of the deceased. I guess I just look like I need to be carrying a casket. Anyway, then, we stack the wooden box over the hole in the ground, say a few more farewells, and then maybe toss a flower on it. Then it's off for snacks and drinks at the wake.

Seems like a bit callous take on things doesn't it? I know it does. I'm a fairly callous person. I don't express emotions very well. I don't mourn dead people. I think 'ah, that's a shame' and move on with my life.

For me, sitting at a funeral is an exercise is mental control. I have to make an effort not to tap my foot and look bored out of my mind. It's the truth, but I try not to look that way so that I don't interfere with other people's grief. I don't do it, but there is no reason for me to get in the way of their efforts to come to grips with it.

I hate this. I don't want to go. I'm going to sit there pissed off the entire time. The fact that my mother is pushing me so hard just makes me dig my heels in more and become more pissed off. To be honest, I'm more annoyed at this funeral than I am at her death. That's fucked up. I know it. But that doesn't make it any less true.