Aug/30
2005

Open Hostility

I don't get why people stare. It's like their mothers never fucking told them it was rude. To me staring is an open act of hostility, especially when there's no smile attached. People love to stare when they're in cars. Somehow the fact that they can stare at you then drive off makes it all ok in their book. Like it's a escape pod that frees them from the etiquette that they'd otherwise conform to. It's even more stupid when you're doing it to someone in the same building you work in, or place you both live. You're eventually bound to run into that person, probably in a professional or social manner - then what? You're going to be nice to them then? "Hi how are you? Sorry for staring at you like a circus freak the last time we sorta met?" Animals know what staring means. If a dog can objectively decide to rip your face off for staring, then why the fuck can't I? I don't know you motherfucker... either tell me why I should care, or get up close enough to do it for real. I have a damn long memory, and really good image recall, don't let the fact that you ran off make you feel safe, because it shouldn't.
Aug/30
2005
So. So, so, so. Microsoft has decided that you can no longer keep your OS updated unless you have a legal copy. Whereas in the past all you did was hop on the updates link and download their patches, fixes and 'well fuck did we really leave this loophole'-isms you now have to validate your right to OS you're running. When you connect now it makes you dl some validation app, and modify some security settings in IE (NO YOU CANNOT UPDATE ZE OS VITH FIREFOX, ACHTUNG, SVINE-PIG, YOO VANT ZE UPDATES YOO USE OUR BROWSER GODDAMIT). Oh yeah yeah, we're not taking any personal info off your computer just... installing this app... which will report stuff to us... lalala... no no never mind your traffic spiking from time to time, pay it no mind... So, hostage to the fact that there is New Evil out there, 'sploits, nastiness, data-munching, bit-pissing crap you decide to run the updates. While Norton is downloading new virus and worm defs in a disk-thrashing frenzy you wait for a quiet lull to connect and get these new updates. Putting your manhood aside by letting them install this app to validate your OS, you perform the required full prostrations by rebooting as needed, all the while aware that this latest set of virus-crap came only a week after MS announced that there were new holes in their OS, aaaand - coincidentally at the same time they implemented this new policy of confirming ownership. Funny that. Anyway, do you the dance, get the stuff, turn on auto-updates and return to what you were doing.... that's if you actually own your OS. Now lets say I didn't - what happens then? I'm not really sure, since I actually do own the copies of the OS I run. It's pretty easy to envision what might happen if I didn't. You don't own your OS so then no upgrades for joo. Uh huh. But then what happens? No updates means you're still subject to 'sploits and bit-pissers. That means more people will be vulnerable, right? So do more people just run around having unsafe computer-intercourse? Do applications like Norton and McAfee pick up the tab and try and patch as patch can? Does life just suck more for everyone because now you have to worry if that email from Aunt Betsy in Bumfuck might have e-crabs on it because she didn't update? And what happens next? Does MS decide that it's not enough to prevent people from dling updates if their papers are not in order and start ripping shit out? Not sure, but one thing is clear (as much as it ever was). The nation of Microsoft sucks, and they're in it for the money - and now - you better be a card carrying citizen because the deportations are about to start....
Aug/29
2005

Find Out What It Means To Me

Friday, I tackled the mass of weeds that had now become small trees that lined the spot next to my garage drive way and my neighbors fence. The "previous owners" had built this area up and put in a rock wall, so I wanted to make it look nice. Since an alley way runs behind my house, and next to that runs a major biking and jogging trail, the kids of the neighborhood ride their bikes in the extreme vicinity of my home. And Friday it was no different, as I hacked and sawed at rubbery trunks of things that knew no horticutural master. Three younglings (prolly 10 or 12 years in age) came tearing up on their bikes and stopped not but 15 feet from me as I worked. They talked to each other, as humans often do. "Nigga, blah blah blah muthafuckin blah blah blah muthafuka" said one. "Nigga, blah blah blah muthafuckin blah blah blah muthafuka" said the second. "Nigga! Look at you cursin' in front of a grown man! I can't believe you!" said the third. "I'm showin' that man respect by not cursin' in front of him, nigga!" Realizing that I had been brought into this, I had few choices... I could play the "authority" and say "Yes - you should strive to use better words and communicate on an intelligent level" and look like a real tool. I could ignore it, and place myself as an outsider to the neighborhood kids who might be back in October to egg my house because I'm "stuck up" or something. I could laugh it off... "A grown man? Me?" Said I "It's nothing I haven't heard before". But really, the moral of this story is that if the third was going to show anyone respect, he should show it to his friends and leave the "nigga" word at home. But I didn't say that.
Aug/24
2005
So in the world of the "retarded" there is a new Queen. Get this - a doctor in New Hampshire told one of his patients that she was overweight and needed to lose it or it would kill her. So what does she do? Join weight watchers? Stop shoving less cake in her hole? Fuck no. The fat twat decides her best course of action is to take out a complaint against the doctor. Baffling eh? What's more baffling was that the New Hampshire Board of Medicine doesn't ignore this bullshit, or just send him a letter of concern (as recommended) they refer it to the Attourney General. In a tax-free state that should be criminal, wasting money on stupid shit like that. The result is that Attourney Generals office recommended that he acknowledge that he made a mistake and take a medical education course, both of which the doctor has rejected. True that doctors have to be professional and polite, but he's had other obese patients come to his defense. They have testified to the fact that he's just telling the truth. Maybe the fat twat should take her lardass attitude someplace else, she didn't need a doctor as much as a fucking grip on reality. Don't shoot the Messenger bitch.
Aug/23
2005

Dead Advertising

The bush administration has found a way to make poster-children out of it's fallen soldiers. Even in death they don't get a choice of their last message. The administration has now decided that the tombstones in Arlington should now bear a propaganda message, inscribing the markers with slogans like "operation enduring freedom" or "operation Iraqi freedom". This started with the war in Afghanistan, and is continuing today. Nice fucking propaganda... The Department of Veterans Affairs says it isn't. ''The headstone is not a PR purpose. It is to let the country know and the people that visit the cemetery know who served this country and made the country free for us,'' VA official Steve Muro said. Funny isn't it how someone can contradict themselves so blatantly. The family is supposed to be offered the opportunity to dictate what goes on the stone, but in many cases they aren't. Nadia and Robert McCaffrey, whose son Patrick was killed in Iraq in June 2004, said ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' ended up on his government-supplied headstone in Oceanside, Calif., without family approval. ''I was a little taken aback,'' Robert McCaffrey said, describing his reaction when he first saw the operation name on Patrick's tombstone. ''They certainly didn't ask my wife; they didn't ask me.'' He said Patrick's widow told him she had not been asked either. Well, even I'm impressed. I suppose if there were an opportunity to tattoo babies as they were being born with pro-government messages the administration would jump all over that as well. Sick motherfuckers, just sick. Leave the dead alone ok? They already did their job for you...
Aug/23
2005
Short story: Rave gets busted in para-military fashion. Charges of brutality and excessive force fly. The Message Board The Newspaper The Newspaper (2) The Video More Messageboards Just before 9/11, much of the music community was upset about the "Rave Act" being passed. The legislation was targeted at illegal parties being thrown by promoters to further the sale of drugs. Sounds noble, right? However. Authorities were not just targeting the underground events, they were targeting the ones that were legit - the ones that paid for their permits - the ones that hired security (usually off duty cops) - the ones that paid for liability insurance - the ones that jumped through every single hoop that they had to in order to hold their event. This is not just limited to raves. The letter of the law is so loosely written so that any gathering of people, where music may or may not be involved, and where police feel that drugs might be sold, is pretty much open for police action - no warrant - no nothing. This could mean the night club where you go to see your favorite band or dance to music could be shut down at any minute. Any house party that might "look like a rave" is subject to the jack-boot at the door. Trust me - I know from experience. Your local ren faire or book club could even be subject to scrutiny. They won't knock on the door and ask you to "turn it down". They'll drag you out by your hair and beat you down on your front lawn. So the Rave Act kind of disappeared from the general publics eye after 9/11. There were larger things to worry about in the face of the thousands dead in New York. But the law is still there and it's still being abused. The end.
Aug/19
2005
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that U.S. armed forces medical benefits should cover abortion costs only when a mother's life is at risk, a decision that the judges acknowledged was ''callous and unfeeling.'' The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy, but coverage for the procedure was denied. She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services ''furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life.'' In plain english: The current administration values its religous fervor and cult of life over the pain and suffering of a mother whose baby can't survive. The message is clear, "We don't care about women, we don't care about human suffering, we only care about our image and the fanaticsm it engenders." Keep in mind the armed forces will not pay for an abortion in the case of rape or incest either. So as a woman you can sacrifice your life in the service of your country, but if you get raped by anyone, or have a baby with a fatal defect, don't expect us to be there for you.
Aug/19
2005
So Our President is finally showing that he is vulnerable. Cracks in his untouchability are growing at an alarming rate, accelerated through the efforts of one Mom's quest to understand the sacrifice of her child. So what does Mr.Bush do? Instead of standing up like a man, going out there and meeting her and putting an end to it all - he's pulling out the old 'Remember 911' in a 3rd Reich attempt to use volume over reason, a genuine sign that he's falling back on his last defenses. Pretty damn pathetic. If you can't win on merit, resort to flag-waving, dick rubbing, patriotic fervor.
Aug/18
2005

Link: http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000

the New London Development Corp. Who are they? They are the comapny that won the Supreme Court case that allowed buisnesses to invoke eminent domain on property owners because they could build a hotel. Remember them? Turns out, they can get more disgusting. They are charging the former owners rent for the time they spent litigating the decision. That's right. Not only did you lose your home, but you now owe lots of rent on it. Five years of rent to be exact.
An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."
And here I thought I had met the worst slime in the universe. Apparently I grossly underestimated the potential slime. I really don't even need to expand on this rant any further. Actions speak louder than words.
Aug/18
2005
Normally, I try to avoid bitching about the direct aspects of my job. But this one, I just don't understand. Why do people make internet worms? For the life of me, I don't understand the answer. Hackers, I get. Breaking into systems for free information or for security checks or just to demonstrate prowess or a dozen other good reasons. I get it. But worms, worm writers don't make sense to me. I mean, half of it is to actually compromise as many machines as they can. It's all a number game so they can say 'I infected X machines'. But I don't really think that's enough for the amount of damage they inflict. And it's not targeted or anything. It's just random chaos on the internet put out there just to show the other worm fuckheads how big an e-penis you've got. And don't even get me started on the guys that write anti-worm worms. Writing a worm to get rid of another worm is so illogical I can't even think about it without shaking my head. I mean, most of the time the solution is worse then the problem. Idiots.
Aug/15
2005
It's simple really. You work and you get paid. Nothing really complicated about it. Ok, in some cases there are complicating factors, usually either in the form of disabilities (in which case the government and state usually come to your rescue if your family can't or won't) or kids - which the government is just beginning to understand. I'll admit that if you're the victim of an abusive husband with 3 little kids and you finally get a divorce yeah it's gonna be tough... but again there are some organizations out there that will help. So lets go to Atlanta for a sec. They're passing an ordinance that makes it illegal to beg on the street. Business owners claim that shopping and tourism are being hurt by agressive panhandlers. I'll bet from the above paragraph you already know where I stand on this... right? Now some dolt made the comment that it was their "biblical right" to ask for alms. Uh, correct me here but I don't recall the bible being enshrined in the constitution. Biblical rights also include lopping off hands and taking out eyes. We just don't do that here. I suppose their right not to panhandle might just as easily be countered with my right not to push the person annoying me in front of an approaching bus. I grew up in NYC, I've been to 3rd world countries... and begging sucks. It turns you off, makes you want to go home. And for the businesses that are losing customers, business that are supplying taxes that the city does in part spend on homeless shelters, food and free medical care, it sucks. It's not your "right" to beg, maybe on your own land, in front of your own house, but from what I'd guess if you had that you wouldn't need to. I guess there is a certain amount of protected free speech, but it's my opinion that the people who -do- pay for the maintenance, security and upkeep of the sidewalks, store fronts and public ways should have more of a say than those who just want stuff handed to them. One former homeless person observed that giving money only enabled them to go spend it on drugs or booze. Note he was "formerly" homeless, meaning he pulled his ass out. I'd say that gave weight to his opinion. Free country? Yeah I suppose it is - for those of us who contribute in one form or another. I would suggest that those that don't exist at the benevolence of those of us that do.
Aug/12
2005
Now, I do not object to elderly drivers. Heck, my grandfather is 93 and still drives. Rather well I might add. That being said some elderly drivers should be either off the road or at least have the good sense to NOT drive during rush hour. I was driving to work the other morning. I get near an intersection where there is fork and traffic lights. Well, this elderly driver, who was going "straight" (like me) stops about three car lengths behind the car infront of him. There is plenty of space to get around the car in front of him and go straight. He sits there. I'm not sure what he is doing. While I am trying to decide if it safe to go around this guy, road rage yahoo whips around me just as old man decides to go forward. They almost collide. After the light, old man pulls toward the shoulder, not quite on, but I'm not taking any more chances so I take my opportunity to get the hell away from him. Then he cuts off the people behind me. Next light, he stops behind me - again about 3 car lengths behind me. OK, dude. Either give up the damn drivers license - because you obviously aren't even confident in your own driving skills anymore - or stay the fuck home during rush hour. I don't want to be on the damn road during rush hour, but I have bills to pay and I have to be there. So do the rest of us smucks. Go shopping, go to the doctor, go golfing, later in the day. What else ya got to do anyway!
Aug/12
2005

A word if you please

George Carlin once said "Words are all we have really". But he also was aware that not everyone likes all the words. Me? I like words. All of them. I try to pick my words to best express myself. Being a profane person, profanity is often a part of my vocabulary. Carlin's 'Seven Dirty Words' are part and parcel with me. Now, I don't go throwing them around for fun. I use my words to best describe my feelings, emotions, or ideas. If I call you a mother fucker, it's because I think you're a crappy person. I could call you a crappy person, but it doesn't have the same strength. But the thing is, even though one word is weaker than another, they are the same. Both of them demean the target in their own way. In much the same way, I could say "Son of a Gun" or "Son of a Bitch". They are interchangeable in intent. One of them has a force of will behind it, and the other is a weak imitation. Now, I watch my language when appropriate. For example, I try to avoid profanity when children are present and such things. Not because I don't think they should hear it, but because I'm not the parent and it's not my choice if they should hear it. However, some people get offended when I do display a force of will in my words. I have no problem call someone 'an assfaced, pig fucking, piss-covered whore with a mind like dogshit and a personality to match'. Not that I'm often forced to so that, but basically, I go no problem saying it. It amazes me when people tell me to watch my language. As if I was unaware of what I had just said. I mean, I had the thought, I retrieved the sounds associated with that thought, and I commanded my lungs and mouth to form the motions required to make the sound. It’s a very complex process. I don’t do it without knowing full well what I’m doing. And what exactly do they expect here? Let’s say I remove the ‘bad’ words from my words. Does that make their intent less? What if I call someone a son of a Babylonian Harlot”? Maybe not as vile sounding as Whore, but hey… you got the point, didn’t you? So why not say Whore? Everyone thought it. I meant it. Why not say what I mean. When I say fuck you, I mean fuck you. I don’t mean anything else nor do I want to say anything else. I mean fuck you. Pure and simple, fuck you. So next time you feel the need to ask me to watch my language, save yourself the trouble. I’m going to say ‘Fuck you’ again and you’re just going to get more offended. I think it’s all happier if you stay out of my words and worry about your own.
Aug/11
2005

Link: http://www.focusonyourchild.com/develop/art1/A0000684.html

There really aren't enough eye rolling emoticons in the world for this guy. His name is James Dobson and he wants to help you raise your child straight. Because anything else is hateful. He's a child psychologist who believes he has found many of the warning signs of your little boy's sexual orientation. He wants to tell you about them so you can... umm... do something about it. Probably something that will result in irrevocable damage to your relationship with your child and have them growing up hating you. But that's just my guess. I'm sure ass-wipe thinks you can change them and all. So, shall we examine these warning signs? Yes, let’s do that. 1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from other boys. Umm… check for me. 2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy. Another check. Silly me. How dare I dislike baseball and wrestling. Me and those silly books I spent my childhood reading… we’ll be the ones over here making a lot of money. I’ll pay the rest of you to change my oil, k? 3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play. Ok, not me this time. 4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes. Big check here. At least up until high school, most of my friends were female. In children this is apparently gay. To the adult community it’s called trying to get laid. Go figure. 5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.” Another check here for me. Now, I hate to split hairs here, but… as I recall, children get called queer and fag long before most children know what the word even means. And generally the kids that get bullied are the smaller kids. Which would mean the problem here is the parents genetic code, right? 6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately. Damn it. I knew my parents doomed me when they refused to buy me cutting edge fashions. Check. 7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl. Ok, I’ll take another negative here. So, 5 out of seven signs apply to me. I, as it happens, am not gay. I am, in fact, a well adjusted heterosexual male in a long term committed relationship. This kind of labeling serves no purpose. It encourages parents to make incorrect assumptions about their children, embarrassing confrontations, and disturbing “treatments” (see my previous rant on Love In Action). Above all, it’s wrong. Those things have more to do with gender roles then sexuality. Maybe the two are often overlapped, but they are not the same thing. Transvestites enjoy dressing as the opposite sex. But most of them are not actually gay. Common misconception. Because that is a gender role, not a sexuality issue. People like this guy make me sick. You want your boy to grow up into a man? Try loving him for who he is. Not punishing him for being a little different.
Aug/11
2005
There are some great equalizers in life. Traffic jams are one of them. No matter how much you spent on your car, or how much debt it cost you, no matter if you're wearing Channel or rotty cutoffs when you're stuck in traffic it's all the same. The uber-expensive and the shitbox, side by side - in fact as long as the seat springs aren't poking you in the ass, the A/C moderately works and you have some tunes to play then it really doesn't matter if you're on vinyl or kid glove leather. Stuck is stuck. I commute, and this constitutes a significant portion of my life. There's a certain Zen to it all, locked in an exitless stretch, creeping along... here we are, in our little compartments, coexisting. Is this a definition of a successful society? After all we are all getting along...
Aug/09
2005
So if I recall correctly, the woman who was the poster-child for anti-helmet laws in Florida was dead within weeks after the repeal was passed. Yeah you guessed it - from a motorcycle accident and not wearing a helmet. It's also true that in the last 3 years that motorcycle fatalities in florida have gone up 81% from the previous 3 years. That alone speaks volumes, 3 years is no trend.... even though the morons who are still trying to defend their "rights" (probably the same people who think suicide should be illegal) on the basis that road conditions and driver compenency weren't evaluated. I don't suppose explaining to these people that situational conditions that caused the event doesn't matter - once you go down, for whatever reason, either you have a helmet on ... or you don't. Well honestly, it's no big deal to anyone if you choose to mush your head on the road... so long as it's a complete fatality. It's the medical cost that's the big issue. In the past 30 months the cost has gone from $21 to $44 million. And that money is not paid up front by the people campaining for their "rights". For years safety rights advocates have fought the losing battle that the "right" to be stupid does not outweigh the overall burden on society. My recommendation is - you choose not to wear a helmet, you've just chosen not to have any medical assistance in a crash unless you can pay for it all up front. I don't want my medical premiums being jacked for your stupidity, and you know no one will openly admit they ride without a helmet if it would actually cost them out of pocket. Stupid is as stupid does, and the rest of us should be able to laugh at it and walk away without digging into our pockets to support it.