May/27
2005
I might start out berating American Society for their lack of inspiration. For being mental and emotional sheep who, not just blindly but happily, willingly, follow the talking heads who lead them. I might indeed, as this is common to my style, go on about the paucity of brain activity in areas of the mind reserved for independent and creative thought. However, as the sun is finally deciding to shine here - after 2 weeks of non-stop rain and gloom - I will approach my point from a positive angle for a change and not berate the sorry-fuckers who probably aren't even smart enough to use a mouse with the button side up... meaning a huge majority of Americans. If that wasn't clear - I'll be bitching about the stupid people who make up the quantity (not quality) of our population. You know who I mean, if you don't - then just go to Walmart. Anyway, lets all smile now - the rest of this will be smarmy, positive and upbeat. I write this post to celebrate The Rant and those that provide us with The Rant. Yea, without The Rant there should be no reflexive up-chuck reaction within readers, leaving them cold and bereft of emotion. I would argue that it is this generation of extreme agitation that enables us to know that not only are we alive, but that we are alive enough to have a reaction (for or against) a topic and that it challenges a person's mind to think about what the cause of that reaction might be (not to mention what actions your opinion can move you to). I would argue that to Rant is to go beyond the personal frustration (I'm stuck in traffic, I'm on the end of the longest line, That person has the most annoying personal habits on this side of eternity...etc) and present it to anyone willing (or bored) enough to read it. "There but for the grace of Jefferson Davis go I", thinks the reader who is happy not to have experienced the same. "By all the holy ballhairs of Hercules - I totally agree!", thinks the reader of likewise opinion. "Dieyouscumsuckingpigshitmotherrapistdogfart", thinks the unwashed minion of minimal mental pulchritude (probably a conservative who only watches TV and hasn't picked up a book since they were forced to back in High School, whoops did I just insult half the country? I'm so sowwy.....). This is NOT a free-speech, first amendment rant, nor is it a Red, White And Blueballed fist thrusting USA chant on how great we are because we can do this - this is simply a celebration of the fact that The Rant provides creative outlet for the writer, and stimulation for the reader. We Rant, therefore we Are. And since we Are, therefore we can, and will generate a reaction in our audience. And because We can and will generate a reaction in our audience, therefore we Rant. Gratzi.
May/25
2005

Who are you to judge?

America has laws. We have rules. We also have interpretations. However, no matter who you are, or where in the US you live - the arbiter of our rules is our judiciary. More simply, 'we' as a society, define who is right and who is wrong by the judges and juries that decide for us. It's an interesting paradigm. In many cases the outcomes go against popular wisdom and instincts - yes many people knew O.J. would walk. Yet more often than not the results of our courts do support popular opinion in the end - yes he walked, but he lost the civil trial and technically owes everything to the families of the people he hurt. In very recent days the conservative minority - emboldened by their political successes, have made moves to muzzle or manipulate the judiciary when things don't go their way: Gay Marriage, Terri Schivano. The very idea that judges could rule according to law and NOT popular morality sends them into a hair-ripping frenzy. Remember the comments from our Congress in the aftermath of the Schivano case - where controlling lawmakers essentially threatened the judges for ruling according to our law... "they must be brought back in line". Even more recently these conservatives are lashing out against the politicians that have helped push their agenda because they decided to 'compromise' on the president's judicial choices. Instead of drawing our government to a halt and creating a cavernous rift - these lawmakers ..yes there's that word again.. compromised. Lets be clear, states have the ability to provide a local constitution that suits the residents of that area. Gun laws are a great example, Massachusetts requires gun licenses that you must have training to acquire, 1 state north you only need a drivers license. The local courts rule according to these local laws. The idea that conservatives want to muzzle our judiciary at the highest level - handing down punishments to judges who rule according to law but NOT according to conservative morals, and loading the benches with judges who they feel would be more friendly to their agenda -should- strike fear in the hearts of the larger majority of the far less extreme. Last I read America was not 'Jesusland', at least not yet. Separation of Church and State is STILL in effect. I can only hope that the politicians that have now been threatened with revenge by the miffed conservatives who saw political compromise as a denial of their wants, get support from those they truly served by enabling our government to continue to function as it was designed. By the people and for the people, all people who care to vote and not just a subset who believe themselves to be superior.
May/24
2005

Think of the Children

I hate the term “For the children”. No wait. That’s not exactly right. I hate the things that done in the name of those words. I know, I know… it’s complicated. I’m asking parents to you know… be responsible for their children and all. You look at the movie rating. You see why it got the rating. You take a gander at movie reviews to see what critics said about it’s suitability for children. You make an informed choice. You decide. You. Not your Burger King Kids Meal. There are many examples I could talk about. It seems like some people really want the government to make the world into a rubber foam world behind the battle cry of “Think of the Children”. I ask, as parents, why aren’t YOU thinking of the children? I’m watching my R rated movie (maybe even NC-17. ….. Ok I admit it, porn.). Or playing my M rated video game. Or buying my music with the explicit lyrics warning on it. You know: the stuff they suggest you do NOT get for your children? Instead of blindly swiping the credit card, how about you take the time to think about what you want your child to have? And then, you have the nerve to demand that those games be not be sold in stores so your precious kids can’t get them. Well you know what, if your kid is buying shit that you don’t know about, maybe you need to watch your fucking kid a little better, hmm? Come on people. The world is a tough place. And especially in this era, it’s explicit. And it IS tough to prevent your kids form being exposed to unwanted material. But you know what? It’s not your job to make MY life into a plush toy to protect your kids. It’s your job as a parent to prevent your children from getting access. Don’t want them to buy the game? Don’t give them money. Don’t want them to watch bad movies? V-Chip baby. You’ve got lots of options to help you out. So stay the hell out of my life, k?
May/24
2005

Day 2 Hour 3 Haiku

meetings so endless a vacuum fills my mind is this ascension?
May/24
2005
Stale smoke, stained carpet, gouges in the walls and this is how I'm repaid for the kindness and support I give to a friend. Fuck it. Never again.
May/23
2005
N.Y. Audit Shows Sex Offenders Get Viagra 7:56 a.m. ET ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Scores of convicted rapists and other high-risk sex offenders in New York have been getting Viagra paid by Medicaid for the last five years, the state's comptroller said Sunday. Well wow, this is just great. In a data-age of instant numerical recognition, where hospitals ask for your number before your name and the power of computer content IS the identity (as opposed to the actual individual standing in front of you) this entirely meaningful data just escaped someone. Repeatedly. Doctors must assign perscriptions, one might imagine, so magically the psychological makeup of the individual never factored into the application of medicine, (neither, one might presume did the fact that their previous medical records came from a penetiary raise a flag). It might also be safely assumed that the 'naked-under-the-trenchcoat' look isn't all that unusual in a doctors office. Still, putting aside the responsibility of the Doctor in prescribing medication to understand the mental health of his patient, it is a necessity for the person paying for the medication to justify the expense. It's laughable, all the times an insurance company has denied a perscription or treatment due to cost and yet they missed an opportunity to deny crack to an addict. Pushing aside the tempting rant on Viagra being paid for when birthcontrol is not always covered, it's just an awesome view into official oversight.
May/21
2005
"with thunderous applause..." says Padme in the latest (and not so greatest) of the Star Wars sagas. Transparent references to Bush non-withstanding, the movie was pretty lame. Scenes seemed to last no more than a miniute or so and the dialogue was more or less the sci-fi saga equivalent of "see Spot run". I'd fault the actors for bad acting -if- they'd had enough content to act with. To sum up, the story goes something like this... Intro sequence, words pan by on screen, text seems written by and for elementary school kids. Space battle. Light saber battle. Light saber battle. Kissing. Light saber battle. Angst. Light saber battle. Space battle. Thinly veiled sci-fi slapstick. Guess what.... more Light saber battles. Large lizard serves as transportation because we've already seen mammoths and 2-legged banthas. Evil robot battle. More light sabers. Cool jedi we never get to see fight get shot in the back. Yoda kicks ass like Eastwood. Anakin gets a young-frankenstein makeover. Padme 'dies' from a broken heart. pfft. as if. Well yeah, light saber battles are cool, and Obi-wan's psudo Brit accent dry humor is funny at first but you know - it gets old after a while. If this really is Lucas's last ditch at the Star Wars saga then basically he just jammed everything together and put in as much gratifying effects as could sell products later on. At the end of the movie there was some half-hearted applause, more from the people trying to return some circulation after being stuck seated for so long and probably less from any true appreciation of the movie. In a word: eh.
May/20
2005
You know we live in America and somehow we just naturally believe that here in the land of the just, the land of the free, we are a place where innocents are protected as much as can be. Maybe it's the way we're raised, or maybe it's the propaganda we're fed even as adults. People like to believe what they hear, especially if it's positive. Even more so if it concerns children. So read this next paragraph and think about how you feel... Private Firm to Investigate AIDS Charges Against City By LESLIE KAUFMAN (NYT) The city's Administration for Children's Services has hired an outside research firm to investigate allegations that the city inappropriately put foster children into medical trials for AIDS drugs in the 1980's and 1990's and that foster parents who objected to the trials lost custody ... There's more really. My summary is that the government (we're talking NIH here not just New York) felt that it was an appropriate return on their investment to test aids drugs on foster children. They did this for 20 years in the following states: Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas. So these children, whose life span was already shortened by the choices of their Mothers - were denied protection (which they were supposed to be assigned). This protection would ensure that research did not benefit at the cost of the welfare of these minors. The ideal was that the lives of these children, whom it would appear to already be forfeit, should receive better care at the risk of complications that might end their lives sooner. After all someone needed to test the drugs for children whose parents still protected them yes? Further, individuals that did attempt to intercede on behalf of their wards were essentially obstacles to be removed. Emotional arguments are supposed to have no sway in science. And if you attempt an impartial view you might say that if you're already on the short list of life, why not give to someone else who can benefit? But in this case while life may have dealt lemons to these children, there would be no time for lemonade. Further, who is to say that children with aids and parents to protect them would be better off at the expense of knowing a drug was unsuitable because it had shortened the life of a foster child? Still this idea of russian roulette testing isn't novel, and I mean here in the US. When I was a child and my Aunt, who had been a nurse, got sick and was places in a Vets hospital I was told she had better recover quickly or else. The 'or else' I was told was that the Vets hospital tested treatments on its patients to extract compensation for low-cost care. While it might be unfair to suggest a parallel with an infamous doctor who tested on the helpless in cruel and viscous ways, remember that the work he did was not thrown out with a glowering of disgust. Understand that the scientific minds not only retained his work on hypothermia (induced by strapping naked subjects down and soaking them in ice water in frigid temperatures) but they benefited from it by applying the numerical data for the reviving of natural victims of hypothermia. So where are we? In the different shades of gray where does the US stand within the morality of gathering scientific data at the expense of vulnerable humans? I suppose to those children who have already left, perhaps the data that was collected on them - their names, their ages, will be the memories that are collected to recall their existence instead of the parents they never had.
May/19
2005
I have two neighbors that abut my property. I've always known that the one was an arrogant wienie, but thought the other one was OK. She, an elderly lady, and I have been social. I've had her over for dinner, we've went out to dinner and movies, etc. She whines a bit and tries to say there are "rules" of which I have no proof, such as no clothes lines in Village and not blocking anyone's view. These things I just passed off as silly old lady stuff. Well tonight was different . . . I was sitting watching TV after coming home from work to mow my lawn. Phone rings. It's my neighbor. Can I come over, she wants to tell me something. So I put on my shoes and schlep over to the neighbor's house. She invites me in. She smokes, I don't, but I always over look this because she is a nice old lady. She proceeds to tell me that my shed is too close to the property line and that it is killing her trees. She called the Town and it needs to be 20 feet from the property line. She even had someone (she said appraiser - I think probably code enforcement) come over and look at it. Then she tells me that I need to move my shed 20 feet in from the property line. OK, fine, perhaps she isn't such a nice old lady. I can accept that. I made a hasty exit because I wasn't going to sit there and smell stale cigarette smoke and be social with someone who just dumped a big problem in my lap. Then as I left, it was almost like she expected be to hug her, like I always do when I leave. Or at the very least smile. OK, kick me in the teeth and then I'm going to say: "Thank you ma'am, can I have another?" Hardly!
May/19
2005

Hate Microsoft

Update after fucking update. They couldn't get it right the first time so WE have to deal with updates. I finally downloaded and installed Security Pack 2. I know, I know, should have done it a long time ago, but detest the whole process. And you know what - this time was no different. Took a half hour to install. Then when I said - go ahead restart my computer, I have no fucking idea what it was doing. All I know is I heard the hard drive cranking for about 10 minutes. If the TV or any other appliance or entertainment device took as long as Microsuck updates took, then we would find another way. Bill Gates - take a clue - when we turn on out computers its because we want to use them, not got through step after step while your software fixes the fuck-ups that you didn't do right in the first place!
May/19
2005
I read an article hypothesizing on the nature of female orgasms. Fascinating that you can be paid to research a topic, even a decidedly FUN one (yeah I didn't say 'stimulating' now did I?) and officially draw a conclusion that there IS no conclusion. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware of the fact that the lack of the existance of an answer IS an answer - but in science it just comes across as... well lame. Before I continue - here's some content to chew on: In the article 'A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm' the reporter details the research and conclusions of Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, "a philosopher of science and professor of biology at Indiana University". Dr. Lloyd has drawn the conclusion that female orgasm is simply available to women because as an embryo we are constructed with the same set of building blocks, some of which as tossed later when gender establishes its self. To summarize, because men get orgasms, women do too since we are wired the same as an embryo. Further, while orgasm in men might serve a purpose (to encourage them to have sex), it does jack squat for the survival or improvement of the species with resptect to women. Now there are several opposing studies, of course. One says that when a woman has an orgasm, she retains more sperm. But then that study had a limited number of test subjects. Another says that women only have orgasms with more 'desireable' males. Interesting thought there.... Of course the women would go back for more - and the desirable male would have better chances of reproducing. Yet another said that by being compelled to fool around until she had an orgasm, female primates got it on with so many males that there was no way to determine the father - thus protecting the infant from all the males she had sex with (fathers won't hard any offspring that was potentially theirs). Weeeee. Lots of theories. I suppose the most frightening part of this discourse came (har har) at the end from a Dr.Hrdy (no vowels?) who was the proponent of the last theory I mentioned: "Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Dr. Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all the fuss was about". Phasing out... PHASING OUT?!?!?! Dear gods, man the torpedos and set engines for full speed ahead. If that's the case I can't think of a better pickup line EVHAR. "Hey Baby, did you hear that they're phasing out orgasms for women? Better get yours while you still can...."
May/18
2005
I stopped at the grocery store today. Always an AARP convention in the middle of the day. When I was leaving I was walking behind a rather spry senior citizen into the parking lot. She had a better gait than many people my age. Where does she head? Not the regular parking spots like you or I. NO - She heads toward her car parked right up close and personal in the handicapped zone. And yup, hanging right there on the rear view mirror was a handicapped tag. My question - When did being old begin to equal being handicapped? With the "graying of America", does that mean being "handicapped" will become the norm? OK, I don't know this woman's medical condition - don't care. I just think that those spots should be saved for those with a PHYSICAL infirmary that limits mobility. Shame on people who just get them and don't need them!
May/18
2005
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- A pregnant student who was banned from graduation at her Roman Catholic high school announced her own name and walked across the stage anyway at the close of the program. ... Cosby was told in March that she could no longer attend school because of safety concerns, and her name was not listed in the graduation program. The father of Cosby's child, also a senior at the school, was allowed to participate in graduation. As a friend quickly pointed out - Catholics have no problem with Mary being an unwed mother. The other question is how many girls that had abortions walked... You go girlfriend.
May/18
2005
Sorry, gotta do it again. Throw a little sunshine in the despair. I went away this weekend. At the same resort was a group of high functioning mentally challenged adults. Most had down's syndrome. One guy in particular put a smile on my (and most everyone else's) face. There he was in the bar drinking O'Douls. None of his the rest of his group were around. He was the last party animal - out on the dance floor dancing like there was no tomorrow and playing air guitar at certain moments. He actually had good rythym. Before you know it, he had every unattached woman on the floor dancing with him. Everyone was grinning from ear to ear. I gotta tuck that image away and pull it out on a really crappy day.
May/17
2005
BOSTON (AP) -- A woman isn't legally responsible for injuries her boyfriend suffered while they were having consensual sex more than a decade ago, a state appeals court ruled Monday. The man, identified only as John Doe in court papers, filed suit against the woman in 1997, claiming she was negligent when she suddenly changed positions, landed awkwardly on him and fractured his penis. Well ok, there's an awful lot to work from here. Lets begin with classic speculation, no wait on second thought - lets ponder how much mileage this article is going to get. Wow it's a regular party-for-the-mind... I can hardly think of where to begin.... Speculation: So what exactly the hell WAS this woman doing? One can only hope that it was some sort of fabulous kamasutra-cirque-du-soleil kinda multi-jointed acrobatics (small white bishon frisee exempted). "Landed awkwardly". Well ok. That brings to mind images of little olympic gymnasts in leotards powering off the springboard, flipping over a horse only to miss "sticking" the landing. I mean how can I not type stuff like that? Ok, striding forward with a manly swagger to the next event in the timeline (oh wait, that's right - he'd lost that after the double-forward-hammer-flip-with-midair-twist assault) you figure he said something like 'ow' when she "landed awkwardly". I imagine she was kinda contrite - probably a touch dissapointed that the maneuver failed, probably growing concerned if not somewhat upset. One has to figure this was in the heat of passion, she was really gung-ho, ready to work the weiner for all it's worth when suddenly her man-stud doubles over and starts whimpering. Definately a downer. So what next, rush him to the emergency room? The news seems to imply that.... So she wraps this guy in a sheet, throws on some sweats and rushes him off to the hospital. Throwing it into park as she hits the curbside, bundles our boy into a wheelchair, plunges through the doors and says to the nurse...?? "I wrenched his weiner? I broke his boing-boing? I mangled his manhood in a sex-crazed-frenzy-rupture-fest?" It's hard to imagine. I'm betting you had to be there. So they patch him up and put him in rehab. You know those physical therapist chicks can be kinda cute.... you have to wonder what kinda excercises they prescribed... and if they managed to do it with a straight face. Now, years later, he decides to take her to court! Yes court. Hire a lawyer, describe the event in detail. Go to court, describe the event in detail. Lose in court and have the news desperately want to describe the event in detail because Lawd Knows news like this doesn't come along every day. Seriously, what the hell was he thinking? I imagine, after the offers from Howard Stern, and other late night shows roll in, maybe a few pr0n offers (presuming he can still work the willy) he'll have a little more money and a lot less chance of ever having grandkids. After all, what woman is going to want to marry a famously, fractured frankenschtukel for a husband?
May/16
2005
Everyone knows someone like this; your closet freak who thinks the world will just someday recognize him for who he is. The type who will turn down a 'good' job offer because it's not great when the job they have now really blows. The same type who will ignore all the warning signs in any relationship, friends, work, siblings (the 1 he has) when even his 'good' friends will go out of their way to tell him there's problems. And when things finally explode he's all surprised, because god knows the world is out to get him. On the one hand, as a friend you're kinda sad for the pathetic freak. Because you know no one is ever going to see him for who he thinks he is, simply because he isn't. On the other you tolerate this waste of air because either you want to earn your merit badge in sympathy or it makes you feel better that you're not him. In the worst case you're actually dependant on the freak to do a job and this stroking is what makes him reasonable enough to do it. Generally conversations with the freak go something like this... Freak: "I'm depressed. Life just sucks.." at this point it's your job to interject to cheer him up - because that's what you've been doing all this time, listening to him bitch, so why stop now? You: "What's up? Are the guys/girls/random pedestrians being assholes again?" mind you it's required that you start off badmouthing the people who are bringing the Freak down, if you even hint at the fact these people might have a point (or, Gods Forbid that this is yet another mind-numbing reprise from yesterday) then you become The Evil. Freak:"Yeah I'm so sick of it. This time I'm gonna quit/tell them off/someother random act of imaginary violence." now you're oblidged to listen to the whole story and pretend to pay attention. Type/say things like 'yikes, man that sucks, wow, damn' and 'no shit?' to kill time while you read the news on the web. This part usually takes the better part of an hour. Or two. Once they begin wrapping up with how sick they are of the whole thing, or how they won't put up with it any more, it's a signal for you to jump in and segue from the 'sympathy listener' to 'pep-talk, ego-butter'. You:"Well you know you're better than this. Maybe it's time you seriously considered (never say 'do' only suggest they might do) posting resume/finding new gf/start a band". Freaks never like it when you suggest something that might take effort. Worse, if they DO actually try to do something chances are you'll end up doing it for them or holding their hand so you might as well be typing that resume for them. Worse even, if some action does occur and you were involved then ~you~ become the reason it failed in the first place. Yep, I bet just about everyone has had their time with their own full time 'Freak'. One is about all anyone can stand, unless they have to manage several part-time freaks. If you have more than one full timer or three part timers I gently suggest you re-examine your own life or adjust your vitamins. Freaks are leaches who can't live their life without training wheels. And if you feel the need to prop someone up for their whole life, then chances are your transition to freakhood is only one listener away.
May/16
2005
The Catholic Church continues to oppose that whole "love" thing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gays_communion ST. PAUL, Minn. - A Roman Catholic priest denied communion to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics.