Old School Barack!

They call 1995 "old school" nowadays, don’t they? This is when Barack Obama was a civil rights attorney and instructor at University of Chicago Law School, before he became a state senator.

This show is gloriously lo-fi!

Funny moment at 5:05 when the camera-man breaks out the skills he learned in the book "Camcorder Techniques: How To Capture Memorable Moments Of Your Family".


Awkward moment when Connie unexpectedly asks Barack to read a passage!


Some of the racially and religiously uneducated crowd won’t like his adoration of Rev. Wright in this one.


If you are still confused about why Barack Obama would go to Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years, then I will have Dr. Cornel West explain Christianity to you in 1 minute and 20 seconds.


Do you understand?

Band of Brothers

I am amazed at the electoral map. Look at that band of blue from Maine to Minnesota! It looks like Barack Obama resonated with working-class voters. Over the last few weeks, I heard Obama say again and again and again, "John McCain gives tax breaks to companies that ship jobs over seas". One of the most damning statements someone can make given our economic woes. So I waited for John McCain to defend himself or deny Obama's claim. Never!! I, personally, never heard him say one damn thing about Obama's statement. Especially during the debates. I like to believe the people of Ohio saw it all over McCain's face, and finally decided to vote to their own pockets, and not someone else's.






Orange County Soil & Water was one of the local elections I was following. It sounds funny, I know. Those are the ones you just pick the person with the best name. But now I regret not blogging about the candidates I discovered, at least to let my fellow Orlandoians know there was something to vote for and to tell their friends.

So there are 3 "groups" to vote in. Each group had 4 people to choose from. I discovered in my research that 3 of the candidates, one in each group, were young 30-year-old teachers that were running on a progressive and environmentally conscious platform. That is pretty exciting. Jessy Hamilton, Carl Howard, and Andy Anderson were the "Soil & Water Team". The good news is Carl Howard and Andy Anderson won. The bad news is that Jessy Hamilton lost! I still think it is a small miracle that two of them managed to get elected, with no one knowing who these people are. I can identify with Jessy Hamilton right about now, I would be pissed.

It was a bad day for gay Americans, as judgemental assholes across the country decided to legislate bigotry on the same day Barack Obama handily won the presidency. Shame on you. To anyone that voted for Barack Obama and "Yes on 2", any feeling of accomplishment on your part should be squelched by the poison in your hypocritical souls!

I leave you with the incomparable Dr. Cornel West...


For real, if I got to pick someone to follow around at a cocktail party, mixing it up in circles of conversation, Dr. West would be on a very short list.

It would be better named Forrest Gump High School

What the hell is wrong with people?

"Its name was suggested by the Daughters of the Confederacy, who saw it as a protest to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that eventually integrated the nation's public schools."

Hmmmm. Do ya think the name could use an update?

___________________________________________________
Fla. board keeps Klan leader's name at high school

By RON WORD – 17 hours ago

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida school board voted late Monday night to keep the name of a Confederate general and early Ku Klux Klan leader at a majority black high school, despite opposition from a black board member who said the school's namesake was a "terrorist and racist."

After hearing about three hours of public comments, Duval County School Board members voted 5-2 to the retain the name of Nathan Bedford Forrest High School. The board's two black members cast the only votes to change the name.

"(Forrest) was a terrorist and a racist," argued board member Brenda Priestly Jackson, who is black.

Betty Burney, the board chairman and the board's other black member, also voted against retaining the name.

"It is time to turn the page and get beyond where we are," she said.

Board member Tommy Hazouri voted to keep the name and said it is difficult to know "who the real Forrest is."

The board listened to passionate arguments from those on both sides. More than 140 people crowded into the meeting room, with another 20 watching the meeting on a television in the lobby.

Many urged a name change, saying the Forrest name was an insult.

"Nathan Bedford Forrest was part of the Ku Klux Klan, no matter how you put it. Nathan Bedford Forrest needs to be changed," said Stanley Scott, who is black.

But several spoke favorably of the general, saying the perceptions that Forrest was an evil man who ordered the massacre of Union troops were incorrect.

June Cooper, who graduated from Forrest in 1970, said some people wanted to wipe out Southern history.

"He was a good man," said Cooper, who is White. "He was a military genius."

Despite her opposition, the board's chairwoman noted that the intensely debated issue could distract from students' education and had even prompted one person to receive death threats for wanting the name changed.

"The naming of a school should not take precedence over someone's life," she said.

Some had suggested naming the school after the street it sits on, or honoring a graduate whose plane was shot down in 1991 over Iraq on the first night of Operation Desert Storm.

Forrest High School, which has received two consecutive "F" grades on state assessment tests, opened as an all-white school in the 1950s. Its name was suggested by the Daughters of the Confederacy, who saw it as a protest to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that eventually integrated the nation's public schools.

But now more than half Forrest High's students are black.

The issue has come up several times during the past half-century, but the School Board has never changed the name. Jacksonville has three other schools named after Confederate generals, but it also has schools named after civil rights icons.

Born poor in Chapel Hill, Tenn., in 1821, Forrest amassed a fortune as a plantation owner and slave trader, importing Africans long after the practice had been made illegal. At 40, he enlisted as a private in the Confederate army at the outset of the Civil War, rising to a cavalry general in a year.

Some accounts accused Forrest of ordering black prisoners to be massacred after a victory at Tennessee's Fort Pillow in 1864, though historians question the validity of the claims.

In 1867, the newly formed Klan elected Forrest its honorary Grand Wizard or national leader, but he publicly denied being involved. In 1869, he ordered the Klan to disband because of the members' increasing violence. Two years later, a congressional investigation concluded his involvement had been limited to his attempt to disband it.

After his death in 1877, memorials to him sprung up throughout the South, particularly in Tennessee. A mounted statue of Forrest and the graves of the general and his wife are in a Memphis park bearing his name.

Grady Wilson’s "Put The Fire Back In Your Marriage"

"The Gotcha!"





That Starbucks ad is pretty awesome, too!

"Hate disguised as theology" - Me

If you think that is off base, I present to you the Christian Coalition's voter's guide. This is cropped from the full-page guide that includes local races. But these "issues" are unique to the presidential section.

"Hate disguised as theology" was one of my quotes from the last blog. Another was "Family values is a euphemism for fascism". So I ask, how many of these have anything to do with Christianity, family, and love?

I would start with the fifth one from the top, which brags that John McCain opposes the addition of "sexual orientation" to the definition of hate crimes. I am not going to presume John McCain would ever support this, because I don't think he would. But Sarah Palin would!

Why would the "Christian" Coalition hand out voter guides that say who supports/opposes the removal of gay people from hate crime laws? If someone wants to be against hate crime laws in general, because it is a form of affirmative action... fine. But to imply hate crime status is dandy, except in the case with homosexuals? That is hate and clearly advocates violence against gay people. It is ironic that the people most clearly agitated by homosexuality are the ones that want violence against homosexuals taken out of hate crime laws. As if the hate crime status is holding them back.

Who gets the brunt of abuse in high schools? Black people? Jewish people? Mexican people? Or could it be the gay students that are harassed on a daily basis by the macho, redneck status quo? Who gets the most double takes, stares, and judgment when walking down the street? My point is that they are the ones who need a hate crime bill the most, because they are the most widely "hated" by all ages and ethnicities. Let's be honest, the murder of a gay person will RARELY be for any other reason.

English as the "official language"? I suppose Jesus spoke English.

Not sure what flag burning has to do with Christianity, either. It is just as un-Christian to pledge allegiance to a flag than to burn a flag.

Also, the notion of Christians with guns furthers the example of the manipulation of Christianity that began in 325 AD.

This is more of a conservative-issue litmus test than having anything to do with Christianity.

Florida’s Amendment 2 and the Republican Conspiracy Theorists

Wesley's quick amendment guide:
No on 2.
Yes to everything else (Amendment 3 is at the bottom).

Funny how the Christian-right ("Republicans") tout freedom and liberty everywhere they go...yet support a constitutional amendment that takes away freedom and liberty. Discrimination has no place in a constitution.

Vote NO on 2

One of the things I ask, is what is "marriage"? The supporters of Amendment 2 (those against gay marriage) believe it is a Christian "family values" issue. Yet it is perfectly legal for a minister to marry two Christian men (or women) under God and put rings on their fingers. They are MARRIED! The 1 reason, which is the Bible, that people are against gay marriage....can be fully realized in a church with loved ones witnessing their first kiss as husband and husband, or wife and wife. They are married, and that is between them and God, and you can do nothing about it. That is their freedom and liberty.

But no, it is the civil, legal banning of gay marriage that they are after. Which has nothing to do with religion! And is, in fact, quite an inappropriate mixing of church and state. Not to mention a dangerous creation of theocratic law. We criticize middle-eastern Theocracies for denying freedoms, and want to show them "democracy". Yet here we are, putting laws into constitutions based on religion, and religion only.

In regards to "family values", I have one question to fundamentalist Christians. If you had your wish, and Roe v. Wade was overturned, and abortion was outlawed...
Would you allow gay couples to adopt all those unwanted babies?

Or would you deny those children loving homes, based on your bullshit hate disguised as theology, possibly sending millions of children into a life in the bureaucratic adoption/foster care system?? Oh, that's right. Gay folks want to turn all the children into a homosexual army, marching to showtunes, to unleash the pleasures of sodomy upon America.
Family values my ****. "Family values" is a euphemism for fascism. I thought Republicans wanted the government out of their lives? Sure is an awful lot of rules to have "freedom and liberty".

Part 2

In the last few weeks leading up to election day, the right-wing fervor over Barack Obama, his "religion", and his "intentions" with America has gotten much nastier. I would like to see actual numbers somewhere, but it seems a large percentage of that die-hard Republican base does not trust Barack Obama and are quite smitten with the internet rumors of his heritage. And, in turn, the conspiracy that he is a Muslim Trojan Horse sent to destroy America.

I will let you have your conspiracy theories...have fun with it. But NEW RULE!!!!

I am one of those that believes 9/11 was an inside job. Or at the very least, that The 9/11 Commission Report is complete horseshit, edited by Dick Cheney & Co.

So the new rule is, if you believe the Obama theories, then you aren't allowed to call me crazy for believing the World Trade Center was an organized demolition.

The irony is, the people that buy into the official 9/11 story are the same ones that buy into the Obama myth, yet call 9/11 conspiracy theories crazy. There is far more "evidence" to support my theories than those that say Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. There is NO evidence of that. The demolition theory of the World Trade Center is FAR more credible than anything coming out against Barack Obama.


Part 3

Vote YES on Amendment 3. It gives a tax break to homeowners who harden their homes against hurricanes or add alternative energy devices.

"Christians" and "Wealth Redistribution"

Matthew 6:19-24 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Matthew 25:31-46 - "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Mark 12:41-44 - Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

Luke 3:11 - The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same. (John the Baptist)

Luke 14:12-14 - Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

But you say, "Yes, Wes...but this is about personal responsibility, not a framework for government taxation."

I agree, Jesus preached and lived like an anarchist. Not with the government, not against the government, but separate from the government. Living for God and nothing else (Matt 4:8-10). But to follow that logic, you would have to relieve the government of all demands and expectations to act "Christian".

So then I say, it is your personal responsibility not to get an abortion, and not the responsibility of the government to outlaw abortion.

It is your personal responsibility not to marry someone of the same sex, not the responsibility of the government to outlaw gay marriage.

If you are a fundamentalist Christian and misguided into thinking any nation can ever be "Christian"...and that this nation should outlaw abortion and gay marriage...then it has the same Biblical responsibility to take your second tunic and give it to the poor man that has none. If you don't like that, then you need to give up the abortion and gay marriage argument.

And if you still want to argue it, and bring up "welfare queens" and people that aren't "poor", but simply don't work and get free handouts...then do this: First, you can take a Styrofoam plate, plastic fork, and a plastic knife. Picnic style. Squeeze out a hot turd onto the plate. Then cut a slice off. The knife will slide through it like butter. Put it in your mouth, and let is sit on your tongue like a piece of fine chocolate. Letting it melt and puddle onto your tastebuds. Savor it, then swallow it. Repeat.

YES on Amendment 4 (Florida)

The way they word amendments on the voting ballots boggles my mind. Amendment 4 reads:

Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and waterdependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law.

What that actually means, is that large landowners can get tax breaks if they set aside land for conservation... Provides for assessment? Who the hell is going to know what this amendment is about, unless you do your research? It's a shame, really.

The only people that should be voting NO on this are hard-left environmentalists that see this as a moneyed ploy to temporarily get out of paying taxes while using conservation as the bait. I come pretty close to that. But the possibilities of success are too great, and necessary, to worry about conspiracies. Especially the possibility of lifetime, complete tax exemption if you permanently set your land aside for conservation.

This amendment satisfies the property/money-obsessed "right" and us environmentalists.

Vote YES on Amendment 4!!

Here is a great article from the Miami Herald that explains both sides of the issue:

Environmentalists back state Amendment 4 -- with caveat
There is wide support to provide owners tax relief to help preserve wild Florida, but even supporters caution that the devil is in the details.
BY CURTIS MORGAN

.. --> begin /production/story/credit_line_format.comp --> .. --> end /production/story/credit_line_format.comp -->

This is the first in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Environmentalists are backing a big tax break for Florida's largest land owners.

You read that right. In an election year notable for nastiness, two typically partisan factions have reached accord over at least one thing: Amendment Four, a measure that would reduce or eliminate property taxes for owners who protect their land from bulldozers.

Environmental groups embrace the proposal as a promising, painless option for expanding preservation in a state with a dwindling budget to buy prime parcels. The amendment is one of six on the Nov. 4 ballot.

''Given the economy and amount of money available for land acquisition, this provides a way of promoting conservation management without using tax dollars,'' said Janet Bowman, legislative policy director for The Nature Conservancy.

Proponents believe it could prove especially helpful in places like South Miami-Dade, where suburban sprawl drives up land values -- and pressure to subdivide -- on remaining rural lands. The pitch is that owners now spending money to run small farms or nurseries mainly to claim agriculture tax breaks could profit by letting land revert to wetland.

''The value of land in South Dade is very high,'' said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida. 'One of the reasons that land is even being farmed right now is to qualify for ..green-belt' exemptions.''

Amendment 4 boasts bipartisan political support and no organized opposition. It is endorsed by virtually every major environmental group in the state and dozens of obscure ones, like the Sebastian Fishin' Chics. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, guardian of business and development interests, backs it. So does the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the nonpartisan watchdog, Florida TaxWatch.

THREE SCARY WORDS

So what could there be to worry about? Three scary words: The Florida Legislature.

''It's a long way between the amendment on the ballot and actually implementing the law, because it's left up to the Legislature to write it,'' said Kurt Wenner, director of tax research for TaxWatch.

The amendment would create two tiers of incentives to take effect in 2010. Setting aside land forever -- a covenant intended to carry over in a sale -- would earn total exemption from property taxes. Setting it aside temporarily would earn a lower tax rate, similar to farm land.

It's that ''temporary'' category that adds an asterisk to TaxWatch's endorsement. Details remain to be filled in by lawmakers, who are known from time to time to cater to powerful development interests.

''We're going to be watching closely,'' said Wenner.

State Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat running for a Senate seat, has similar concerns. ....On its face, it's not a bad idea. It's how it's implemented. I just think that second part could potentially leave room for mischief.''

Gelber posted a qualified endorsement on his blog, cautioning that if the Legislature made it too easy to claim conservation status, ....the measure could become a giveaway for mega-developers and have a great fiscal impact that shifts the tax burden to homeowners and active businesses.''

A lenient definition, for instance, could allow developers to tag vacant lots for short periods simply to ride out the cold housing market -- meaning they would pay little or no taxes. There have been past abuses with similar ''green-belt'' tax breaks, most visible in the form of a few ''cash cows'' grazing on cleared suburban tracts.

Supporters share those concerns. They've drawn up proposed standards for the ''temporary'' land-protection classification: a 10-year commitment, a minimum of 40-acre tracts, management plans and back-tax penalties at higher rates if the land is developed.

The amendment was spearheaded by environmental groups. But it was proposed to the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission in April by Brian Yablonski, vice president for public affairs for the St. Joe Co., the state's largest landowner with some 700,000 acres, mostly in the Panhandle.

REASON FOR SUPPORT

Yablonski, who also serves as a state wildlife commissioner, said he supported it to enhance wildlife and habitat protections. When asked if the amendment would profit St. Joe, he answered in a word: ....No.''

''Amendment 4 was an organic idea advanced by respected conservation organizations across the state, and they are enthusiastic about its benefits to the environment,'' he said in a written statement.

Preston Robertson, vice president of the Florida Wildlife Federation, dismissed any St. Joe role as ''a red herring'' and said the amendment could be a critical tool when the current development downturn invariably ends.

RESULTS ELSEWHERE

Florida, with 34 million acres, now has only about 165,000 acres of private land under conservation easements. Similar programs in Georgia and Texas have dramatically expanded conservation set-asides.

Because the amendment was approved by the Taxation Commission, no estimates were required for what the revenue impacts might be or how much land might qualify. With undeveloped land usually taxed at a lower rate, Audubon's Draper doesn't anticipate a big difference in the ad valorem bottom line.

The Association of Counties, whose 67 members would have to tweak millage rates to cover revenue shortfalls, agrees that potential benefits outweigh expected minor costs, said association spokeswoman Cragin Mosteller.

''Being able to conserve land is very important to many of our local governments,'' she said.

Because conservation lands remain private, unlike state-owned land, there is the potential for creating large tracts that would be off-limits to public access. But Draper believes most land would be open to hunting and fishing.

While some developers sitting on suddenly unsellable subdivision blueprints might well take advantage, Robertson argues that smaller land owners are the ones most likely to pursue the option. He intends to seek permanent conservation status for his own small farm in North Florida.

LOVE OF THE LAND

''If we protect 10,000 acres or 100,000 acres in this state, then this is well worth it,'' Robertson said. ....I think there are a number of people in this state who love their lands and they want to leave them to their kids.''

King of the Demo

Thanks for the heads up! Where else would it be, but Will Ferrell's website?!

Fred Simmons, King of the Demo, on Conan.

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

The Foot Fist Way

I just watched this long-awaited movie tonight. I'm not going to write anything regarding my opinion of the movie, although it would be positive and something along the lines of "funny as hell. That Danny McBride is one funny dude.

I was lucky enough to find clips of some of my favorite scenes. If you are waiting to see it and prefer to take in the "whole" experience, then skip. But if you don't care and want to laugh, check it!

Videos of People Playing Music

The Legendary....

Even John McCain can't tell you...

She was a member of the PTA, has a very special child, and her husband races dogs.



Please stop saying that Sarah Palin is anything but a frightening person to have as President.

This goes both ways...

Signs don't do anything but get people annoyed at each other. So just leave 'em alone.

The Church of Alcohol

Enjoy your NFL Sunday.

Toby Keith would say that being a member of the "D.T.C." is BEIN' SOMEBODY!

At least we aren't dicks...

DON'T BE A DICK.

If a media outlet is "liberal", shouldn't they be the "liberal" equivalent of this?? Spouting hatred and violence in the name of their agenda? But they don't. So if the mainstream media is "liberal", as "conservatives" say, then that settles it...."liberals" are nice people, and "conservatives" are assholes. Dicks. Un-dude.

On the other hand, if there are "liberal" media outlets that are full of hatred and violence...then that means the mainstream media is NOT "liberal", and right in the middle where they should be.

The "quotations" are because there is no such thing as liberal and conservative. They are just words used to label and polarize people. It is quite effective for right-wing radio. However....Liberals call for environmental conservatism. Conservatives are liberal with defense spending, or for that matter, any spending in the last 8 years. Many people would call me liberal because I think consumerism is a disease. But doesn't that make me conservative? Yet it is the conservatives that want you to SPEND your tax cuts.
The media uses these words to turn politics into a sport. So you can pick sides and spew verbal garbage back and forth. It makes people pawns. So the next time you decide to label people, ask yourself "is it really as simple as this"? Can you call me a liberal? Why? Did you give me a litmus test to fit into your definition of a word? What about the things that make me conservative? Like being pro-life and being against 24-7 tits on MTV? (BUT, if you are against tits on MTV because of "family values", you are conservative. If you are against tits on MTV because you are a feminist that believes it degrades women, you are a liberal. WTF?! Get off it, people!)

Or does the word mean something else entirely? Like the amount of mashed potatoes on Thanksgiving. "A liberal amount of mashed taters, please!" "WHAT?! No son of mine is gonna be queer and have liberal mashed potatoes. You eat CONSERVATIVE mashed potatoes! Pile it high! You eat those conservative mashed potatoes 'til you can't eat any more!"

Back to who is and who isn't a dick....why do conservatives use "liberal" as a dirty, name-calling word, but liberals don't call people "conservatives"? Is "liberal" the equivalent of the N-word, while "conservative" is the punchless "cracker"? Who made that rule?

NOW we are supposed to know who The Weathermen are...

McCain/Palin decided now is the time to share with everyone who The Weathermen were. When I learned of them a few years ago, I was amazed that this was not common knowledge in America. As if somehow they had been erased from the history books. Obviously, you could find books about them...but there is information that finds its' way to you, and information you have to seek out. A radical 60's group that bombed government buildings without killing anyone (that was the plan)? Shouldn't this bit of the 60's be as well-known as the overrated Janis Joplin ? I suppose they'd be more famous if people died.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both advocated revolutions against tyrannical government. (Quite ironic that John Wilkes Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" after he broke his foot.) The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So I ask, who gets to decide what a tyrannical government is? Who gets to decide what a free State is, and who or what is preventing the state from being free? Can the State prevent the State from being free? Who gets to define free? Obviously, a government that is tyrannical will consider all that oppose it a terrorist. A State that has taken away freedoms will consider those that physically oppose their sanctions against freedom terrorists.

Bill Ayers opposed, with physical force, what The Weathermen considered to be a tyrannical government (I am sure they weren't the only ones). So they are deemed "terrorists" of the State. The Weathermen saw tyranny in Vietnam and an unholy alliance between America and the Military Industrial Complex. They saw tyranny in COINTELPRO and the murder of Fred Hampton. They saw tyranny in a prison system that profited from oppression. So who has the authority to tell them they are wrong? You? Me? Why? Because you disagree? Who is a "freedom fighter" and who is a "terrorist"? Who says which side is right? I assume in a democracy that means the majority. But in my 30 years, I have learned the majority is almost always wrong.

I'm guessing that Sarah Palin will be kept away from the media, and given written stump-speeches the rest of the way. They will use her as a "pitbull with lipstick" to spit nasty smears and half-truths all over America...and Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers, an ex-Weatherman, will be the 1 attack. It will get a big emotional response from the fast-food crowd in their sequined American flag t-shirts, and the heretical right-wing Christians that bask in their prosperity theology and war-rabidity.

Here is a CNN fact-check on their relationship.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

And if any grumpy right-wingers want to sneer at a "CNN factcheck" as an oxymoron, what information is left? That they spoke on SECRET occasions!? OOOOH. Really? Who cares if they talk to each other. Why doesn't Sarah Palin tell everyone that their relationship isn't based on golf games, but foundations to raise money for the education of Chicago schoolchildren? And they coincidentally lived in the same neighborhood, which was the prologue of their relationship.

What about the corporate friends of John McCain, that are responsible for destroying thousands of lives? Banks? Weapons manufacturers? They have done far more damage to life on Earth than Bill Ayers. But everyone "approves" of those relationships, because building weapons that murder women and children in other countries is not terrorism.

Personally, I think Barack Obama is in the wrong for distancing himself from Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. It makes Palin's accusations more scandalous, and opens him up for attack if he had coffee with Bill Ayers last year. But he is a politician, so whatever's clever for him.

Workin' in your undies.

You know, if American companies were serious about the conservation of energy and the environment, they would begin to revolutionize the "workplace" by seriously offering more opportunities to work at home. That is, on a large scale.

When I worked at Hewitt, which is essentially a benefits call center, there were about 4000 people in the building (I think). At least 3,500 of us were on the phones, in front of computer, with very little required interaction and physical work to be done. Most documentation is scanned and accessed electronically. Can you imagine the reduction in their "footprint" if half the workforce took those calls at home? What if every call center began doing this?

Come to think of it, they have moved so far towards a temp workforce that it would be unreasonable.

And it would take a leap of faith in their employees to trust they aren't smoking weed and watching porn while speaking with customers. But I still like the idea.


This guy's MySpace page is funny. Check his pictures. Google image searches produce comedy.

The very first to come without no knife, without no gun....

Toby Keith is a corporate shill

Yeah the big boss man, he likes to crack that whip
I ain't nothing but a number on his timecard slip,
I give him 40 hours and a piece of my soul,
Puts me somewhere at the bottom of his totem pole,
Hell I don't even think he knows my name...

Well all week long I'm a real nobody,
But I just punched out and its paycheck Friday,
Weekends here, good God almighty,
I'm gonna get drunk and be somebody
Yeah, yeah, yeah...

My baby cuts hair at a beauty boutique,
Just blowin' and goin' till she's dead on her feet,
They walk right in and sit right down,
She gives them what they want and then she spins them around,
Hey I don't think they even know her name...

All week long she's a real nobody,
But I just picked her up and its paycheck Friday,
Weekends here, good God almighty,
Baby lets get drunk and be somebody
Yeah, yeah, yeah...

We're just average people, in an everyday bar,
Driving from work in our ordinary cars,
And I like to come here with the regular Joes,
Drink all you want, be the star of the show

All week long a bunch of real nobodies,
But we just punched out and its paycheck Friday,
Weekends here, good God almighty,
People lets get drunk (lets get drunk!)
All week long we're some real nobodies,
But we just punched out and its paycheck Friday,
Weekends here, good God almighty,
People lets get drunk and be somebody
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
____________________________________

When I first saw this song, it almost seemed like a joke. Some sort of parody. But, no! Toby Keith is dead serious!

The irony of it all...This song is a commercial for beer, who is the very "big boss man" that "doesn't know your name". You are a "nobody" all week long, "giving him 40 hours and a piece of your soul"...and on "paycheck Friday" you give him back all your hard-earned money to get drunk? Which then perpetuates a vicious life-long cycle of being a nobody and spending your money to numb yourself to that very fact? And you celebrate it with Toby Keith, who is country music's top money-maker and corporate whore [Forbe's: $48 million in 2007]??? It sounds like Toby Keith is a real voice for the working man. (Could my argument be any more literal if you actually worked for Budweiser?!!)

"Drink all you want, be the star of the show"?? "All week long a bunch of real nobodies"?? "Baby lets get drunk and be somebody"?? I would have to ask Toby Keith, "can a nobody be a somebody without getting drunk"? If so, what is his definition of a "somebody"? Another irony, Toby Keith would have you vote on the side of tax cuts for the rich (himself)...making him even MORE of a "somebody" than you are! And that national healthcare and welfare are bad, because you "should pull yourself up by the boothstraps". Even though you are a "nobody" and have to drink Budweiser to become "somebody". In between being a nobody all week, and drinking on the weekends, Toby Keith says you should have enough time left over to truly excel in this great country of ours, full of wealth and opportunity.

"Aw, c'mon, man. It's just a good ol' song about drinking with your friends and havin' a good time." Is it, Toby? Really?

Yeah, I know this song is "old". First, being hip to new Toby Keith singles has no value. I don't give a shit. Second, people still sing this at his concerts as they drink one $8 beer after another. And I'm sure it makes country radio playlists on Friday afternoons.

Baby Gramps is country.

The Legendary Baby Gramps

Hands down, some of the best 4 minutes of television I have seen in my entire life.

By The Time I Get To Arizona

Did everyone see Letterman tonight? If not, it was quite spectacular. Be on the YouTube lookout. John McCain was supposed to be on, and because he is "suspending" his campaign, he canceled the appearance. Dave spent a lot of time venting about it, including some nice Sarah Palin digs.

Is this an attempt to suspend what should be inevitable questioning of Sarah Palin in non-controlled environments? Or as Keith Olbermann proposed, an attempt to cancel the Vice Presidential debate.

At the very least, John McCain is using this to put Barack Obama in a Catch-22. If Obama agrees to suspend his campaign like John McCain, he is a follower and McCain is the "leader" who did it first. If Obama disagrees and continues campaigning, he doesn't care about the economy.

Anyways, John McCain's history with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day might be common knowledge, or it may not be. He was against the national holiday for about 10 years, then changed his mind. Here is a nice history.

I personally find it interesting how someone's mind can work. In this case, where beliefs come from, how they are changed, and if changed, what remains of the initial belief? Whatever the reason that he was against it, he was still "against" it. Maybe some of them thought, "Well let's not just go handing out days to people"...I really doubt it was going to cause a flood of holiday proposals, like Mark Twain Day. And it didn't! Was it because Corporate America didn't want another national holiday? Even worse, because that means you aren't against honoring him, you just sold out. At the simplest level, someone being against a national holiday has no grasp on what King actually did and represented. Not the "I Have a Dream" synopsis, but the complete story and person.

Does being against Vietnam, or war in general, make someone unworthy of a national holiday? This is one of the reasons John McCain could have been against the holiday. It's not surprising that those in power would think that. I just always thought you were supposed to be against war. Aside from WWII, everyone's favorite argument for just-war, there hasn't been a war in American history that did not involve power and economic posturing as a top priority. When I was a kid, I asked my Dad, "Who won Vietnam?" My Dad said, "No one wins in war." So that's why I wonder, why would someone be so for war that they would take issue with someone being against war? Supporting war is easy, being against war is hard.

McCain says he regrets it and has changed. But can you hold someone accountable for the way their brains have been molded since birth? "Regret" is usually due to hasty actions that weren't thought out. You can regret doing something based on a set of beliefs. But just because you change your mind, should your previous actions be forgotten? Surely, there are remnants of that original thought process. You can join a cult and do crazy shit that you regret...but you still joined a cult and did crazy shit.

My personal illustration...
I used to love Bill Clinton. The guy couldn't do wrong. But even though I think he is still a personable, intelligent, and seemingly caring person...he was way beyond "business-friendly". NAFTA and deregulation under his Presidency have done much harm to America. He, and Alan Greenspan, both hold a share of the blame for our current economic crisis. And in concurrence with my argument, cheating on your wife also says something about you...even if you regret it. So with age, education, and objectivity, I learn that such blind adoration for someone is irresponsible and naive. But is that streak of adoration for likable people still in my brain? Am I predisposed to some form of idol worship? I do question everything, something everyone should do, but I know that I still have that capability in there somewhere. I think when the brain learns something new, it is built on top of the old. The old isn't demolished. It doesn't go away, but is a foundation for the new train of thought.

So on that note, does John McCain ever think, "You know, that holiday is some bullshit."?? It's possible.


[NOTE: I think this is the worst part of the story...and shows that his opposition wasn't so passive...
John McCain didn't just vote against the national holiday... The Governor of Arizona at the time passed the initial holiday proposal. When Evan Mecham came into office, the Republican successor, Mecham wanted to rescind the holiday. McCain initially supported that action. !!!! You don't want the holiday so bad, you are willing to get up off your ass and "CANCEL" it! As if there wasn't anything better to do?]

Slut Babies

Thongs for 10-year-olds, now this?!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26673132/

What? Uh. Hmmm. I can’t... Wait. What?

What was I going to write? um. Oh yeah....So this article came out today...

Going veggie shrinks the brain.

The beef industry must be looking for a boost in our "slumping economy"! This is making the rounds with talk radio and DJs, and might find its' way to cable news....and is including the usual anti-vegetarian sentiment. Everything I have heard so far uses the B12 part as a footnote. "Vegetarians have shrinking brains" is far more entertaining than "everyone should pay attention to their nutrition."

Is it really news that you need Vitamin B12? "Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anemia and inflammation of the nervous system." is probably news to most meat-eaters, because they pay very little attention to what they put into their bodies (don't get offended, it's true). B12's necessity to the brain and nervous system is also basic nutrition knowledge. Us vegetarians have to be amateur nutritionists, so this story gets a big "No Shit?!" from us. But it gives a nice opportunity for everyone else to point fingers and bask in their gluttony.

While we haven't gone completely vegan, we have a rule that we do not buy animal products at the grocery store. With that, I eat at least 100% daily value of my Vitamin B12 without trying. And since when did people stop taking daily multi-vitamins? Most multi-vitamins have 300% DV of B12. That puts me at a guaranteed 400%. No brain shrinkage here.

In the quest to demonize vegetarians and report what a vegetarian diet is "deficient" in, no one stops to think about the vegetables Americans don't eat...and in turn, the nutrition deficiency of macho-horseshit meat-and-potato diets. The iceberg lettuce on your hamburger doesn't count. When was the last time you ate spinach or cabbage?

Fact is, the industrialized food industry counts on the consumption of animal products. So being critical of a vegetarian diet is convenient for business. For example, the corn industry has been transformed to support this meat-centric system, and half of America's corn goes to feed America's cattle. What's this?! A documentary on the subject?! Great! Important fact, this mass-produced corn is not "corn on the cob" corn. It is a genetically modified, industrialized strain grown for feeding cattle and processed sweeteners.

Beauty Contest!

John McCain obviously chose Sarah Palin based on her merits. Here are all the female Republican governors and senators he had to choose from.

Funny thing is, they all LOOK like they have more experience than Sarah Palin.

Senators


Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) - Alaska


Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) - Maine


Sen. Susan Collins (R) - Maine


Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) - Texas


Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) - North Carolina


Governors


Gov. Linda Lingle (R) - Hawaii
"No, no, no...Definitely not her." - John McCain


Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) - Connecticut


Gov. Sarah Palin (R) - Alaska
Maverick, Reformer, Hockey Mom, Attractive

Sex, Race, Hypocriticism

So this is how it's going to be with the election?

Bring up race, make Obama talk about race, and falsely accuse him of pulling the race card.

But the first time Barack Obama says anything applicable to a female, the McCain ticket demands an APOLOGY?? It seems like this was their plan all along. Hold their cards, wait for Obama to say something questionable....aaaand....POUNCE!! Isn't having a female on the ticket convenient! It's like the bully on the playground that picks on everyone, then one kid hits back and the bully cries to the teacher.

Well, McCain has used the same phrase, and I'm sure Barack Obama knew that...



So that's a NEW RULE. I don't want to hear the term "race card" again.

Wolves say "Hell No!" to Sarah Palin

The story.

An opinion of the story, with facts from the story.

An excellent mini-documentary on this topic...
..

Britney has never made you laugh this much!

I have been waiting many, many years for this.

At 2:20, it gets downright hilarious.

Polar Bears say "No" to Palin

Did you know?

"Palin opposes the Bush administration's decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne earlier this month to try to overturn his decision.

Palin argues there isn't enough evidence to support a listing, and she fears it will harm oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts."

Believe what you want about drilling...but to act like Polar Bears are not endangered?!?! Therefore willing to let a species go extinct in the name of oil? Wow....

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04

http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html

My own "New Rules"

I haven't seen the latest Real Time with Bill Maher yet, so maybe he said this first one already...

But NEW RULE!!!

Republicans are not allowed to criticize the "Cult of Barack Obama" anymore, now that they have created their own "Cult of Sarah Palin".

NEW RULE!!
Stop using Barack Obama's "celebrity" as a put down, when the Republican hero is Ronald Reagan. An actor who was even nicknamed after one of his movie characters!

NEW RULE!!

You don't get a cookie for not aborting your baby with Down Syndrome.
You can't call yourself Pro-Life and then brag about not getting an abortion. (Or at least allowing your minions to put you on a pedestal for it.)

NEW RULE!!

Don't call yourself Pro-Life if you support wars, the death penalty, and the consumption of animals. You are a hypocrite. Call yourself Anti-Abortion.

NEW RULE!!

If you get excited over the phrase "drill baby drill", you are dumbass. Stop getting into a fervor and shitting your pants over something that both candidates are going to do.

NEW RULE!!

If Sarah Palin is SO qualified, then why is she being kept behind the curtain all this time? Should someone with so much "executive experience" need this much debriefing?

NEW RULE!!



They will protect your 2nd amendment rights, at their convenience of course...But the 1st amendment is always up for Republican debate! Especially if you want books from your local library that Sarah Palin may find objectionable. Those might have to be removed. It is for your own protection!!!
That's what I call "less government"!

It is embarrassing...

Even though you know this corporate handjob stuff is just part of the game, it still makes you want to puke.
But this happening under Obama's nose gives his opponents a lot of ammunition. Everyone expects the Republicans to do it, they would privatize the whole country if given the chance.

You'd like to say Obama is a humble guy, and is unfairly being tagged with the "celebrity" namecalling, and he is just simply popular (all true). But when you have glitzy parties and shit with lame celebrities, it doesn't bode well. It makes me cringe.

Believe what you want about Code Pink...

...but this isn't how to handle a protester.




I hope Karma bites that cop in the ass.

The First Step

Leo Tolstoy frequently wrote on the topic of Vegetarianism beginning in the 1890's. This is an extract from his essay "The First Step" (1892):

___________________________________________

Not long ago I had a talk with a retired soldier, a butcher, and he was surprised at my assertion that it was a pity to kill, and said the usual things about its being ordained. But afterwards he agreed with me: ..Especially when they are quiet, tame cattle. They come, poor things! trusting you. It is very pitiful.'

This is dreadful! Not the suffering and death of the animals, but that a man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity -- that of sympathy and pity towards living creatures like himself -- and by violating his own feelings becomes cruel. And how deeply seated in the human heart is the injunction not to take life!

Once, when walking from Moscow, I was offered a lift by some carters who were going to Serpukhov to a neighbouring forest to fetch wood. It was Thursday before Easter. I was seated in the first cart with a strong, red, coarse cartman, who evidently drank. On entering a village we saw a well-fed, naked, pink pig being dragged out of the first yard to be slaughtered. It squealed in a dreadful voice, resembling the shriek of a man. Just as we were passing they began to kill it. A man gashed its throat with a knife. The pig squealed still more loudly and piercingly, broke away from the men, and ran off covered with blood.

Being near-sighted I did not see all the details. I saw only the human-looking pink body of the pig and heard its desperate squeal, but the carter saw all the details and watched closely. They caught the pig, knocked it down, and finished cutting its throat. When its squeals ceased the carter sighed heavily. ..Do men really not have to answer for such things?' he said.

So strong is humanity's aversion to all killing. But by example, by encouraging greediness, by the assertion that God has allowed it, and above all by habit, people entirely lose this natural feeling.

I only wish to say that for a good life a certain order of good actions is indispensable; that if a man's aspirations toward right living be serious they will inevitably follow one definite sequence; and that in this sequence the first virtue a man will strive after will be self-control, self-restraint. And in seeking for self-control a man will inevitably follow one definite sequence, and it this sequence the first thing will be self-control of food. And if he be really and seriously seeking to live a good life, the first thing from which he will abstain will always be the use of animal food, because, to say nothing of the excitation of the passions caused by such food, its use is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an act which is contrary to moral feeling -- killing; and is called forth only by greediness and the desire for tasty food

"But why, if the wrongfulness of animal food was known to humanity so long ago, have people not yet come to acknowledge this law?" will be asked by those who are accustomed to be led by public opinion rather by reason.The answer to this question is that the moral progress of humanity -- which is the foundation of every other kind of progress -- is always slow; but that the sign of true, not casual, progress is its uninterruptedness and its continual acceleration.

And the progress of vegetarianism is of this kind. That progress is expressed in the actual life of mankind, which from many causes is involuntarily passing more and more from carnivorous habits to vegetable food, and is also deliberately following the same path in a movement which shows evident strength, and which is growing larger and larger -- viz. vegetarianism.That movement has during the last ten years advanced more and more rapidly. More and more books and periodicals on this subject appear every year; one meets more and more people who have given up meat; and abroad, especially Germany, England, and America, the number of vegetarian hotels and restaurants increases year by year.

This movement should cause special joy to those whose life lies in the effort to bring about the kingdom of God on earth, not because vegetarianism is in itself an important step towards that kingdom (all true steps are both important and unimportant), but because it is a sign that the aspiration of mankind towards moral perfection is serious and sincere, for it has taken the one unalterable order of succession natural to it, beginning with the first step.

One cannot fail to rejoice at this, as people could not fail to rejoice who, after striving to reach the upper story of a house by trying vainly and at random to climb the walls from different points, should at last assemble at the first step of the staircase and crowd towards it, convinced that there can be no way up except by mounting this first step of stairs.

_________________________________________________

The Material-Driven Life

"Yes, Mr. Clergyman...Tell us....What IS rich!?"

A man of the cloth asking that question is crass.
Prosperity theology is heresy.

The Future of Food

The introduction to The Future of Food (2004). Find a way to watch the rest of it.

Leonardo’s dirty pictures

It would be funny if your Jr. High teacher caught you drawing this in class.

"But teacher, I am just doing anatomical studies of coitus!"

"That's about enough for today, Mister!"

Bob Dylan Bouillabaisse

Crazy footage of one of my favorite songs from my favorite Bob Dylan album (Freewheelin'):


my favorite song from my favorite Bob Dylan album:


My favorite "What'd he say?" Dylan song (yet is quite clear and beautiful):


The posse cut:


AHHH! HE'S ELECTRIC!!!!

You’re on the dance floor, so you might want to take your panties off. Please.

[This wouldn't be considered appropriate for work...]

I just discovered that someone had posted this gem on YouTube. I don't normally post random music videos, especially of the panty-less variety. But this is legendary among my friends. And to think, if I weren't up at 3am watching BET Uncut at my parents house so many years ago, this may have never anointed my ears. Thank you, Waxamillion!

"Yeah! Hell Yeeeeaaaah!"

The definition of Irony is sometimes slippery, but I am pretty sure this is it...

Have you seen the new Blue Cross/Blue Shield commercials? With the voiceover and seemingly blind/deaf/mute folks?

One of the commercials quotes Helen Keller. Which I find to be quite humorous, because she was a socialist!

I doubt she would be a supporter of for-profit healthcare.


(I would post the commercial, but I can't find it anywhere)
UPDATE: I found it

Speaking of dangerous drugs...

Marijuana is illegal, yet Floridians can have guns in their cars at the workplace.

Conclusion:

We trust people with guns, with a side effect of murder.

But we cannot trust them on marijuana, that has a side effect of....hmmmmm... not murder?

NEWS: Barney Frank and Ron Paul have common sense.

Can't say as much for the DEA.

Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/frank.marijuana/



My favorite part, "Smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science -- it is not medicine and it is not safe," the DEA states on its Web site.

Then I'm baking brownies and eating it! (drum roll!) Thank you, thank you.

Not medicine. Not safe.

Viagra, which is "medicine", has withstood the "rigors of science", as every other FDA-approved pill with 10 side effects...some life-threatening. You can legally take an erection pill and if you are still "feeling it" in 4 hours you have to call your doctor. Because you heart might explode.

Last time I checked, no one has to call a doctor, at any point, for side effects of their medical marijuana. "Doctor, Doctor...Thank the heavens you answered....Have you ever watched Wizard of Oz and listened to Dark Side of the Moon. Holy shit!"

But really, isn't everyone passed the whole "gateway drug" thing? Don't most people have enough common sense these days to know there must be something deeper keeping pot illegal? Alcohol is the gateway drug that leads to pot, that is the gateway drug that leads to _______. So why isn't alcohol illegal? Alcohol and cigarettes are not medicine, and are not safe. They are downright dangerous. It seems like an old high-school argument, yet the same B.S. gets regurgitated over and over again. I suppose nothing will happen until people care on principle, even if they don't care about legally smoking pot.

Which leads me to my 1 explanation. I think about laws quite a bit. Many laws are in place to prevent things from getting out of control. But responsible people that are able to safely, and smartly, break laws can do so with little or no punishment. The speed limit on I-95 is 70mph. That is to prevent total chaos and set a guideline for a safe speed. But many people know you can go 80mph with minimal risk of getting ticketed. So safe, defensive drivers can disobey that law within reason. And police officers know that going with the flow of traffic is safer than blocking traffic.

With marijuana, there is a "system" in place where responsible people can smoke it in the privacy of their own home and not worry about the penalty. Like the DEA states in the article, people are rarely sentenced to jail time for possession (some "stat-splits" on that would be nice). If you think about it, there is a lot of marijuana consumed in this country that generally goes on without a hitch. It's almost like someone wants it that way (the Prison Industrial Complex?). But I suppose the law is to prevent it from getting out of control. To keep in check the irresponsiblity of the irresponsible. Sure, most high schoolers party and smoke pot anyways...but can you imagine if it were legal? Would anyone be sober at school? That is definitely not desired by parents and faculty. You wouldn't even be able to enforce it. So the illegality isolates it to a smaller group of kids that want to do it, and most of them won't get caught. Just like the law isolates adult usage to the people that really want to smoke it. Just a thought...

But the illegality is still principally wrong. I can see protecting people from themselves, but there is nothing to protect them from...at least relative to dangerous substances that are legal. I think people currently do a good job of not drinking out of a flask at the office. I don't think pot would be much different.

The Hitchhiker

So I was reading about the new Robocop that will be directed by Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain). I always liked Paul Verhoeven's original Robocop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers for their themes beyond the surface. Upon reading some filmographies, I discovered he directed a few episodes of the old show The Hitchhiker.

That show hasn't entered my psyche in ages! It was a horror story show in the vein of Tales From The Crypt. It was awesome! And the theme song is the BEST EVER!

Not only that, but I always thought that theme song was ripe for a hip-hop sample. It almost sounds like a Deltron 3030 demo that never made it on the album. But I have no idea if anyone ever has.

Right here, baby. This makes me want to freestyle!




A Deltron 3030 song. Increase volume. Yes, they are all this good.


Another one. I chose 2 that sorta remind me of The Hitchhiker song.




Dan the Automator is incomparable.

Art Pre Tense

Is it pretensious to post pictures of artwork? Is it pretensious to not post pictures of artwork, because posting pictures of artwork is pretensious? Is it pretensious to even worry about the pretensiousness of it?

From an artists perspective, I think the only negative part of posting art is that it makes the individual piece precious. And most of them are not. One amateur self-portrait is individually insignificant when there should be 20 drawings done in a 1-month period that are equal to or better than it. But aside from that...

Some of my classmates do, and some of them don't. I like to think that some friends and family that cannot see them would want to see. I know my parents do.

People post pictures of their cars, their tattoos, their drunkenness, and their bodies without hesitation. But art is different because it can be personal and sensitive, and certainly improved upon, making something old even more sensitive...while the new is unleashed with bombast and chest-pounding.

What do you think?

Veggie Nuggets

I think I mentioned a long time ago that I once posted long ramblings on my Fantasy Sports message boards...only to see all my nonsensical effort disappear year after year. At least it gets "saved" here on the ol' blog. So I am now transferring a current discussion on a vegetarian/vegan diet...Not saying you should care, but I at least want to save it here. Names have been changed to protect the innocent...

It started with my version of a eulogy for George Carlin...an excerpt from his book Brain Droppings on animals. You can read it here...
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Essays/GCarlin.htm

[Luigi] wrote:
meat is good

My response:
Condomless sex with an HIV-positive prostitute might feel good, too...
but it is probably a bad idea.

Ahhh, yes. Another fine example of human fearlessness to long-term risk...
versus the fear of immediate risk.
(Covered well in the book "Freakonomics")

Like [Princess Toadstool] once posted, we are all a bunch of guinea pigs. (Unless you choose not to be.)

For the first time in history, humans are consuming a different kind of agriculture, and we have yet to witness the long-term impact.
(Although "agri-business" and the healthcare industry are probably well-aware, and are salivating over our sick, consuming bodies while they [romantically love each other])

Heart disease and cancer are the 1 and 2 killers in America.

So I stand firm is believing that meat is "not good" when I can eliminate all stomach-ingested threat.
(Meat is carcinogenic, or at least when it is over-consumed and vegetables are under-consumed...and I don't have to cite anything when there are dozens of books on the topic. Google works, too.)

And the whole, "You can't live forever, so enjoy life! [Screw] it!" argument is for [dummies] looking for some macho excuse for their bad habits. They're the same ones that would kill somebody to drink from the Cup Of Life.

Choose.....wisely.
(that was clever, wasn't it?)

[Luigi] wrote:
meat is good

[Mario] wrote:
I'm with [Luigi] in that I love meat. Hamburgers, steaks, hotdogs and bacon. Do I know they're loaded chalk full of hormones and preservatives. Yes. Do I care? Yes, somewhat but I love me some meat.

Wes, lets not forget that you too were a carnivore up until what, 2 years ago? I know this whole meat thing was a simple excerpt from the late, great George Carlin but you catch my drift.

Me and [Luigi] will be eating steaks until the day we die at the age of 45. :)

My response:
So if you ever ate meat you can't promote a vegetarian diet?

I don't think vegetarians worry about who has been doing it the longest. That is beside the point. Whether it was last week or 20 years ago, it's all the same. People have different journeys to reach that decision. From everything I have read, I take that most vegetarians get that way from an evolutionary process...like we did. No one just wakes up one day and stops eating meat.

Most vegetarians have experienced the joys of a filet mignon or July 4th hamburgers and hot dogs. So I think it lends =more= credence to one's argument. I never said hamburgers are now icky and gross because they are meat. I know what a hamburger tastes like, they are delicious. But a cost-benefit analysis forces me to not eat it.

After all, you can't be a vegetarian from birth unless your own parents share those values. So then it is just when it first confronts you. Whether it be peers, location, a book, part of your learned or genetic personality, etc.

And I don't say this stuff to get people to be vegetarian (it is stupid that it even needs a label, I just don't eat or use animal products, nuff said). I side with Carlin in that people need to chill out. I don't think people that eat or use animal products care to seek out information on the effect of such rampant consumption. Environmental, economical, dietary, which all tie into theology reasons. So it goes well beyond your own innards.

How can you not care that the food you eat has hormones, preservatives, pesticides, and other unnatural chemicals you cannot pronounce? Fact of the matter is, you have a choice. You can eat meat that doesn't have hormones or preservatives, so why wouldn't you? It is right next to the "conventional" stuff in the cooler. Why would you buy genetically engineered produce grown with pesticides? Most people think organic vegetables are much more expensive. Fact of the matter is, about half of it costs the same...and most of the rest is less than $1.00 more. And lets all agree that we spend much more money on much less important things.

Let's say you stick with the meat with hormones, chalk it up as a loss. That's fine, and we will move on. It tastes good. But what else is in the pantry? How much food do we consume that comes in boxes and bags, and how long is the ingredient list? So you can be OK with the meat, but the problem is that almost everything you consume has the same shit. That adds up over a lifetime, eating every day, 365 days a year, for 60 years.

I think everyone should expose themselves to the way the food business operates in the 21st century (via book, internet, documentaries)...instead of poo-pooing vegetarians and people that buy normal, organic foods as elitist wackos...just know your information and make educated decisions. It can be the same decision you have always made, just make it educated.
The uninformed, turn-your-head-the-other-way mentality is what got George Bush elected "twice".
_____________________________________________________

So that is all for now.

In case you couldn't gather it from my other blog entries, Julie and I are vegetarians. I don't think I have ever posted anything about it. For a blog being like a personal journal, that is sort of strange. I might post more personal insights on the subject later...since I never have before.