Logotopia, and the Little Twisted Nerve

Truth! - Part 12

2009-09-23T13:21:00.000-07:00

The following statements are still true despite their delay in reaching you:.

It occurs to me that irritating morning people have a distinct survival advantage over the rest of us up to a certain critical point when it becomes a detriment. The early bird does get the worm and therefore will go on to breed more, but eventually the early worm stealers get pecked to death by the hungry late risers. No point here. Just a random brain dropping.

Along similar lines, early to bed and early to rise can contribute to you being healthy, wealthy and wise. It can also leave you perilously unprepared for ninja attack as your night vision will be sorely underdeveloped. Just sayin'.

There are two classes of people that need to be whacked on the nose with a newspaper and told in a firm voice "NO":
1) The people that have a distinctive hat that they wear in an office setting to signify that they are interesting, in lieu of actual interesting qualities. Case in point: the lady with the Cheshire Cat visor.
and
2) The people who, in an office setting, will constantly remind you about how wacky/crazy/messed up they are. They won't act wacky; they'll just say they're wacky. "Oh I am just wrong.". They never actually are.

I spent the last eight years reading the news like a person who's afraid of flying stares at the wing: "Can't look away. Something bad might happen." Now that we have a new administration of people I generally agree with, I'm finding it hard to focus on the news. I know we need to pay attention and make sure campaign promises are kept, but my political attention is fucking exhausted. I'll keep trying, but man....

"That's just how I was raised." is not a reasonable excuse for unsupportable beliefs or behaviours. I was raised to boil the shit out of rice and pour a ton of soy sauce on it to make it edible. I grew up. I learned a better way. The societal disparagement of bigotry should be more severe than it is. In the West, we all have access to the same media now. We all have exposure to enough information to stop that shit permanently. What stops us from doing so, is what psychologists would call "enabling". "It's generational" should not be offered to excuse prejudice anymore. Homophobic? Racist? Sexist? Ethnocentrist? Anti-science? Sorry, you're a bad person. That's all there is to it.

People complain about headaches, neck pain, shoulder pain, and backaches. Considering, though, that the average head weighs about 30 pounds and we have to balance it on what is basically a narrow stack of lincoln logs tied together with meat, it's a wonder we can keep it upright at all. It's actually surprising it doesn't hurt more.

'Rock Band' is just a variation of 'Guitar hero' which is just a variation of 'Dance Dance Revolution' which is just a variation of 'Simon' which is just a variation of 'Simon Says' which is game used to teach children to follow orders. Still feel like a rockstar?

This is a topic I've covered before, but as fall approaches I think it needs a reheat. Have you noticed that in the movie 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' that none of the citizens of Halloween Town are Princesses, Sexy Nurses, Sexy Pirates, or anything else either cute or slutty? Is this an oversight on the part of Tim Burton? No, this is because Halloween is about fear and horror and death, not cuteness or sexiness (which are really just child and adult versions of the same thing).

Some people leaving the gym smile and are friendly. They could not possibly be experiencing what I experience when I exercise. Even at times when I have been in great shape, exercise always elicited an emotion in me best described as utter, abject despair. Some people, through no fault of their own (I'm glaring at you, judgemental, high-energy people), are just not wired in a way that allows them to get that endorphin bump. But I exercise anyway. I feel despair while you lot get high, and you think I'm lazy for not exercising more. Fuck off.

Afterthought: I used to think that fertility clinics were terrible. There are already too many people so if you can't have a baby just get over it. That was my thought anyway. However, I just realized, although it's counterintuitive, fertility clinics would in the long run have a net negative affect on population growth. If those who have difficulty conceiving conceive, then some will pass on that difficulty to the next generation and it will continue to be passed on and in the long run help reduce the population. The people that want to breed get babies, and the crowded people in the future get less babies. It's a win/win.

On the other hand, Lasik surgery and plastic surgery will eventually turn the species blind and ugly by making poor vision and lack of attractive features no longer evolutionary disadvantages.

The Anit-Religious Sign in Olympia

2008-12-09T12:04:00.000-08:00

This reminds me of a story:

True story. Many years ago I had an acquaintance who was involved in Theatre and had a strict Christian upbringing. Her family did not approve of her acting. They thought it was sinful and inproper for a godly young woman. She herself was not particularly religious and, like many of us in the theatre, looked on the theatre and her friends in it as a refuge from the psychological repression that her religious family represented. Like it has done for many of us, theatre saved her life, and like it has done to millions of people since it started, religion made her life nearly unbearable. As if the psychological abuse of religious fundamentalism wasn't enough, at the ripe old age of 23, she got cancer and she died. Her funeral was attended by her family and her friends. The services were extremely religious and spent a great deal of time talking about what Jesus did for her in her life, how much she loved God and Jesus, and how she's finally reunited with them in heaven. All of us theatre sinners were relegated to the outskirts of the service. Later at a gathering of the friends I couldn't take it anymore and started mouthing off (if you know me, you know my internal censor has a short battery life). I railed against religion and repressive families and stated that it was spitting on her memory to talk about how important God was to her, when it was God that made her unhappy for so much of her life and if God existed he was evil for allowing this nice, talented young woman to be struck down by something as painful as cancer at 23 fucking years old long before she could have had anything that could be called 'a life'. I probably said some other things but I don't remember. It was a long time ago and I was ranting.

In retrospect I was 100% correct in what I said, but I was 100% wrong in the time and place to discuss it and the way in which I presented it. The owner of the house was somewhat religious and we were all upset; instead of supporting my friends in times of trouble, I turned the whole thing for a few minutes into a forum for my views. That was wrong and I ended up apologizing to the host.

I think the same thing can be said about the Anti-Religious sign in Olympia. The content is all correct, but the context was ill considered. I know. We all get tired. When you're surrounded by people who disfigure their lives and their minds and the lives and minds of their children, sometimes you just lose it and start mouthing off. That's why so many atheists are called arrogant by the religious community. The goal though should not be to lose our cool. We are the more rational position, and we are therefore held to a higher standard of rational behavior. I applaud the Washington State government for honoring the separation of church and state and allowing us the forum, but let's face it: We blew it.

I No Longer Believe in the 9/11 Conspiracy BUT...

2008-07-25T12:02:00.000-07:00

Contrary to what many skeptics say about conspiracy theorists, I have changed my mind based on new information.

I finally got an explanation to the lynch pin of my belief in the 'inside job' hypothesis: The melting temperature of steel. The melting point of industrial steel is several thousand degrees higher than jet fuel burns, so therefore the fire could not have melted the beams and caused the collapse, right? Well, that's what I thought, and I wasn't alone. There is a fundamental flaw though and that's that while the temperature at which steel liquefies is much higher than burning jet fuel, the temperature at which steel can bow and warp is a few hundred degrees lower than jet fuel (think of a blacksmith melting iron with coal fire). So there you go. That's how it happened.

HOWEVER, I would have encountered this information a lot earlier if the defenders of the official version hadn't been such dicks. Whenever the questions were brought up, the believers in the official version would engage in ad hominem attacks and never (and I did a lot of Internet research) NEVER address the scientific issues beyond some vague appeal to authority (the FAA said it was this way and therefore it's true). No melt versus sag discussion ever came up. Instead they would say that what the non-believers were saying was horrible and unpatriotic. Okay, let's put that idea right out of it's misery. If I am riding in a car and for some reason I think, even if I'm wrong, that the driver is a maniac who has set the car on fire and is running over pedestrians, and I speak up and say "Hey, I think this driver might be a maniac." that doesn't mean that I hate the car. It means that I have a concern that should probably be addressed, whether I'm right, or wrong. "Why do you think that?" is infinitely more constructive than "You're just crazy." It's not an insult to the memories of the victims to investigate 9/11. If someone died and you think they were murdered it's not and insult to their memory to try to find the murderer. In fact, how many movies, books, plays, and TV shows have been based on the unassailable morality of trying to find someone's killer? Even if you turn out to be incorrect, it is never wrong to ask the question.

It's also worth noting that people felt that their government was capable of doing this. It's worth addressing why people in "the greatest country in the world", as we're always reminded that we are, feel that the people that run things are capable of mass murder. Deep down, we think our leaders are monsters. Maybe they should consider trying to...I don't know...not seem like monsters. Frankly, while I no longer believe that they actually did plan and execute 9/11, I have no problem, in light of the last 7 years, believing that they are capable of doing it; not intellectually, but ethically. They're not capable of pull it off, but they're capable of wanting to. The opportunistic way they have trotted out the little black dress of 9/11 every time they needed to justify some new war or draconian domestic policy, demonstrates that.

I still believe though, that its possible that our people saw it coming and let it happen. No proof, mind you. Just a suspicion. After all:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

- Project For a New American Century's 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses

Y'know What You Don't Hear Much anymore...?

2008-07-03T17:17:00.000-07:00

Stress and strain
Liver and onions
Wheat germ
G-String
Push-up bra
Head cleaner
Ebonics
Diet Rite
RPMs
High score
Kilobyte
Usenet
Chiropracty
Datsun
Indemnity
Sukiyaki
Hibachi
Winnebago
Bullhonky
Jasper
Airplane glue
Hoodoo
Warlock
The runs
Prune juice
Hobo
Purse snatcher
Pickpocket
Carny
Underarm
Hard water
Air breaks
Juvenile delinquent
Camper van
Tree surgeon
Flypaper
TV Dinner
Station identification
Shoeshine
Car phone
Klondike
Pop top
Snow cone
Keep on Truckin'
Upper
Downer
Pizza Pie
Saccharine
Frankfurter
Togs
Langustino

This is fun! Feel free to add your own!

2 Words I Made Up

2008-06-20T11:35:00.000-07:00

Falacio
1) the act of pretending to perform oral sex, as they do in (non porn) movies
2) the act of performing oral sex grudgingly, while acting like you enjoy doing it
3) the act of peforming passive-aggressively poor oral sex; that is to say oral sex so bad that you will never be asked to do it again

Lesbariner
1) a small woman who is sexually attracted to very tall women (think climbing)

Jesus Owes Me $50 - part 2

2008-06-03T15:23:00.000-07:00

One night I had a dream--
I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord and across the sky flashed scenes from my life.
For each scene I noticed two sets of footprints, one belonged to me and the other to the Lord.
When the last scene of my life flashed before me,I looked back at the footprints in the sand.
I noticed that many times along the path of my life,there was only one set of footprints.
I also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in my life.
This really bothered me and I questioned the Lord about it.
"Lord, you said that once I decided to follow you,you would walk with me all the way,but I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life there is only one set of footprints. "
I don't understand why in times when I needed you most,you should leave me."
The Lord replied,
"Are you fucking kidding?! There are almost 7 billion people on the planet! I had things to do!"
Then he kicked me in the balls and took my wallet.

Truth! - part 11

2008-04-02T14:40:00.000-07:00

If it were the late 80's or early 90s, the following statement might make someone say "Word!" and then give me five:

The best reason to believe in Sasquatch? It doesn't cost you anything. Unless you are a Zoologist or are spending money to go on a Sasquatch expedition, it has no effect on your life at all. Personally I think it would be much cooler to be in a world where there are giant bipedal apes running around than being in a world sans giant bipedal apes, and since I'll never know the answer, never search for the answer, and if the answer shows up it won't change my life in the slightest, call me a Sasquatch believer. If it starts costing money, I may reevaluate that stance.

This may be weird coming from a Beatles fan, but I think Yoko Ono is pretty cool.

Nothing that I have voted for that's passed, including candidates, has ever turned out badly. All the stuff that's turned out badly was stuff I didn't vote for. Maybe I know more about politics than I thought. Maybe instead of voting, y'all should just ask me.

When you know someone who is severely retarded for many years, it's hard to get a sense of how old they are. My cousin Kelli just died. She had Down's syndrome and was mentally about 2 or 3, and I have no idea how old she actually was. My best guess is slightly older than me, because I don't ever remember her being child sized. But then I don't remember her prior to 1980 or so either. Maybe she was younger than me and I just didn't meet her until she was adult sized. It's pretty weird to think about.

Unless you've been living in a cave, you've heard the rumor that Muslim believe that they will be greeted in heaven by 72 virgins as a reward for a suicide bombing. First off, they don't actually believe that. It's a lie fed to you to make your enemy seem subhuman and carnal so that you can be more easily steered around by fear. Read this. Second, regardless of whether it's supported by the Koran and the Hadiths or not, it's a dumb idea. As anachronistic as the beliefs of fundamentalist Islam may seem to someone who believes a real scientific belief like Christianity (sarcasm), they're not stupid. Anybody who has had sex with both virgins and non-virgins can tell you...virgins are lousy lays. Imagine eternity (not just a long time, ETERNITY) having awkward, clumsy, embarrassed sex with 72 giggling, naive, prisses (imagine Mormons) that, no matter how much experience they get, they never seem to get any more skillful. That would be hell, not heaven. Maybe that's the point, because the Koran and the Hadiths both agree: suicide is terrible and it makes Allah mad. (Wow, consistency in religion. Who'da thunk it?)

George Carlin is starting to look like my late grandma.

No matter how you slice it, UFOs are interesting. It's nonsensical to say you don't believe in them (unless you genuinely believe that no one has ever looked up and seen something they couldn't recognize), so the real point of contention is just what they really are. Alien space craft? Interesting. Classified military gizmos? Interesting. A huge hoax involving millions of people all over the world? Wow, that's unbelievably interesting. Delusions and hallucinations of millions of people all over the world? Holy crap, that's interesting! In light of all this, the alien spacecraft explanation is the LEAST interesting possibility. I defy you to find an explanation for UFOs that isn't in the slightest bit interesting. To claim otherwise...well, you're just in denial.

Love, Compromise, and Seafood...

2008-03-10T17:02:00.000-07:00

I just had a thought that I've never heard anybody express before. In compromising with one's mate, it's the small things that go away. You get to keep the things you like a lot (as long as your lover loves you and you express your likes adequately), but you can lose things you only like a little bit out of simple logistics. I specifically have in mind scallops. My girly hates them and I kinda like them. I don't love them though and therein lies the problem. I can't prepare them as a meal for the two of us, and if I'm cooking for myself or out at a restaurant, I'm probably not going to waste it on something I only kinda like like scallops. I'm probably going to get something I like better, like steak or shrimp. Or if she is inclined to get me a treat, it would never occur to her that scallops would be a treat, because I only kinda like them. For weird logistical reasons, I may never eat scallops again. It's weird to think about. Kinda makes me want scallops.

Some Thoughts On Zombies...

2008-02-07T10:44:00.000-08:00

In light of this exciting election season where the fate of western civization seems to hang in the balance and we face the very real potential of either great adavances in our nation and the evolution of our society or four more years of death, destruction, anti-intelectualism, and the erosion of civil liberties, I've been thinking rather intently about--what else--Zombies.

What exactly is going on when one is reanimated into the "Living Dead"? I've come to some conclusion which I would like to share with you.

First off let's define terms. I'm not talking about voodoo zombies. The voodoo type of zombie requires only one one word to explain every aspect of it's existence: Magic. If you acknowledge the action of magic, you don't really have to explain anything else. It's kind of like saying "God did it." No, I am specifically talking about the George Romero, Night of the Living Dead, brand of Zombie. I am also drawing a line at the Resident Evil, House of the Dead and 28 Days Later franchises as those are fast moving, enrage dead things and should probably be named something other that "Zombie". This may be overly parsing the necrotic community, but when I hear "zombie", I think of shambling not running. Also, and some of you may disagree, but John Russo's contribution to the Living Dead mythos should be summarily ignored. In other words, Zombies do not talk and they do not hunger for brains, any more than intoxicated punk rocker chicks spontaneously strip and dance, not to music but to the movie soundtrack, in graveyards (see Return of the Living Dead, or rather don't bother seeing it). In a nutshell I am restricting my source material to the four George Romero Living Dead films, and the book World War Z.

So what really is going on inside these walking corpses?

What are Zombies capable of and what are they not capable of? They walk, they eat, they perform repetitive tasks from the lives of their bodies, and they transmit their condition by way of these activities. They cannot reason, talk, problem solve, feel pain, or remember cause and effect. This would suggest that what we're dealing with is a virus that grows and feeds off specific parts of the central nervous system. It seems that the virus somehow stimulates, arguably overstimulates, the areas of habitual motor function (hence the ability to walk and perform repetative tasks) and the instinct to eat and ability to recognize in a basic sense "meat" or things that seem like meat. These are all activities housed in the Cerebellum, Occipital Lobe, and Parietal Lobe. The Frontal Lobe is obviously off line, and oddly, as Zombies have been shown to have no heart beat, respiration, or other autonomic functions, the Medulla is also off line. In the absence of circulation, we must assume that the virus itself has some means of locomotion within the body, presumably in the lymphatic system. The black ichor that they leak would seem a reasonable candidate for this transmission medium. The virus, directly permeating the central nervous system and periferal motor neurons, then creates what could be seen as a seizure of habitual neural pathways. It is through these most basic of activities, recognizing something to bite, moving toward it, and biting that the virus is transmitted and thus propogates it's DNA. The bite itself is not the sole transmitter, though. The virus is already ubiquitous--seeded by a comet in the first movie-- but it would seem that it cannot become active in anything but necrotic neural tissue. If you die, you are reanimated, regardless of bites. But, redundncies are not unheard of in the natural world. It would make sense for an interstellar contagion to have multiple means of propogation to adapt to the inevitable variety of media that it could find itself in. Bite transmittal works faster than death by natural causes, so perhaps that functions as an accelerator to give the infection a toe hold faster than the host could respond.

Although no film that I know of has brought this up, it would be logical to assume that a Zombie would have a limited lifespan (or "undeathspan" perhaps), as the virus would eventually run out of neural material on which to feed. This would mean that were a living dead outbreak to occur, containment would actually be a relatively simple process of evacuation and waiting it out. There is no telling though how long the virus would talk to exhaust its host, so that could prove logistically untennable. Best to shoot them I guess. Better safe than sorry.

The Hierarchy of Potential Locations

2008-01-15T11:36:00.000-08:00

When you lose something, the places you look are always in the same order:

1. Where it belongs.
2. Where you probably had it last.
3. Where you can picture leaving it.
4. Places you have been, where you remember having it.
5. Places near places you have been, where you remember having it.
6. Places you have been, even if you don't remember having it there.
7. Places near places you have been, even if you don't remember having it there.
8. Places you can picture it, even if you've not been there lately.
9. Places you can't picture it.
10. Places in which it would fit.
11. Places in which it would fit if someone forced it.
12. Places it wouldn't fit (just in case it's no longer in one piece).
13. Repeat locations 1 thru 12.
14. Places it could not possibly be.

I am just plain sick of...

2007-11-08T14:24:00.000-08:00

...machines asking me if I want to do the thing that I just told them to do.

...Hip Hop. Sorry, I just am.

...the idea that only hicks see UFOs. Actually a great many sightings are made by pilots.

...the idea that people that believe in UFOs (ie, objects in the sky that are not identified) are crazy, but people who believe in God are credible and reasonable.

...people in authority renaming things.

...fleece.

...the idea that questioning the official story of 9/11 is disrespectful of the victims. If the official story raises questions, just address them and lay them to rest. Example: "Why did it look like there were explosions preceding the collapse of the towers as if it were being demolished?" "That's an optical illusion created by the air pressure of the collapse." "Oh, okay."

...cars that all look alike.

...perfectly good chocolate being ruined by raspberry.

...people claiming to like foods because they think they should, because that's what smart sophisticated people eat. Like arugula. I know you don't really like it, even though you won't admit it. Go ahead and deny it. I see right through you.

...the number of references to coffee on Smallville.

...handwriting that is so fancy and loopy that you can't read it.

...the vocal gymnastics of modern singers. Just pick a note and sing it. Stop scatting around the melody and just sing the song.

...Jessica Alba.

...drag. Being able to put on make-up does not necessarily make you a performer. It takes a little more work than that.

...the breast cancer hype. You know there's no cure for ANY kind of cancer, right? I'm sorry to sound harsh, but your tits are not more important than somebody else's lungs, brain or bone marrow. Breast cancer is a very fashionable cause, I know, but it's not a conspiracy of men that there isn't a cure.

...people that refer to themselves as a bitch or an asshole as if they're proud of it.

Truth! - part 10

2007-09-18T12:34:00.000-07:00

The following statements are accurate, actual, appropriate, authentic, authoritative, bona fide, correct, dependable, direct, exact, factual, fitting, genuine, honest, indubitable, kosher, lawful, legal, legitimate, natural, normal, on target, perfect, precise, proper, pure, regular, right, rightful, sincere, straight, suant, sure-enough, trustworthy, truthful, typical, undeniable, undesigning, undoubted, unerring, unfaked, unfeigned, unquestionable, valid, veracious, veridical, veritable, very, wash:

I am a peaceful person by nature. However, if you tickle me, and I ask you to stop and you don't stop, I will punch you. I don't care if you are a tiny woman. I don't care if you're handicapped. I don't care if you're carrying a baby. I don't care if you ARE a baby. You have one chance to stop. If you do not, it will end in violence and it will be your fault.

You know what you never hear? "That baby is a real asshole." Babies are called fussy, cranky, moody, even temperamental, but they seem immune to the regular run of insults that we adults can be saddled with. At what age do you suppose a person is capable of being a cunt?

While we're on the subject of criticizing children, the age at which one can be considered a loser is a little ill-defined. It does however seem to be getting older. Teachers all the way up through high school are now being instructed to avoid things like red ink and words like failure because they make kids feel bad about getting answers wrong (or should I say getting answers "alternatively correct"). Come to think of it, apparently, at the age of 38, I'm too young for negative comments as well, because my supervisors at work insist on giving me feedback, despite my insistence that I'm mature enough to handle criticism. Doesn't it seem like we're all being treated as if the powers-that-be think we may snap and kill somebody if we experience anything unpleasant? I guess that episode of the Twilight Zone with the superpowered little kid turned out to be a prophetic parable.

Deductive reasoning is systematically being discouraged in our society. The people that hold our leashes want it that way. Take a moment to examine your surroundings, employ logic (if you are still capable) and you'll see it's true.

The flush toilet does not get enough lip service (ewww!) for it's brilliance. It is one of the most elegantly efficacious yet low-tech devices ever devised by humans. Open one up sometime and see how it works. It is an utterly sublime use of gravity. I would put it up there in the pantheon of human tools with levers, pulleys, and wheels.

Everything that you do, every system within which you work, every social convention you employ, every assumption you make about life, your fellow humans, love, food, music, television, board games, phlegm, airplanes, school, law, morality, grapefruits, blogs and everything else in the universe, every word you speak, every word you understand, every single atom of minutiae within your sphere, is entirely held together by belief. This belief was given to you by the people that came before you, and has no objective reality what-so-ever.

Imagine a thing called "Borple". Borple created "flang" and "mord" and all the "gerbs in berbity". There is no evidence for the existence of Borple, but most people wouldn't want to live in a world without Borple, so Borple must exist. For centuries people have argued about how Borple created "flang" and "mord" and all the "gerbs in berbity", whether "flang" came before "mord" or vice versa, or whether they were created simultaneously, or even if, being outside of the stream of time, "before" had any meaning for Borple. These arguments, over time, became much more heated, growing into murder and wars and mass cullings of primo-flangist by primo-mordists and primo-mordists by primo-flangists. Gerbists initially joined in the violence but eventually retired to a more academic role, seeing the vital importance of teaching the young the truth about Borple and its wonders. Eventually, some people discovered that 2+2=4 and tried to tell the various Borplists this fact. As Borple had not said it, the Borplists refused to believe it and despite their differences rose up and enacted laws based on Borplist principles. Those who asked what Borple was, if Borple really existed, and what Borple had to do with basic mathematics were ostracised, beaten, imprisoned or even sometimes killed publicly. Mind you, not all Borplists were violent; some of them were quite friendly and only pitied the poor nonbelievers because of their easily demonstrated yet false belief that 2+2=4, and reminded them of the torments that awaited those that did not follow the ways of Borple. Generation upon generation lived the ways of Borple, and Borplists made sure that all people, Borplist and non-Borplist, never had more than 3 of anything, because to have four, youd have to first have 2 sets of 2 and that is against the will of Borple. That's why atheists tend to be a bit angry.

What do the following 20 statements have in common?

2007-09-06T11:44:00.001-07:00

If you have to say it...it's probably not true

1) I'm great in the sack.
2) Values are important to me.
3) I'm not prejudiced.
4) I'm a strong woman.
5) I have a large penis.
6) I know what's best for my child.
7) I'm not at all gay.
8) Our workers are happy.
9) I deserve this.
10) I'm really good at (X).
11) I love healthy food.
12) I'm really smart.
13) I'm okay with being alone.
14) My friends say I'm funny.
15) I could totally kick that guy's ass.
16) I have faith.
17) We value your input.
18) To us, every person matters.
19) I know where I'm going in life.
20) I'm not angry anymore and I really feel that I have grown from the experience.

Truth! - part 9

2007-07-17T17:25:00.000-07:00

The following truements are state:

I have a proposal to help bridge the gap between skeptics and fans of the paranormal/supernatural. We should altogether stop calling things paranormal or supernatural. They're nonsensical words; if it exists, it's normal and it's natural. There are however a whole category of phenomena that exist, at least anecdotally speaking, that are off the beaten path of every day experience and we have to call them something. I would suggest just calling these experiences "fortean" (added to Webster's in 2003 I believe), after Charles Forte, writer and researcher of anomalous phenomena. A good example was illustrated on a Discovery Channel special I saw recently. They were trying to debunk a ghost sighting. In doing so, they invoked all manner of exotic explanations (geomagnetic anomalies inducing hallucinations and such). It struck me that their scientific explanation was no less weird and fascinating than the ghost hypothesis, but they were acting like it was. If both sides of the issue were to eliminate the "supernatural"-type language and just call the experience "fortean" (of subjective high strangeness), then they could come to some sort of understanding instead of arguing. Believer: "I had a subjectivey strange experience." Skeptic: "Can't argue with that. Let's figure out what happened...together." [they kiss passionately]

There is, or should be I think, an important distinction between racism and prejudice. Racism is the firm belief that one race is superior to another. Prejudice is a tendency to "pre-judge" things and people based on an underlying belief. Racism involves embracing your belief in superiority. Everyone has prejudices though, often in spite of knowing better. Don Imus is prejudiced. Louis Farrakhan is a racist.

As an avid reader, I instinctually read footnotes hoping that they will contain more in depth information. Like a secret part of the book meant only for the REAL readers. I'm currently trying to read the bible all the way through and I've discovered something: The footnotes in the bible suck! I expect to find historical context and such, but all I find is things like "and this is why you shouldn't touch yourself inappropriately". Lame.

You can turn any person into a member of an unpleasant demographic group by simply adding the word "trash" to their location. For example, I am currently "cubicle trash".

You can turn any person into your slave by adding the word "monkey" to whatever activity they perform. For example, I am your "truth monkey".

You can pay any person a childish insult by adding "y head" to what ever they are doing. I am "bloggy head".

Many people say that if they were to meet God, they'd ask "Why do bad things happen to good people?". That's an easy question. Adversity makes you stronger. An answer to one of the big philosophical questions in a mere four words. The real tough question, the one that might make God say "uuuuuhhhh..." is "Why do good things happen to bad people?". Case in point: the president.

Beware of those that tell you not to be so angry.

In my life, I have occasionally been called lazy. However, I've noticed a pattern: I've never been called lazy by somebody that wasn't trying to get me to do something that benefited them.

In many jokes about fags you will often find the phrase "assless chaps". "That guy was such a homo, he was wearing nothing but assless chaps." they'll say to flurries of derisive laughter. "Assless chaps" is redundant. All chaps are assless. That's what makes them chaps. If they had an ass, they'd be pants.

Time is not money. Time is more valuable than money. Here's proof: Do we pay doctors money to extend our lives or do we pay bankers time to increase our bank balance? Here's more proof: If a mugger says "your money or your life" which do you give him?

A Brief Word on Silence

2007-07-12T10:04:00.000-07:00

It has been brought to my attention that I may have been a bit brusk in my last post. I stated that "A great many women never learn the value of silence.". This was not my main point, but was in fact the ground work for the real point about the irony of "Shhhh" imitating a mother's heart when heard from the womb. As it was not the main point, I just sort of blew by it without elaborating, and came off as a bit of a misogynist. I will now elaborate.

A study has been done (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=419040&in_page_id=1879) showing that in western society women on average speak three times as much as men. Mind you, there are studies that refute that. One study being held up in opposition to this states that women on average will speak 16,215 words per day whereas men come in at 15,669, which the new study calls "statistically insignificant". Stand up in front of a crowd and give an impromptu 546 word speech. Or write a 546 word essay on whatever is in your head right now. Doesn't seem so insignificant now, does it?

However, speaking more does not necessarily imply not knowing the value of silence. Perhaps a more accurate way to put it would be "Men tend to value silence more than women.". Yes, I have heard women say "Shut up." and yes I have been subject to men who won't stop talking. This is why I use terms like "on average" and "tend to". It's been pointed out to me that women do in fact value silence, but to achieve the silence, they are more inclined to go away and be alone. I would posit that this is not silence. This is solitude. Silence is a feature of solitude, but solitude is not silence. If you can't find any cigarettes, that does not mean that you have quit smoking; the real test is quitting smoking in the presence of cigarettes. Therefore the true test of whether or not you value silence, is in a social situation. I have known many men to be in a social situation and say next to nothing (and yet still communicate quite well--topic for a different post). I've only seen a few women do that. Granted, I admit it could happen when I'm not there. It's really between you and your yapper. To prove me right or wrong, there is no other test than to look at your own behavior and watch other people. If you are in the presence of at least one other person, are you capable of not talking? For how long? Is it difficult?

Truth! - part 8

2007-06-29T08:45:00.000-07:00

The following statements are true:

You do not cross "T"s. You cross lower case "L"s and transform them into "T"s.

Supposedly most men prefer big boobs to small boobs. I think this is actually a misinterpretation. I think most men simply prefer near boobs to far boobs. The closer the boob, the better we like it. If two women are standing next to one another, the bigger boobs are closer. Think about it.

There is a small thing that Americans could do to help smooth relations with both Iraq and Iran, and really everyone else to a lesser degree. It won't end the war in Iraq or prevent it with Iran, but it might contribute to countering the US's image as ignorant and arrogant. Pronounce their names correctly. It's not "eye-rack" and "eye-ran". It's "i-rock" and "i-ron" (Actually it's a tapped "R" but some people just can't do that, so we can let that slide.). How would you feel if Iraqis kept calling us "Ay-meeric-ay"? You'd think they were ignorant and arrogant and you'd be right. Granted they tap the "R" in "America" but then so does the governor of "Cahleefohnia".

A poetical yet sexist notion: A great many women never learn the value of silence. Some men don't either but the misunderstanding seems more pronounced on the female side. This is somewhat ironic since the act of quieting someone with "Shhhhh" is immitating the sound of a mother's heartbeat heard from the womb.

A famous person's public persona tends to eclypse his or her real persona. If someone is a tough guy, I would imagine most people assume that their whole life is tough. Or if someone is pretty, you would think their whole life is pretty. Obviously this can't be true. There are completely banal parts to the most exotic people's lives, just like the rest of us. In a nutshell, what I'm leading up to here is that Jimi Hendrix probably owned a red and white checkered dishtowel. No paisley. No screaming guitar riffs when he used it. Just a plain old dishtowel. I find that interesting.

There is a secret compliment that you can pay to your lover that no one knows about but you. Even your lover won't know. It's a compliment that your subconscious pays them, with or without the permission of your conscious mind. It's when a song that was previously associated in your mind with a former love is reassociate it with your current love.

Things I Don't Understand - Part 5

2007-06-11T16:54:00.001-07:00

Have you ever been walking down the street behind someone who is walking slowly? You want to pass them, but, even though they are not particularly large or doing anything in particular to block the sidewalk, somehow, try as you might, you just can't get around them for some reason. How are they doing that? What is it that is preventing you from walking around them?

Physicists can talk about some really complicated, mind stretching things. They can completely dumbfound some of the most intelligent people. However, in talking about gravitation and what effects what, they will inevitably refer to things as large bodies and small bodies. All matter has gravity, but the significant effects of gravity are only exhibited in large bodies. At what point does a body go from small to large? If it's an either/or situation and not a gradient (nobody ever talks about almost having gravitational effects), that suggests that a single microgram could make the difference between gravity and no gravity. You're floating above an asteroid when a random bit of space dust hits it and suddenly you're plummeting? That can't be right, can it?

I'm on a diet. I was sitting around the house all day the other day. Out of boredom, I weighed myself several times. I watched myself drop a whole pound in the course of a day. In that time, I both ate and pooped. I did not poop excessively--roughly as much as I ate. So where is that mass going? Think about a pound of meat. That's not something that can just evaporate. That's a pound of meat. I don't recall seeing a pound of me lying around my house anywhere. Where'd it go?

Manual transmissions make sense to me. I can picture the gears and what happens to them. Automatic transmissions seem like magic. How does it know what gear it should be in? I can imagine a computer being able to control an automatic transmission, but automatics were invented before computers were small enough to fit under a hood. So how does it know? Hell, sometimes people don't know what gear to be in. How is an inanimate object supposed to know?

How is it possible to work at a perfume counter at a department store for more than an hour or so? Smell is cumulative, meaning that the chemicals that enter your nose, have a finite number of receptors to stimulate. At some point, you will cease to smell anything you are exposed to, unless you stop being exposed to it for a while. So, wouldn't the perfume ladies stop being able to smell their product after a very short time?

Mucus is not water soluble. That's what makes it useful in it's various functions (moisturizing and protecting animal tissue, making slugs icky, etc). Now it's already amazing that we can even produce the stuff at all (a water soluble creature creating a non water soluble substance), but I'm sure that's just some run of the mill chemical process. The baffling part is this : There's not only six billion snot producing humans on this planet, but thousands of other animal species that produce mucus as well, and millions of years of ancestors doing the same thing. Since mucus doesn't really dissolve or degrade like the rest of our biological effluvia does, shouldn't we be knee deep in snot right now?

Let's Alienate the Wimmins!

2007-06-07T12:10:00.000-07:00

I have a controversial thought in my head. A thought so explosive, it requires a preamble. One of the many double standards under which we languish in this culture is...well it's better illustrated than described:

Person speaking in public forum: "I think women are smarter (or any other positive quality) than men."
[audience applauds, cheers, etc]

vs.

Person speaking in public forum: "I think men are smarter (or any other positive quality) than women."
[audience screams in disgust, throws chair, labels speaker as a Nazi, etc]

There is a cultural stigma in the west against criticizing female culture. There are easily understandable factors that cause this. Typically an oppressed population is free to criticize the oppressor but not vice versa. It's a balance thing. This is not the controversial thought I'm bringing up. I'm just laying that as a foundation because my controversial thought goes against the "don't pick on women" thing and if we can circumvent the Pavlovian kill-the-chauvinist reaction, then perhaps we can give this some serious attention and get wiser as a species. Also, I'm not saying that I necessarily think this is true; I just think it's an interesting area of thought that's worth looking into.

Okay here goes:

Why do women tend to talk more than men? Why do women tend to focus so much energy on communication? Why do women not only try to express their feelings, but try to get others to express their feeling as well?

Maybe it's because they're not very good at it.

It's generally assumed that women are more sensitive and more communicative of emotion than men, but could it be that the opposite is true, that men by and large are actually better at expressing their feeling than women? It could be. If something comes naturally to you, you don't tend to talk about; people only tend to talk at length about things that have some sort of uncertainty. There aren't many conversations about how the sky is up or how water is wet. Imagine this scenario: I walk in to my home. Aaron say, "Hey, how's it going?". I say "Meh, work sucked. I wish I didn't have to work.". To which Aaron replies "Yep. Not much you can do.". Sounds like a standard grunty male non-conversation, but we have just communicated effectively and efficiently our current emotional status, our attitudes toward work, our desires for a better world, and acknowledged that we understand and feel for each other. Not only have we made this communication happen, it happened without effort and in a matter of mere seconds, leaving us free to go scratch ourselves and lift heavy things and rehearse complicated handshakes. No obsessing over minutiae. No handholding and processing out loud. Just quickshot, meat n' potatoes, brain-to-brain data transfer. That's some pretty good communication skills.

Now I'm not saying this is true. I am no great fan of my own gender. I am however trying to knock down a prejudice. Prejudices keep us from thinking and, call me crazy, I think thinking is good for you. Perhaps women are better at communicating than men, or maybe men are better at it. Or perhaps, and I think this is more likely, we each have a different style of communication that should be honored and appreciated. The fact that humans communicate at all is pretty cool, doncha think? Hello? Is anybody understanding me?

Vagina Philosophica - The results

2007-05-16T17:23:00.000-07:00

So I managed to get answers from eight vagina owners (I believe they're called 'women'), two on the blog and six in person. We have three in the object camp, three in the location camp, and two of a more abstract bent sitting on the fence. Even steven. Thanks, ladies, you really cleared that up for me. So what have I learned? I learned that I may have lost what little Fonziness I might have once owned. Only eight women willing to talk to me about their verginers? That's pathetic!

So the next quesiton: A vagina is locked in a box with a nutrino. If the nutrino decays, a hammer kills the vagina. If the box remains unopened the vagina must be considered both dead and alive simultaneously, in a state of what would be called quantum flux. In such a state, how long would it take for a theoretical physicist to get laid?

Schroedinger's Pussy! get it?

Due Process and the Juice

2007-05-10T09:53:00.001-07:00

Yes, I realize the following post is dredging up old news. I'm thinking about it because I just read this news story, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070509/people-simpson, and it brings up something I never got around to saying while it was still fresh. So here's some social commentary left-overs for you. If you don't like it, we can go out to Sizzler tomorrow night.

Everyone in the US should be happy that O.J. got off. Whether he killed his ex-wife or not is irrelevant. You didn't know her. You don't know him. You weren't there when it all went down and you don't know the facts. What you should be thinking about is how it affects you, and how it affects you is one of the last things that makes me feel any pride about this country: Due Process. After the last two presidential elections, the unwarranted invasion of Iraq, the re-rape of the environment after the great strides made in the 90's I don't have much faith left in the law, the government, or sadly the people of the United States, but due process still works for me. The mechanism by which O. J. was exonerated, whether he did it or not, is the same mechanism by which you or I could potentially be exonerated of a crime that you or I did not commit. Even if O.J. not only did it, but was laughing maniacally the whole time about how he was planning to abuse the legal system and get off scott free, even if he's still laughing, even if every time he swings a golf club he remembers fondly the sound of his knife piercing Nicole's flesh, we should be glad the mechanism exists. If 10 vicious criminals skirt justice by abusing a system designed so that one innocent person does not lose his or her liberty or life that is a price that we should pay happily. It is a flawed system, with loopholes that can be exploited by the rich, and potholes that the poor can fall into, but I'm glad the system is there. Just imagine the alternative.

Truth! - part 7

2007-04-19T11:55:00.000-07:00

The following statements are truer than Truthy McTrutherson from Truthville, North Trutholina. Some Truth may contain peanuts:

I do not want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination for president, and it's not for political reasons. The longer she stays in the race, the more we will hear a certain grammatically incorrect phrase over and over: "First woman president". If I have to hear that for the next two years that is going to drive me into a bell tower with a rifle. "Woman" is not an adjective. The correct phrase is "first female president". Plus she's a warmonger.

Speaking of going ape shit and killing a bunch of people, it is absolutely appropriate and commendable that NBC broadcast the tapes that Cho Seung-Hui recorded before his Virginia Tech killing spree. Despite the public outcry, NBC should be congratulated for their courage and practicality in the face of a very painful reality. We all want to know why people do that sort of thing. We all want to know what separates us from them. "Am I or somebody I know at risk for suddenly snapping like that?" We will never know, if the words of the killer himself are suppressed. You can pin it on a nondescript, abstract evil, like we so love to do (Oklahoma City, Columbine, 9/11), but that is a lazy, self satisfied, and completely impractical stance. If you reduce something like this to morally infantile terms like good and evil, and refuse to look at it square in its horrific face, the real cause goes unexamined and will certainly fester and return to haunt you.

A lot of people disparage the US for spending billions of dollars on a space program, sending gizmos to Mars and such, when people here on earth are starving and living in poverty. They are not wrong. They are, however, incomplete in their rightness. We should be exploring space, we should be expanding our collective minds to encompass the grandeur of the universe, we should be looking for other life and bettering ourselves on a cosmic scale, but we just don't deserve to and that is the tragedy. It is 2007, two thousand FAWKING seven! I never pictured life beyond 2001. We're off my map here. We should be better than this. It brings a tear to my eye to think of where we were supposed to be by now, and look honestly on the hell we have made of the "future". We have the ability to feed every human on the planet many times over, but we are hobbled by greed, religion, ignorance, enforced powerlessness and apathy. We should not fault the scientists for wanting to go into space. We should fault ourselves for not being evolved enough to live up to that noble dream.

I often wonder why people as a rule do not automatically defer to the judgement of those who are obviously more intelligent than them. Then I realize, "Oh yeah, that would be a smart thing to do."

You can make sweeping statements like "An unexamined life is not a life worth living.", and you would be correct, but a more down to earth concern might be "What do people who live unexamined lives do all day? Don't they get bored?".

I think it would be a good world if we dealt with languages like they did in the Star Wars universe. Since alien races all had different vocal apparatuses, and consistent good pronunciation was just plain impossible, no on ever had to learn to speak anybody else's language, they just had to understand it. I can nearly understand many other languages (mostly the European Latin-based ones), but damned if I know what to say back. It would be great if everyone understood every other language, but never had to worry about speaking it. That would eliminate one of the big problems many of us had with Spanish in High School: the whole anxiety about bad pronunciation.

A hard line Muslim might consider me a vassal of the 'Great Satan' for this, but I really like the fact that I live in a culture where women can tell me I'm full of shit.

Vagina Philosophica

2007-03-30T12:15:00.000-07:00

I have an odd, abstract, philosophical question for the owners of vaginas. I was listening to Wanda Sykes doing standup yesterday and she was doing a bit about how great it would be to be able to remove and leave her pussy at home sometimes. I won't go into detail about the jokes, but it got me thinking, if you were to remove your hootie as Wanda described, what would you be removing? I have always thought of it as a container or space, but the space/container is created by the presence of a physical structure surrounding it (labia, vaginal walls, etc). Using the allegory of a cup, when you think of your vagina are you thinking of the the walls of the cup or is it the space inside? Assuming it were detachable, if you were to remove it, would you be removing the outer structure the creates the location, or would you (more abstractly) be removing the location itself? Removal is not my main interest though. The main question is this: What is your ya-ya to you on a psychological, philosophical level? Location or object?

Feel free to call me a pervert if you like, but please post your views on this. I really want to know.

Truth! - Part 6

2007-03-09T16:22:00.000-08:00

The following statements are true. Some of them are even double plus true (triple plus true while drinking victory gin):

Y'know what word you never hear anymore? Mercy. You'll occasionally hear it as an ironic expletive ("Mercy, me!"), but you never seem to hear it in its original meaning. I wonder if it's just an aesthetic/fashionable shift in language, or if it's because the concept is vanishing from our minds. Like how equatorial cultures don't have a word for snow. Have we stopped saying "mercy" because we've stopped practicing it?

If you approach so-called miracles logically, it says some pretty bad stuff about the deity you think is responsible. Say a seven year old child is in a hospital with leukemia. The outlook doesn't look good and the child is considered terminal. The leukemia suddenly goes into remission for no reason. Praise Jaysus, it's a miracle! There's another terminal child in the next bed. His leukemia doesn't go into remission. In fact, nobody else in the entire ward experiences a miracle. So God, omnipotent being, not just powerful, omnipotent, picks one person out of billions of sick people to grant health. Did the others do something wrong? Can a child of seven years old have done anything to either deserve a miracle or deserve a lack of a miracle resulting in agony at the core of his bones? Miracles are, by their very nature, rare. That rarity is the key to a very important concept. Either God is a cruel, torturing, insecure, childish motherfucker, and we are the ants caught in his magnifying glass, or (here we go again) HE DOESN'T EXIST!

My next point is in response to what you're thinking right now (Yes, I'm reading your mind.), if you are a big fan of God and the whole miracle concept. The standard response to this sort of criticism of the big guy is "God works in mysterious ways.". Catholics might also recognize this as one of those "Divine Mysteries" the priests talk about. That's a religious trick as old as religion. Mystery means something you don't know. Saying "God works in mysterious ways" means exactly the same as "I don't know." but it's phrased in a way that makes you sound like you know the answer. "I don't know." states a negative; "God works in mysterious ways." disguises this negative as a positive, and you get to act like you're wise and learned and have the inside track on the mind of your fictional daddy figure. The truth is, your story is not logical, is full of holes and inconsistencies, and no matter how pointy your hat is, you don't know anymore than the rest of us. However, I know one thing that you don't know: There is no such thing as...do I really need to say it again?

While we're at it, the very concept of God is the ultimate avoidance of saying "I don't know.", isn't it. Why is there something instead of nothing? I don't know. See how easy that was?

Okay, I'm on a roll here. Y'know what made me an atheist? MAD Magazine. I can remember the moment it happened. I was about 9 years old, reading MAD, and there was a cartoon with high schoolers where somebody said there are no atheists during finals. I had never heard that word before. I asked my mom what an atheist was and she said "somebody who doesn't believe in God". It hadn't even occurred to me that that was on the menu! That made so much more sense to me than anything I had been taught by parents, priests, or nuns. It took me another 2 years to say it out loud, but from then on, I was an atheist. Thanks, MAD.

Tarot cards work. They are also fake. Seems contradictory, but resolving the contradiction is where the "magic" lies. Skeptics would have you believe that tarot is completely bullshit, essentially because the reasons that most tarot readers give for it working ARE bullshit, or at least inaccurate. Here is how they work, and it's pretty cool: Tarot occasions deep, introspective conversation. It provides an excuse for this introspection to occur. I liken it to party games like Spin the Bottle, or Truth or Dare. Sexy talk and sexy actions are sometimes difficult for people and have a hard time occurring spontaneously. The purpose of Spin the Bottle of Truth or dare is to provide context within which the sexy stuff can easily occur. Tarot works the same way with intense self-evaluation. The cards themselves mean nothing, they're just paper and ink, but the act of the reading and the psychologically weighty imagery on the cards help trick your thoughts you into a mode of reflection. Examining your life is a good thing, and tarot can go a long way to lubricating that process.

A Couple More Not-So-Quick Observations...

2007-03-01T13:13:00.000-08:00

Sex and Violence
We really, really need to stop conflating these two unlike things. I recently saw A Clockwork Orange:Remix at Open Circle Theatre and then had to rewatch the movie from which it was adapted, and it really struck me that if these two activities weren't so unnecessarily tied together in the human consciousness, we would all be much happier and healthier. For the official human record (consider this a corollary to my 'Truth!' columns), violence is a bad thing, sex is a good thing, and there is no no NO reason for them to be equated. To do so is insane. Violence is about making someone feel bad. Sex is about making one or more people feel good. If sex feels bad, something is wrong. Similarly if violence feels good, something is also wrong. The phrase "Sex and Violence" should not exist as an inextricable pairing, but as a pair of opposites like black an white, this and that, or Yin and Yang. This may seem a little overblown, but I think it's actually possible that if sex and violence could be divorced in the minds of all humans, rape would no longer occur. So that's your assignment, readers: Figure out how to correct the thinking of every living person. If you can figure out how to do that...well, I've got some other things I'd like you to work on too.

Thank God
If you win an oscar or a grammy or a golden globe, don't thank God. There are a number of reasons for this. First off, it's conceited to believe that God favored you over all the others that didn't win. Second, unless you were planning on blaming God if you lost, thanking him for the victory has no meaning. Third, a being that can create a nebula, let alone an entire universe, has more interesting things to look at than your shitty movie. Fourth, God does not exist and deep down you know it; you're just afraid to admit it because you think it might be a test of your faith. Fifth, and most important, thank yourself. If you have worked hard enough to master an artistic discipline, if you had the vision to create a piece of art, if you have managed to touch an audience in some way, a fictional deity didn't do that; You did and you desreve to feel good about it. In fact the effort that a limited human artist puts into even the easiest project is far more than what an omnipotent being puts into creating the universe. Even if God did exist and did help, by God's own nature it would be impossible for him to exert effort in doing so. Only the limited can exert effort. Thank yourself. It was your sweat, not God's.

A Quick Observation...

2007-02-02T16:04:00.000-08:00

If people tend to stammer or pause before they say your name, you have an insulting nickname of which you are unaware.