Keep Default Terms Male

I'm reading this book called the "The Gargoyle", when I happened to look on the back of the book, and read the reviews and praises listed on it. There was this one review by a guy named Peter Straub that pissed me off:

"This book plucks the reader off the ground and whirls her through the air until she shouts from sheer abandonment and joy."

Whirls her though the air until she shouts?

Forget for a second that this is possibly the gayest thing anyone's ever said about a novel, and forget for a second that this Straub guy just wants to seem like some artsy poetic genius. What's with all these feminine pronouns? Oh wait, I already answered my own question; the psuedo-artsy poet thing.

Men have always been the ones that moved society, and are still responsible for most major events, whether good or bad. That's why the term "mankind" was made; to reflect that. Can you imagine how stupid refering to the human race as "ladykind" would be? What images does your mind conjure up when you hear "ladykind"? Do you imagine a whole race of beings living together on one planet, like you would with "mankind"? No. "Ladykind" makes you think of a squeeling Dr. Phil audience.

This is a stupid trend that needs to stop. But what's the harm, you say? Well let's put swapping male indentifiers for female ones to the test:

Imagine going home late one night, when someone sneeks up behind you, puts a gun your head, ties you up facing a corner, then proceeds to rob you. When you finally get loose, you call the cops and say "Some guy just tied me up and robbed my house!" The cops will then come, ask you some questions, and maybe find the perp who robbed you, and maybe get some of your stuff back.

Now, imagine the same scenerio, but this time, you call the cops and say "Some gal just tied me up and robbed my house!" You tell the cop that "she" tied you up, and "she" put a gun to your head. The cops are now looking for a female suspect. They never find the perp because you eliminated fifty percent of all the possible suspects by being a contemporary artsy douchebag. The perp continues wearing all your jewelry, walks around enjoying your expensive new iPod after erasing all your shitty Bob Dylan songs (which you have because you're a contemporary artsy douchebag).

In the first scenerio, even if the robber's a woman, using "he" would still get the job done. The cops may investigate and find out you were simply wrong because it was dark and you couldn't see. But if you're a douchebag who has to show just how fucking modern and contemporary you are by using "she", you will just be some asshole missing HIS shit, because even even though most crimes are commited by males, the cops are looking for a woman because you just had to be a contemporary artsy douchebag.

Stop trying to show the world how cool and "with it" you are by using "she" and other female specific terms as the default one. You're not helping women's suffrage. You're not making the world a better place and bringing equality to the sexes. You just sound stupid.

Dream Choices To Play X-Men

I sometimes watch a movie, and think about other actors who could've played the role much better. Like the movie "Ali"; instead of Will Smith as Mohammed Ali, Denzel Washington would've been absolutely perfect. X-Men is one of those movies that I wish I could pull an actor from any time period, and have them be in X-Men. Here are the actors that would rock if they could be in an X-Men movie:





Clint Eastwood as Wolverine. Who embodies the spirit of Wolverine better than this guy? Wolverine is by far, the most badass comic-book character, and Clint Eastwood is the most badass actor of all time.






Johnny Depp as Gambit. Depp is cool as fuck, when he's not playing dumb characters like the Mad Hatter. At his best, Depp is smooth and badass, just like the character. He would've blown minds as Gambit.





Angelina Jolie as Rogue. Jolie just oozes sensuality and sex, like Rogue from X-Men. I Can't think of anyone more more perfect.






Angela Bassett as Storm. She's not as pretty as Halle Berry, true; but Halle just never felt right as Storm. She seemed too innocent, too nice, and not mature enough. Angela Bassett embodies the spirit of Storm perfectly; she sounds intelligent and wise when she speaks, she can can come off as menacing, and she has a great body. Halle's gorgeous, but doesn't have a body like Angela.







Mila Kunis as Jubilee. In the comics, Jubilee is Asian; but Mila actually looks like Jubilee, and her persona, which is fun, kinda goofy and down-to-earth, fits Jubilee perfectly.







Arnold Schwarzenegger as Colossus. What a perfect match. The biggest, buffest actor ever, playing the biggest, buffest X-Man. Colossus is a ripped foreigner with an accent; if you watched the cartoon that came on in the mid-90's, his accent was also a lot like Arnold's.



This is why I should be God. I'd make something awesome, like an X-Men movie with these guys in their prime, happen. Until then, these are the dream actors to play the greatest comic-book team of all time.

The Mental Health Field

The mental health field is the most disgusting field on earth. Not because the people serviced have disabilities, but because the disabled are given rights that no one else has.

Imagine walking into a job, where your clients curse at you, spit at you, throw feces at you, punch and laugh at you when you get injured; and if you so much as raise your voice at the person doing this to you, you will be charged with abuse and terminated from your job. Welcome to the mental health field.

It started with Willowbrook, an institution for mentally retarded people. The conditions there were so bad due to severe lack of funding and staff, that it was shut down. Because this recieved so much news attention due to Geraldo Rivera, many laws were passed as a result. Over time, in an effort to protect retarded people from abuse, retarded people were given a world without consequences for their actions.

In the real world, if you walk up and punch someone in their face, you will not only get attacked back, but you will probably go to jail too. But if you're an employee who gets punched by a mentally retarded person, you CANNOT punch them back. There are specialized maneuvers called "SCIP" techniques, which you must use to restrain them safely, without injury, for a limited time, and only if it's in the retarded client's service plan to use. Sounds fair, huh?

Now this could be tolerable if mental health clients in question were basically invalids who have no idea what they're doing; however, this is far from the case. I worked in the mental health field for six years, and dealt with "high-functioning" clents; basically, people who have mental health issues, but were intelligent enough to do most things themselves. In fact, I worked with clients in the institution who drove cars, had their own jobs, had kids, and even one guy with a 160 I.Q. Now imagine people with this kind of intelligence telling you that they hope your baby dies, spitting in your face, throwing food in the halls nowing you'll have to clean up after, throwing racial slurrs at you...and there's nothing you can do about it.

Where I worked, I could actually call the cops and press charges; but often times, the cops wouldn't do anything, because they had better things to deal with than someone spitting in your face. The house I worked at had the police called so many times, that the residents weren't even phazed by their presence. They would simply just behave when the cops were there, then continue swearing at you as loud as they can to your face. But if you ignore a client screaming at you that you're a worthless whore, nigger or bitch, you WILL be terminated from your job, because ignoring someone is "abuse". (I've been called a nigger, and every female that's ever worked at my job has been called both a bitch and a whore.)

In fact, any sort of punisher, no matter how small, is "abuse". Let's say a mental health client throws food all over the hallway that a staff is gonna have to clean up; so you say, "Because you did this, I'm not giving you your desert tonight, because you were so rude." Anywhere else in the world, this would make perfect sense to do; in the mental health field, this is "abuse", and you will be fired. Employees are supposed to "reward" good behavior, and never punish bad behavior. In other words, something can't be taken away from a client because they were an asshole; they can only be given things if they do right.

The OPWDD (Office for Persons With Developmental Disabilities) is the entity in New York State that comes up with these laws, though I imagine each state is pretty much the same. What these offices fail to realize, is that without consequences, the disabled people living in these institutions will NEVER change. Imagine a world where there were no cops; instead of punishment for breaking the law, they give you cookies for each week you don't commit a felony. How long do you think order would last in the world?

There MUST be laws where some sort of punishment is put in place for bad behavior. This is the only way humans learn.

I can, and should, be punched in the face for cursing and spitting at someone with zero provocation. Right? So should I be exempted from an ass-kicking that most people would get for the same thing, just because I'm in an institution when I do it? There should be places built, where disabled people who do this get a foot repeatedly shoved up their ass until they get it right. If this doesn't work, then they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN SOCIETY. Period.

And if such a place existed, I'd work there for free.

Crazy Things White People Do

I don't know what it is about white people that leads them to do "extreme" sports, or anything with a high likelyhood of severe injury and death. Maybe it's repressed guilt for hundreds of years of slavery, anti-semiticism, the Ku-Klux Klan and Full House. Whatever it is, here's some of the craziest things these mo-fos do:







Demolition derbies.

Tired of all the advantages you have for being born white? Why not take all your perfectly good cars and smash them? This is basically like mosh pits (another crazy white thing) with a twist of vehicular manslaughter.

Hey, can a cop arrest you for drinking and driving in a demolition derby?







Bull riding.

Unlike Spain, where bull-fighters have a sword to kill it, while trying to keep it away from them by distracting them with their cape...rodeo cowboys get on top of a half-ton creature of pure muscle--unarmed--and try to stay there as long as possible. Bat-shit, crazy fun.






Jumping into icy water.

Hey white people: tired of hot showers and warm beds? Like risking hypothermia? Have we got the place for you! There's even a real organization for this, called the "Polar Bear Club".







White-water rafting.

This picture was taken in Africa, and is featured on an travel website called Hills of Africa.com. Notice that there's not a single African in the picture; only crazy white folks. There are tribes in Africa like the Maasai that hunt lions with only a spear and shield, yet still aren't crazy enough tackle billions of gallons of rushing water on jagged rocks with just a raft and a paddle.






Kangaroo boxing.

Hey kids, here's a hot new sport from the makers of Auto-Erotic Asphyxiation. I'm willing to let alligator wrestling slide, because you never when you might have to kick the shit out of a gator. But this...what in the hell.







Atom-bomb riding.

Okay, that was from the movie "Doctor Strangelove". But I wouldn't be surprised.


White people--thank you for risking your lives, or just doing plane crazy shit. It entertains me. And to any crackers reading this, I'm part white myself, mixed with French and Danish. If that's not good enough, I have sex every night with a white woman known as my wife.

Enjoy Jersey Shore tonight.

Justin Timberlake

I've been impressed with this guy for a long time. He's insanely talented, women will murder to get next to him, and he's a great actor, dancer and singer. But what impresses me most of all, is that he is a genuine, humble guy, despite the hordes of money and women at his disposal.


I wasn't a fan of his boy-band, "N'Sync". This is because boy-bands typically just follow pop-song formulas and put out uninspired, rehashed songs about love, with each song sounding exactly the same; "N'Sync" was no different. But when Justin Timberlake went solo, he seriously surprised me. One of his first solo songs was "Rock Your Body", a smooth, mellow tune with some hip-hop flavor; Justin even beat-boxed in the song. It was such a 180 from the type of songs I thought he'd be doing. To this day, I've never heard a Justin Timberlake song I didn't like.

Justin is also a great dancer. And I don't mean in the way other pop-stars like Britany Spears or most boy-bands are; they really aren't good dancers, they just have great choreographers. You can tell who's a real dancer and who's just following steps, the same way you can tell a real martial artist from an actor throwing kicks in a movie. While Justin Timberlake comes off like the Jackie Chan of dancing, other pop-stars just seem fake like Ben Afflek in "Daredevil".

But one day, I saw something on T.V. that completely changed my opinion of Justin. I saw him on a commercial for the "Kid's Choice Awards" on Nickelodian. He was not only the host, but in the commercial, he was doing goofy, funny little skits during the commercial. I remember thinking that it was really brave for a huge, successful entertainer to do something like that, and not be all wrapped up in his image.










Then, there was his "Saturday Night Live" peformances, where he did the now famous "Dick in a Box" sketch, and even dressed up in a woman's leotard during a sketch with Beyonce, which poked fun at her "Single Ladies" video. There is no pop-star alive, who in his right mind, would dare do something that could make them look so rediculous; but because Justin isn't concerned with image, and just has fun being a performer, he pulled it off, showing that he is a great comedian as well.






The pic just above is from "Black Snake Moan", starring Samuel L. Jackson and Christina Ricci. In this movie, Justin plays a man who's full of fear and uncertainty. Most entertainers just want to play a cool tough guy, whenever they cross over into movies; not Justin. He just wanted to play a good role, of an interesting character in a good movie. This is why he was so great when he actually played a cool character in "The Social Network". He cares more about making a good movie, than stroking his commercial ego.


Justin Timberlake is just naturally cool. That's why he doesn't have to be afraid to look silly, as long as he's having fun doing it. I applaud him for taking risks, and letting the pressure of "image" keep him from doing what he loves. But above all, it's his humility and grounded, down-to-earth nature which enables him to be that way.

Justin Timberlake; more people, not just celebs, should be like him.

Le Derrière

Women like Jennifer Lopez and Kim Kardashian have helped bring some much needed attention to an often under-appreciated charm of a woman; the buttocks. You've all heard the old female cliche, "Does this make my butt look big?" This question is usually asked by women in hopes that her backside isn't as noticable as she fears it is. This is a severe injustice to one of the most sensuous and beautiful structures in existance. For comparison, how often have you heard a woman ask, "Does this make my boobs look big?"

It's been said that Europe and the United States are more impressed by a woman's bossom than her backside; this seems to be true of Asian cultures as well. Western women spend thousands on implants yearly, despite serious health risks that can include death. However, black and Hispanic cultures are overwhelmingly more intrigued by a woman's posterior curvature. Don't get me wrong; everyone, especially me, loves the beauty of breasts. But for Black and Hispanic cultures, a woman's butt has a more powerful effect.

In Black culture, there've been many songs made about a woman's butt, or the lovingly termed, "booty". This is especially true with hip-hop, where songs like "Rump shaker", "Whoomp There It Is" and "Thong Song" are classics which all celebrate the glory of a woman's backside. Hispanics are famous for dance moves that emphasize hip movement, in both men and women.

However, White culture doesn't really regard an emphasis of the butt as classy, while displaying cleavage in an evening gown can be seen as elegant. In Europe during the Renaissance periods, displaying breasts was very fashionable, while the display of anything below that was considered risqué. This may explain why having a prominent buttocks has been looked down on in the past by Europeans.






This is Andressa Soares, known in Brazil as "Mulher Melancia", which means "The Watermelon Woman"; she is the same woman who's picture is posted at the beginning of this article. She has become an international sensation due to her very large, and very shapely butt. Brazilian women are famous for having the most beautifully curvaceous rear-ends in the world, and Brazilians are proud of it. Among scores of shapely women, Andressa Soares stands out as having the best body out of all of them.





Andressa's popularity really took off after Playboy got wind of the "Watermelon Woman", and put her on the cover.

Aside from modeling, Andressa is an entertainer, who frequently sings and dances in front of crowds of thousands. Her most famous dance is called the "Creu", named after an entertainer she was a back-up dancer for. The "Creu" is a dance where women shake their rear-ends in a machine-gun type of manner, increasing the speed five different times. Andressa's own skill at this dance, combined with her majestic backside, made her much more famous than the unremarkable entertainer she traveled with. After she went out on her own, she was no longer allowed to perform the "Creu" in public, so she made her own version of the dance with six different speeds instead of five.

In a documentary about her, Andressa's beautician commented that men, "Never turn their heads for a skinny woman; they'll turn their heads for a chubby woman, even if she's not that cute".

Because of women like Jennifer Lopez and Kim Kardashian, it's becoming fashionable in the U.S. for women to have a plump, curvy bottom. But mainstream America is only just catching on to what most men have always agreed on, even if in secret; a butt, especially a big butt, is a wonder to behold.

Monarchy

Let it be said; Princess Kate is just a glorified beauty pagent winner. Her job is to smile a lot, look pretty, promote a charity, and wave to crowds.

Princess Kate (real name Catherine Middleton), should she become queen, will no have actual power; this is because she's called a "queen consort", meaning the wife of a king. The current queen, Queen Elizabeth, took power because she was the king's daughter; this is only because when her father died, there was no son to rule in his place. So this means that as a princess, Kate Middleton is really not important.

I have no particular problem with Kate. It's normal for women to take on the smiling, supportive role, when they have political figures as husbands. The problem I have is with people who worship monarchs (like with the "Royal Wedding"), as well as the institution of the monarchy; it has no place in a civilized world.

Did you know that members of Parliament have to swear an oath to the Queen? Otherwise, they will not be allowed to serve. That's rediculous in this day and age. That would be like members of Congress being required to swear an oath to President. Imagine the sheer insanity of protests in the U.S. if this were ever to happen.

It doesn't stop there either; judges, police officers, and even bishops are required to swear allegiance to the Queen.

Bishops? Really? That would cause riots in the United States, if they had to swear allegiance to the President. We take separation of Church and State very seriously here; however, the British Monarchy is essentially both the State and Church.

A Bishop, before taking his position, must recite this:

"I accept Your Majesty as the sole source of ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal power."

In other words, the Queen is God. Think of all the mad dictators in history who've forced people to say and swear the same thing to them, like Caligula; still think the monarchy is something to go crazy over?

It's amazing that this still goes on in a developed, civilized nation like England. Consider these quotes:

There are shams and shams; there are frauds and frauds, but the transparentest of all is the sceptered one. We see monarchs meet and go through solemn ceremonies, farces, with straight countenances; but it is not possible to imagine them meeting in private and not laughing in each other's faces.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

I wish I might live fifty years longer; I believe I should see the thrones of Europe selling at auction for old iron. I believe I should really see the end of what is surely the grotesquest of all the swindles ever invented by man-- monarchy.
- Letter to Sylvester Baxter of Boston Herald, 1889


I can't think of a worse system of government, than one in which the person in charge doesn't get the position by earning it, but by being born.


What about the lives of monarchs? Can William not be a prince? What if William wanted to be an actor, or professional athlete? Even if he can "resign" or whatever, I'm sure this is an expectation that's been thrusted on him since childhood; he may feel like he has no choice but to take the position, lest he let his family, and his nation down.

And can a prince be gay? If William admitted to being gay, would he be allowed to serve as prince? After all, the monarchy is expected to continue the bloodline, right? Also...can the Prince marry outside his race? What if Prince William married a black woman? Or a Chinese or Indian woman? Would Harry retain his future throne? Would the monarchy allow a gay or a black king?

By the way: how many tax dollars were used on the Royal Wedding? To buy Kate's dress, as well as pay the protection of the police force must have been expensive. Who paid for it? Did the Queen use her own money? If she did, where does "her" money come from?

The British monarchy has a terrible history of violence, rapes and betrayal within it's own walls. Today, forcing high-ranking members of government and churches to swear allegiance to a monarch, just like in a dictatorship. A woman can't have power in the monarchy, unless the king dies. In a world where forward, objective thinking is the ideal, is there really any reason for a monarchy?
Absolutely not.

Get Motivated!

I went to the "Get Motivated" business seminar, which was held yesterday in Rochester. The speakers at this event included NFL legend Terry Bradshaw, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani (NYC mayor during 9/11), Bill Cosby, Steve Forbes (Forbes Magazine) and Erin Brockovich, along with some other big-shot names. Each speaker focused on a different theme; for example, Colin Powell talked about "leadership", and Erin Brockavich talked about "achievement".

I went into this thing thinking this has got to be a scam; the tickets were only about two bucks, and a discount of $9 for a group. Any one of these guys could hold a seminar by themselves for $150, easy. What was really odd was that it was about two bucks in advance, but $225 dollars a person at the door. What?

The Blue Cross Arena, where it was held, could hold about 15,000 people; and if each person payed $2, that still doesn't seem like enough to cover the cost of having all those high-profile people; this would be in addition to paying to use the arena or advertising the event. They even promised to give one person in the audience $10,000; but for some reason, the guy didn't make himself known, and didn't come to claim his prize, though the entire audience was waiting to cheer for him. The emcee said they'd announce another winner if he didn't show; I don't know if anyone ever got it.

But amazingly, everyone that was advertised showed up.

The event opened up with a "Grammy Award Winner", singing the National Anthem, who was absolutely terrible. During one intermission, the guy was basically shouting at the crowd to "make some noise" over the horrendous one he was making. I think his name was "Robbie" or "Robbin" Williams Jr. Apart from that, there was one of those football-stadium style jumbo screens hanging from the ceiling, and some impressive pyrotechnics bursting from the stage, that went on whenever a new speaker entered the stage.

The entire seminar had a religious theme to it. A woman in a glittering, blue mini-skirt, was the emcee. She said that past surveys taken regarding the event, had a high amount of people requesting the speakers to speak more on spirituality. In fact, the emcee mentioned this twice on two different occasions. She repeated herself a few times, to the point where I wasn't sure if she was doing this for emphasis or simply forgot that she mentioned it already.

I first noticed the spiritual theme when I thumbed through the work-book given to people who ordered it in advance. It had different celebrities like George Forman, Mary Lou Retton, Joe Montana and William Shattner. A lot of them talked about their faith in God, like Foreman and Retton. Bill Cosby and Terry Bradshaw and a few others, talked about God and His importance in their success at length. One speaker, Krish Dhanam, basically evangelized and preached to the crowd. In fact, just before Bill Cosby went on, there was even a Christian rapper named KJ-52. I knew he was a Christian rapper from my religious days; I wondered if anyone else in the crowd knew it.

On that subject, did you know that "Christian" artists are white, and "gospel" artists are black? Kinda sad, in a way.



The event kicked off with Rick Belluzo, who had a good, simple message about the basics, like not giving up and being humble. But at one point, Rick Belluzo said that business people should "always maintain intergrity"; and people actually wrote this down, nodding their heads in agreement. It's sad that human beings are so screwed up, that this is something thousands of people feel the need to jot down in their notes.


Here are some of the more noteworthy speakers:







Krish Dhanam went next, and killed; he was hillarious and engaged the crowd beautifully. He started off with the question, "Where does the white go when the snow melts?" He also talked about when he met Mother Teresa. This was because his view of success was more wholistic; he said that your spiritual and family life are the most important things to have in order, if you want to succeed. At one point, he asked the crowd to raise their hand as high as it will go; he then asked the audience to raise their hands a little higher. When the audience did, he said, "Why didn't you raise it that high the first time?"

Dhanam also had a story about the first time he emmigrated to the U.S. He spoke to his wife, and said "We'll be alright"; his wife said "How do you know?" And Dhanam said "These people think they have problems!"






Steve Forbes went next, and talked about returning to the Gold Standard, and said the U.S. has too many taxes (social security, property taxes, endless taxes on phone bills, etc.) He also mentioned that Scottish people have a stereotype of being stingy (he's Scottish). I'd never heard of that stereotype; but it made me understand for the first time, why Scrooge McDuck from "Duck Tails" was a Scottish Character.






Rudy Giuliani followed, and talked about 9/11, being the first Republican Mayor of New York City, and the importance of reading books. He also talked about the importance of learning about computers, and talked about how important computers were with setting up a system to fight crime in New York City, which he said went down 80 percent from time he entered office to today. This made me think of a line in a song from a gangster rapper named Jadakiss, in which he said Gulliani might as well be "murkin" (killing) criminals, because the "time he's handin' out is hurtin'" them. What an honor it must be, that even hardcore rappers acknowledge what a great job you're doing fighting crime.

Rudy was a little tame and restrained, for someone who played an irate cab driver on Saturday Night Live, and once dressed in drag and while Donald Trump fondled his "breasts". However, his imitation of a burly New York City construction worker, bear-hugging George Bush shortly after 9/11, was one of the best moments of the seminar.





Bob Kitell, a business man, talked about how he became a champion pole-vaulter at age 54. He offered to sell a five dollar bill for one dollar, to the first audince member who came up and got it. He then sold a ten dollar bill for five in the same way. Kitell then did this neat little thing where he asked if there was anyone in the audience who needed cheering up; some people apparently nominated this man who seemed to be in his early forties, who Kitell then invited up on stage. Bob Kitell then had the entire audience give him a standing ovation. Kitell joked about selling a hundred-dollar bill earlier, but then gave the forty-year old man the 100 dollar bill. That was awesome.

Kittel was a great speaker, entertaining and funny, with great advise about the stock market; but then, he put a damper on the event by selling seats for a $99 Ameritrade training class on stocks. By this point, I was convinced that these celebs were just trying to do a good thing; but when he started pitching the Ameritrade classes, I was like, "Of course". Bob Kitell mentioned that he was "paid well" to speak, and I was able to see how; he was a killer salesman, who sold a lot of seats, using the old "It's originally $2,000, but I talked to them; I got told them that you guys are motivated, and talked them down to only 99 dollars!"

I thought about leaving after that, but stayed. Only one other guy tried to sell something, and I sort of got over feeling duped.








Terry Bradshaw was one of the best speakers of the night. He was just a natural. Funny and engaging, he talked about his Baptist roots, and frequently talked about God. He talked about how in his day, top NFL players got around 600,000 grand, while top players now are getting 25 million. In a great rant, he talked about how he flew coach on a flight which was long, cramped, delayed, and had to make an emergency stop; on top of that, he had to stay in a cheap motel...all for $1500.

They say great comics take their material from pain; this seems true of Bradshaw, as he talked about his three ex-wives. He jokingly said he "lost everything", in his first divorce, then "lost everything again". He did this in a way that didn't make you feel sorry him, but made you laugh. But his joke about all he went through for $1500, in addition to what he said about divorce, made me wonder just how much pain he's seen.







Bill Cosby was awesome. Starting off by sitting in a chair (like the pic), he seemed completely at home in front of a crowd of thousands. He was one of the most passionate speakers of the night.

Bill ragged on a woman who walked up to the stage and handed him a business card, saying "Why would I--a millionaire--take a business card from you?" He ragged on her for ten minutes straight, staying funny but never coming off as mean. He gave a story about a man asking Jesus to cure him of hypertention, and when Jesus told him to quit salt rather than magically taking it away, the man looked at Jesus and said "I'm disapointed in you"; to which Jesus replied, "Wait 'till you meet my Father."

About a half-hour before Bill Cosby was due to speak, the emcee asked the audience to not mention anything about his birthday; this was because, according to her, Mrs. Cosby asked her to have the crowd sing "Happy Birthday" to him, after he finished speaking. Of course, there was a douchebag in the audience who shouted "Happy Birthday!" The audience gasped, because this douchebag broke the agreement. Cosby bowed his head, almost as if hiding his annoyance; but he politely said "thank you". To the audience's reaction at the douchebag, Cosby said "That's all right; at least he wasn't as bad as the woman with her card."

When Cosby finished, the crowd sang "Happy Birthday", being aided by Robbie Williams, who for the first and only time, actually sounded good. I think even he realized he would've been lynched for messing up Bill Cosby's birthday moment.






Colin Powell spoke after two other men who went after Cosby. He was cool, humorous, and seemed very down-to-earth. He talked about the shock of going from being really important and sought after...to feeling like a nobody, almost instantly; he no longer had bodyguards or his own 747 when his run as Secretary of State was over. He talked about his recent trip to the Sudan, where he took part in signing a peace treaty. He also talked about the importance of public schools, which he attended until starting his military career, and that suburbanites should also be concerned about the inner city, and do something to help.

Colin was surprisingly a gentle speaker, considering he was a former military commander.






Erin Brockavich: She was the last speaker, and I didn't stay to listen. This was mainly because I didn't know much about her, other than that she took down some large, evil company, and had a movie made about her with Julia Roberts, which I saw. I only stayed long enough to see what she looked like, because she was reportedly pretty hot. I felt bad about it afterward, because a LOT of people left after Colin Powell spoke. I could only imagine being invited to speak to a large crowd, preparing your speak, coming all the way to Rochester from wherever she came from, only to witness thousands leaving during your speech. I'm sure she had some important things to say. She even wore a short, tight dress.

If it wasn't for the fact that I left my house at 6:30 AM to get a good parking spot and good seats, and that I was pretty tired when 4:00 PM hit, I would've stayed. I'm sure a lot of other people would've too.


Thinking about it now, I was incalculably lucky to be able to attend this event, especially in light of the insanely cheap price. All the pyrotechnics, and the a performance by the Christian rapper which involved an a dance contest with audience members (the winner getting a free trip to Disney World), and a few thousand beach balls thrown into the crowd just for fun.

It was a great event. It gave me a lot to think about as far as the importance of being motivated, in terms that weren't just cliches. My goal is to be a successful writer; this gave me some much needed fuel.

Dumb Americans

The rest of the world says that Americans are dumb. Well, it's hard to argue against that. Look at Fox News, the Tea Party, Creationists, Birthers...the fact that Jersey Shore is wildly successful...all proof that that Americans are dumb.

So why are Americans so dumb? The answer: we're really not. The top 16 Colleges and Universities in the world, are all in the U.S.


The truth is, the human race as a whole is stupid. The Germans at one time believed that they--blonde, blue-eyed people--were the superior race, and then made a man with brown eyes and brown hair the leader of this "ultimate race." Stupid.
The more humans you have in one area, the more stupid things you'll see. The U.S. has over 300 million people living there. I think China and India are the only other countries on the planet with more people. It's just a matter of odds that the U.S. would have so many dumb people.

But hold on; both Chinese and Indian people have a stereotype of being ultra-smart (especially the Chinese). So does this disprove my point about population and the number of dumb people in a country? No.

The U.S. has been the top-dog for many decades. America has seriously declined in the 2000's, but we're still a great nation. American is still the top trendsetter; people from all over the world can name our top actors, movies, pop stars and songs. What other country can boast that? America is so great, that the Harry Potter franchise re-shot scenes from "The Philosopher's Stone" to have scenes where the "Stone" was refered to as the "Sorcerer's Stone". This is because it was thought that "Philospher's Stone" was too boring a title to catch American interests; yet, the world knows how important it is to release a movie in American, and even the mighty Harry Potter series had to adjust.

The point?

It's because of the wealth and greatness of the U.S., that other countries look at the U.S. with much more scrutiny. Even though China has a reputation for spawning geniuses, they also force their little girls to wrap their feet up so that they will not get big feet when they're older. There are many women who suffer this affliction today, because what they were forced to do when they were little...and that's completely tame compared to how they treat women in India. Being forced to wear Burkas that fully cover them head-to-toe in scorching hot weather? Check. 35% of women being beaten up at home? Check.

Compared to the U.S., the way they treat their women is much more idiotic. Does it matter that they're test scores are higher, if their women would rather live in the U.S.?

Honestly, it's only because the U.S. has such a history of success, influence and power, that Americans are under such a microscope.
Imagine you're at a bar, and there's some drunken guy being loud and obnoxious; most of us would just shake our heads, and continue with our conversations with whoever we're hanging out with. However, imagine that the drunken guy was a huge celebrity; the reactions would be a lot different. People would look at the celebrity with disgust, or even indignation: "Oh, that guy thinks he's all high and mighty because he's famous."

See the difference? The success of the U.S. makes everything an American does, doesn't do, knows or doesn't know, that much more criticized. If Prince William told a dirty joke, that would have serious backlash from the media, verses if some regular bloke told that same dirty joke. And that's how it is for the U.S.: because our success, power and influence, it's that much easier to hate Americans, even for something inconsequential, like not being able to find Iraq on a map.

One thing to consider, is that the United States is made up of people from all over the world, including countries that say we're dumb. This is where the challenge lies, in trying to teach kids in this country. Unlike England or China, there isn't just one culture to learn and adjust to; kids come from many different backgrounds, and trying to control all the little bastards is an impossible job. Black kids in city schools have a horrendous time learning, due to their culture of gangs and violence (a culture which comes from having to struggle due to hundreds of years of horrendous treatment and discrimination from whites). A lot of first-generation hispanic kids from parents who just emmigrated to the U.S. have to struggle with learning the language, adjusting to the culture, and dealing with their own problems at home. True: many nations slaughter U.S. schools in just about every academic category--except gym, I'm sure we'd kick ass in that--but every other country has already discovered their proven system for educating kids.

A country that is such a melting pot as the U.S., on top of being the third most populated nation in the world, will obviously have a monstrous struggle in learning how to aproach teaching kids from such a vast array different cultures.

Are Americans dumb? The high "Jersey Shore" ratings indicate we are. But we're a country with a lot of our own struggles. Being so influencial and successful seems to obscure that for many people. Other countries don't see our problems; they see a country with absolutely no excuse for having citizens which don't meet their standards. Despite having to clash with hundreds of different cultures during the formation of this country, the U.S. is still top-dog; we're on the brink of losing that rank at any given moment...but when you factor everything (average income, size of the average american home, average standard of living, higher learning institutions, potential to become rich, etc.) the U.S. is still the best place to live, when all things are considered.

The United States is the nation that invented the automobile, telephone, airplane and internet. We have the world's top colleges and universities. America was the first to land a man on the moon. We can't be that dumb. It's just that American idiots get a bigger spotlight than idiots from other countries. If other countries step back for a minute and think about it, they have the same frequency of morons as we do.

Princess Kate Hugs A Cancer Patient

This just made my day when I saw this. A six year-old cancer patient gets a hug from a real princess. How many little girls dream of being a princess, and this little girl gets to embrace one.

I never cared about the "Royal Wedding" or any of that. I have a lot of respect for Prince William, who was a soldier, and even spent a cold night sleeping on the streets with homeless people (by himself, meaning without bodyguards or security nearby), so he could better understand their plight. I couldn't care less that he's a prince, but from what I've seen of him, he seems to have really good character.

Kate, I don't know much about. But to her credit, she doesn't seem to be trying to "top" Diana's legacy, or "live up" to it. I wouldn't have seen any of the wedding if it wasn't for my wife watching this at least six different times (in the same day); but from what I did catch of the wedding, it seemed relatively simple. Not much showboating, no riding in a winged-unicorn while William slays a dragon...it was nice and simple for a prince and princesess.

But the subject of this post isn't the couple, it's the little girl; I hope this moment brought some magic into this little girl's life.

Women Are Sex Objects

The phrase "Women should not be thought of as sex objects" is completely wrong. Sure, it's goal is noble: to spread the idea that women shouldn't be mistreated or thought of as lesser human beings. I completely agree. That doesn't change the fact that women are indeed, sex objects.

Let's go back to evolution: man's ancestors have spent millions and millions of years trying to get as many females pregnant as possible, in order to pass on their genes. The more attractive the female was, the more that males wanted to have sex with them. If we look at other apes (our closest ancestors) males may even kill in order to become the Alpha Male, the dude who gets laid the most. And the object of the male's lust? Females; a.k.a., the sex objects.

This continues on today. In less developed nations, women have a second-class status; this needs to change. The fact that women are sex objects doesn't deprive them of equal rights with men. But I know what you're thinking:

"Aren't women treated so poorly in the world because of men who can't get out of the stone age, and NOT look at women as sex objects?"

No. Women are treated poorly in the world because of men who can't look at women as beings who are fully human like they are. Being a sex object doesn't change that status. For example, look at Fabio, Tyson Beckford, Usher Raymond or Johnny Depp. Does anyone look at these guys as second-class citizens? Is there anyone who thinks these guys shouldn't vote, own property or have the right to run for public office? Of course not. When men are sex objects, it's funny how no one dehumanizes them like women who are sex objects.

So if there are men who can be considered sex objects without being seen as less then human, then there's no reason why the same can't be true for women. Right? Of course I'm right.

There'll be a lot of people who say that it's simply our culture which has made women sex objects. That's not correct; culture simply reinforces or exagerates evolutionary roles or differences in the sexes. Men are typically bigger and stronger than women, so our culture expects men to be less emotional, braver and more action-hero like. Women are typically smaller and weaker than women, so it's okay for them to cry anytime they're upset, and okay for them scream at bugs or mice running by.
Culture doesn't "invent" new roles for the sexes; it merely reinforces or exaggerates the roles men and women developed through evolution.





Even a woman's physical make-up shows that she's a sex object. Women have breasts, which serve no other purpose than to feed children. And even though women typically have only one child at a time, women have two breasts; like a double-reminder that women are sex objects (you need sex to have kids). And lets not forget a woman's hour-glass shape, a shape which serves no function other than to show how well she'd be able to bear children.

But that's only getting started.

Let's start with sex: women can enjoy different sensations depending on their position. In addition to different positions, there are many variants to each position, done by moving a woman's legs up, to the side or apart, or having her stand up or bend over, or face a differnt way. However, this doesn't really change how sex feels for men.

Women also have a clitoris; this organ serves no other purpose but to enhance sexual stimulation and enjoyment.
And get this: the clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings, compared to 4,000 in the penis; and an erect penis is much larger than an erect clitoris. So this means that women have twice the amount nerve endings, which are concentrated in a much smaller area, highly amplifying the sensations as a result.

And it doesn't stop there, either: women also have a G-Spot, something which does nothing but make sex even more enjoyable for women. But it doesn't stop there; enough stimulation of the G-Spot can result in women ejaculating, which amplifies sex for women even MORE. Female ejaculation also serves no function, other than to make sex more pleasurable for women. And when you consider that women can have two different types of orgasms at the same time (ejaculating and clitoral), while having all these things stimulated at the same time...yeah. Magic.
Highly explosive, intense, immensely pleasurable magic.

And I can go on and on, like by mentioning women typically have larger eyes and higher cheekbones; something which serves no purpose but making them prettier to look at...and on and on...but you should get the point by now: that a woman's entire body just screams "SEX". So many things about a woman are only for sex.
Women shouldn't despise being sex objects; they should embrace it.

The world is becoming more and more liberal, and women are becoming more and more free to express their sexuality, show off their beautiful bodies, and thus, enjoy life more. At the same time, society is making bigger and better strides in the treatment of women, as well as in how society perceives women. A woman running for president and winning isn't such a longshot anymore. Barriers against women are still being shattered.

But in the process, women shouldn't lose what nature gave them that makes them wonderful; their beautiful, wonderful, sexuality.

Intelligent Design Isn't Bad

Intelligent Design isn't bad, misleading, or a cheap wig for creationism. At least, not in of itself.

ID as it is currently, is something that shouldn't be allowed in schools. That's because it's currently nothing more than a tool for Creationists to spread their own religious beliefs. ID evolved when creationism was shot down by the courts as legitimate "science". But what if we aproach ID from a purely objective point of view?

At the heart of ID is the "teleological argument" (argument from design), which was used by philosophers like Descartes and Aristotle. The reason ID fails so miserably when used by Creationists or anyone pushing some sort of religion (not all IDists are Creationists), is because it denies evolution, which is pretty much an undeniable fact.


So what about looking at ID from an objective standpoint? Objectively looked at, some points come up; one of them being, that ID isn't science; it's philosophy. ID is loosely based on science, but in reality, ID isn't the least bit scientific. This needs to be kept in mind at all times; ID is purely philosophical in nature. That said, let's take an objective look at it.

IF the universe is designed--notice I said "if"--then:

a) There is no reason why evolution can't be a part of the design.

The creatures in nature could've just as easily been designed to evolve. After all, even Creationists acknowledge evolution in small steps (they like to call it "micro" evolution; real scientists just call it plain ol' evolution). So that said, there's no reason why a "designer" couldn't include the ability to evolve as part of the designer. For my next point:

b) There's no reason why this "designer" must be "all-powerful".

After all: There've been some awesome designs by humans, who are pretty weak when compared to lots of other animals. Humans often need lots of help and tools in create things. This segues right into the next item:

c) There's no reason why the "designer" has to be one single entity.

When we look at the universe and it's fullness, the idea that one being created it all, becomes more and more rediculous the more we learn about it. It would make more sense that there've been many designers throughout the billions of years our universe has existed. It's no different from everything humans created: was it one single all-powerful human which made all the technology and art on earth? No, it was untold hundreds of billions of humans through out, all playing a part (whether a positive or negative one) in what humans have ended up creating and accomplishing. Likewise, it would make much more sense that there've been hundreds of billions (or even hundreds of trillions) of designers through the beginning of the universe.

d) There's no reason why the designer(s) couldn't have evolved themselves.

There's endless scientific evidence for evolution, and there's no reason why these cosmic "designers" couldn't have evolved into existence themselves; this would solve the old "Where did the designer come from?" question. And for my final point:

e) There's no reason why these designers should still be in existence.

We don't know who made stonehenge; the ancient Mayans did not leave behind people to carry on their civilizations; so therefore, there's no reason to assume that the "designers" still exist. Maybe they do; but since we see no evidence whatsoever of any designer, it's a likely bet that they vanished like some lost human civilization.

There's a reason why the teleological argument was seen as legitimate philosophy, and even taught in colleges and universities in philosophy courses; it provokes thought. If we let this philosophical concept remain pure, there's no reason to ban it from schools.

Casey Anthony

For starters, she's kinda cute:







Now that's an adorable mugshot.

















Okay, so Casey's a bad mom, and everyone's gonna complain that justice wasn't served. To me, based on the the ranting that people like Nancy Grace have done about her for the past three years...I guess she's obviously guilty. Right? I mean, people with T.V. shows can't possibly be wrong.

Despite how "obvious" this case may have seemed to many, a recurring theme by speakers such as Casey Anthony's lawyer were brought up: that the media's opinion doesn't equal truth. Now that seems obvious, right? Maybe a cliche, even? But think for a moment; about a week before the verdict, news papers and T.V. shows kept crying about how she might walk, because the defense had too strong of a case.

Um...yeah. That's how it's supposed to go.

Despite this, Nancy Grace and all her media equivalents constantly kept pushing the idea that she needs to be convicted. Where's the common sense in that?

Now Casey never called the police (her mother did when she stopped seeing her grand-daughter), and she also lied to police repeatedly, even changing her story a few times. Signs of guilt? You betcha. Enough to convict someone and send them on Death Row? Not in the least.

What about the "smell" found in her car? Well, it shows her car was probably used. Do we know Casey was the one responsible? No. The search engine results for "chloroform"? Shows that someone used her computer to search for the same chemical that was used in the murder. Are all of these things enough to convict her? Well, if it is, it would be pretty damn easy to set someone else up for murder.

Casey's behavior, in conjuction with the bits of evidence which do implicate her, just weren't enough to convict her. Yes; they do make her a logical prime suspect, and it's definately enough for a trial. But a conviction? A jury decided no. Does that mean it's the correct answer? Not at all. But it does mean, that there wasn't enough objective evidence to put her away. Sure we say "Oh, it's common sense"; but this is a country full of people who believed Obama had a forged birth-certificate, and was "obviously" born in Kenya.

In short, "common" sense should never be enough to convict someone of murder; only hard, objective evidence, which if examined, leave no reasonable room for doubt. Anything less would truly be unjust.

The Greatness Of Jaleel White

Remembering "Family Matters", it was the flagship show of the old "TGIF" line-up that came on every Friday night. The show "Family Matters" revolved around one man:

Jaleel White. A.K.A.: Ultra-Pimp.

There've been many characters like "Steven Q. Urkel", the character we all remember him as. Other shows had their pale comparisons, like "Screech" from "Saved By The Bell". However, none of them ever came close to being anywhere near as funny or entertaining to watch as Steve Urkel. The "Family Matters" writing staff gave the character some brilliant lines; furthermore, the pratfalls were choreographed in expert and spectacular fashion. But none of this would be possible, if Jaleel wasn't just a great goddamn actor.

Jaleel White's comic timing was superb; his performance was even more amazing when you consider that he was about 12 years old when he first started the show. At a young age, White's ability to do physical comedy was on par with Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton. Few actors on television, regardless of age, could deliver jokes like Jaleel. And absolutely no one on TV could pull off a physical comedy like he could. In fact, how many shows have ever featured someone who was even good at physical comedy, let alone great?

Let's see: there was Bronson Pinchot ("Balkey" from "Perfect Strangers") who was great, but still not as good as Jaleel; though I do have to give credit to his co-star Mark Linn-Baker, who pretty good himself; still not on Jaleel's level.

And then there was this guy:





John Ritter, who was "Jack Tripper" from "Three's Company. (Come to think of it...was Jack "Tripper" a pun because the character was so clumsy?) He's one of the best physical comedians in T.V. history, and could give the Jaleel a run for his money; but that was pretty much it. Dick Van Dyke okay, but nowhere near the level of these guys.

So there we have it: only two peole in T.V. history are anywhere close to Jaleel's level. White's physical talent probaby comes from the fact that he's an athlete; he's a great basketball player, and has even showcased his b-ball talent on the show.

Unfortunately, the character that made Jaleel White famous also made him infamous. The show was such a success, that White stayed playing the same character way beyond the time he should've stopped. As White got taller and bigger, he looked more and more rediculous as Urkel. This is a good lesson about show business: you have to strike while the iron's hot, rather than sit back and be comfortable with a role. Unfortunately, $100,000 per episode is a little too hard to walk away from (and who can blame him; most people have to get a PHD just to make that over the course of year...and most PHD's still don't come close to doing that.)

There's an episode of Family Matters where Urkel is trapped on a fire escape. This was one seriously awesome display of choreography on the part of the show. This scene shows that it wasn't just Jaleel that was great, there were some really inventive minds on the show too.

Jaleel White guest-starred on an episode of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". This was around the time when he started playing a cool, sauve version of the Urkel character, named Stephan. Stephan was a huge hit with the audience, and he was totally believable playing a similarly cool character on "Fresh Prince". This was around the time that Jaleel should've left the show. Had Jaleel left, he could've definately made it big in movies, and no one would see "Urkel" when they see Jaleel White today. Take the star of "Fresh Prince" for example; had Will Smith stayed much longer rather than persue movies, people would still see the goofy, silly character he played, rather than Will Smith: Successful Actor. Will left while the show was still hot; Jaleel, unfortunately, didn't. In my opinion, the last great episode was an awesome one, where the Urkel character turned into Bruce Lee, and kicked some ass. The show should've ended on that high note.

Still, Jaleel White is responsible for one the greatest television characters of all time. All I have to say to this awesome guy is: Thanks for the memories.

When To Quit Chasing Dreams

I'm at a particular crossroads right now. Continue being an average shmuck with a 9-5 job, or sacrifice that so I can focus on what I really want to do (writing), and hopefully be successful at it.

Did you just vomit when I said I want to be a writer? Don't blame you. It's the ultimate cliché. I'm completely ashamed whenever my wife brings it up randomly in a conversation. She'll mention a script I just finished, and the ensuing dialogue will go something like this:

Them: "Oh, so you're a writer?"
Me: "Uh, yeah."
Them "So how's that going? Anything published?"
Me: "Nope, still a loser."

So then here's the obvious question: if you haven't gotten anything published yet, why give up your day job?

Because I'm a moron.

You hear all the time about "starving artists". These are people who have decided to abandon the normal life of waking up to go to work, clocking out for lunch, then clocking back in and stare at the clock waiting to get your fifteen minute break, two hours from now.

This isn't always the case, though. Some "starving artists" are people who could get a dream job, but are more in love with their dream. Mark Zuckerberg is one such person; instead of getting a seriously awesome job with his Harvard education, he took the risky route and started an internet business.
DISCLAIMER: To be honest, I only have that Facebook movie to go by; I don't really know what I'm talking about.
But if the movie's at all accurate, we know that Mark dedicated all his time and effort into starting Facebook, and succeeded wildly. But how many other people have done the same exact thing, only to come up with nothing? How many young people have seen "The Social Network", and were inspired to do the same thing, only to have jack squat to show for it, after losing a lot of time and money?

Hollywood success stories are evil beyond belief. You hear the actor talk about the crappy one-bedroom apartment he/she lived in, while living off the McDonald's Dollar Menu; until that one lucky day that he/she got his/her big break, and look at him/her now sitting on stacks of money. These stories are dangerous, because they trick other people with dreams into thinking they can channel that actor's experience and succeed just like they did; they don't realize just how unglamorous this lifestyle reallly is. How many aging actors are there, who are still holding on to their dreams? How many thirty-year keep reminding themselves of Sylvester Stallone, who didn't reach success until he himself was thirty?

But then, this brings up an interesting question: at what point do you quit chasing your dream, and hang yourself with a 9-5? Eminem famously was about to quit rap several times, including just before he got discovered, and was going to hang up his mic for good; and Eminem had every reason to. A grown man with a daughter who's trying to be a rapper, while struggling and barely making ends meet, would be considered a giant loser by anyone who knows him. Add to the fact that Eminem was a white guy trying to succeed in a black man's art, then you can imagine how people must've shook their heads at dreamer who obviously won't amount to anything. Flashfoward, he's one of the most successful musicians of all time, regardless of genre.

So what have I decided? Basically, that I'd rather die then work a 9-5 the rest of my life. Thankfully, I don't have kids yet, so I don't have to factor them into my decision. But I am married; and I do have judgemental in-laws. And I am the Man in this relationship. But for me personally, I just can't continue on living without doing what I love. I seriously just may bite a bullet if I have to answer to clock in to a shitty job every day. Okay, I won't actually bite a bullet, but that bullet will be extremely appetizing for the rest of my life.

And I don't want to live like that.

Supreme Court Rules On Video Games

Two days ago, the Supreme Court struck down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. A lot of people are complaining about this ruling, that we're not "protecting" children. Please.

I was about ten years old when the original Mortal Kombat game was in arcades, and being debated in congress. It made national news because people were getting their heads ripped off, and getting burned alive. I loved this game. I am currently a very well-adjusted married man, with not a violent bone in my body. Every kid I knew played Mortal Kombat, and spent hours on it. None of them have ever tried to decapitate me.

People who complain about this seriously undermine the intelligence of children. Roger Ebert, for example, was quoted a saying "Supreme Court says anything goes in violent video games sold to children." I find this amazing, since Roger Ebert has often complained about Hollywood's lack of apreciation for the intelligence of children, often using terms like "audience insulting" (like his famous review of the movie "North"). How then can he insult the intelligence of the average child, by assuming they are so unintelligent as to robotically emulate what they see, without the common sense to differentiate between fantasy and reality?

Don't get me wrong; I understand the need for limitations. I had an uncle who lived in the same house as me for a while; and at nine years of age, I often indulged in my uncles porn mags and videos when he was away at work. Though I ended up with (what I think was) a normal sexual appetite for a teenage a boy, I completely understand why there are laws against minors viewing it. However, I wouldn't take the leap and claim that a little boy's morals are corrupted by viewing what is essentially a natural act; I say "essentially", because porn is very often a completely unaccurate portrayal of what sex is really like.

This brings up another point in the video game debate in Congress; sexuality.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said, "What kind of First Amendment would permit the governement to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"

While that makes sense, Justice Antonin Scalia had said this: "Our cases make clear that obscenity covers only depictions of sexual conduct, and we have previously rejected attempts to shoehorn violence into that category."

Justice Scalia's point reiterates something true about American culture: violence has never been seen as obscene, while even the hint of sexuality in media can cause controversy. We can go back to silent films where cowboys killed scores of badguys, and never has there been any protest that these films incite violence in movie-goers. In fact, toy guns and even BB guns (which actually can be dangerous) were hot items for young children. Which is worse: having a child act out shooting someone with a gun (a realistic possibility) or have a child play a game simulating decapitation (a crime so rare, it is unrealistic a child will ever do this)? On the other hand, premarital sex is quite a realistic thing that most parents don't want their kids coming anywhere near; thus, sex in media is so much more widely demonized.

So where is the line drawn, then?

I don't know. What I do know, is that you can't draw the line based on insulting beliefs about the intelligence of the average child. Honestly, the amount of non-videogame violence in media is astounding; thinking that playing a game--with what is essentially the same level of violence you'd find in an R-rated horror flick--will "harm" or "corrupt" the average child, is just loudacris.

I'm one of just untold millions of chldren who've played ultra-violent games, who grew up to continue playing games with even more graphic and more realistic violence, while living a completely normal and well-adjusted life. Keep this in mind the next time you think a child is too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and real life.

Religion

I was once a hardcore fundamentalist Christian. I thought that homosexuality was wrong, women should submit to their husbands...all of that. Naturally, I wasn't one of those nutcases who picket outside of abortion clinics shouting that they were all going to hell. I just believed every word of the Bible. But then, it stopped.

It started out with my church; I saw lots of hpyocrisy, and people who just didn't care what the Bible said, when it got down to what they wanted. After that, I started looking at other churches, and pretty much saw the same thing. It was long before I started looking at Christianity as a whole; the final stop was when I looked at the Bible itself...I mean really looked at it.

What you have to first realize, is that the decision to become a Christian isn't the least bit an intellectual decision. People criticize Christians for believing in something so absurd, like deserving death for sin from the moment you're born. But the decision isn't made after a process of weighing pros and cons, then looking at the evidence and logical backing for Christianity; the decision is made through a combination of guilt, emotional plowing, and fear. For me, the "fear" came as kid, mostly in the form of my parents forcing me to wake up insanely early to be bored for two hours, then blasting Christian radio as loud as they could, instead of letting me watch cartoons.

Whenever I attended an evangelistic event that my held, the services always followed the same pattern:

1) A song and dance intro, much like a the beginning of a normal church service.
2) Testimonials from former sinners
3) A highly emotional song, skit, play or video presentation, mournfully urging the sinners in the audience to turn from their ways.
4) Just as the song, video or whatever ends, the pastor walks out with a somber face, and gives a gripping sermon on Jesus dying for us.
5) The event ends with a call to the alter from the pastor, with some appropriately emotional music softly playing as he speaks.

None of these evangelistic meetings ever include any logical discussion as to why Christianity was they way. Of course, logic wouldn't work. However, in the last few years, there's been an attempt to incorporate "logic" into evangelism, like though creationism and ID. For reasons most people already know, the "logic" in them fails miserably. But there's been another kind of "logical" aproach to evangelism, being made popular by these guys:





Ray Comfort (left) and Kirk Cameron. Their form of logic usually include a series of questions asked to sinner, which are supposed to lead to the conclusion that they need to become Christians. For example:

Kirk Cameron: Are you a bad person?
Sinner: No, I think I'm pretty decent.
Kirk: Have you ever stolen something?
Sinner: Yes, as a kid.
Kirk: So what does that make you?
Sinner: Human?
Kirk: And what are humans who steal called?
Sinner: I guess in your eyes, a thief.
Kirk: Well in the cop's eyes, you'd be thief.

And I'm sure you can see the point; a series of well-framed questions, to which turning to Jesus Christ is supposed to be the only logical answer. Kirk Cameron (Or Ray Comfort) usually rap up their questions with this gem:

Kirk: So yes or no, have you ever stolen something?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Have you ever lied?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Ever had lustful thoughts?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Jesus said lusting in your heart is adultery. Ever used God's name in vain?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: So by your own admission...you're a lying, adulterous, blasphemous thief.

It's at this point that we usually see the sinner blown away by Kirk's magnificent logic. Of course, we have to assume God is real for this line of logic to work, which is why this line of "logic" fails from the get-go. Admittedly, I was once caught up in Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's "Way Of The Master" series, which features this method of evangelism. But a little honesty (painful as it was at the time for me) let me see Christianity and all religions for what they are: shams to control masses of people.

Even as I type this blog, there are still twinges of guilt deep-down somewhere. Christains reading this might call it the piercing of the Holy Spirit on my conscience; however, it's more likely due to the years of unrelenting fear and indoctrination, drilled into me since I was a small child. All I can say is, I'm glad finally free and saved and loosed from my religious shackles.

Every Last One Of Us Are Sexist

Culture plays a large part in our being sexist; but sexism is also deeply entrenched in every last one of us. The reason? Millions of years of evolution. And what drives evolution? Sex. The drive to have sex is what fuels natural seletion. Every single solitary sexist thing in us comes from this fact.

Q) Why is it cool for men to sleep around, but women are "whores" if they do the same?

A) Evolution.

While males in our species have a past of trying to impregnate as many females as possible so that his genes will live on for as long as possible, it's almost the opposite for the females in our ancestry. Females have a history of being much more selective, choosing the best possible males available to them.

Q) Why aren't there more male daycare workers?

A) Evolution.

While the males were out hunting, competing with each other, fighting in wars, building cities, etc., females had to watch the offspring out of necessity. The evolved female biology also played a major role in females being the primary care-takers of offspring; breasts were the only source of nutrition for offspring, and the mothers had to be with their young at all time to feed them, if they got hungry. So logically, the job of raising young became theirs.

Q) Why wouldn't most people ever hire a male nanny or babysitter?

A) Evolution.

The male drive for sex is so high, it has lead many males do unpeakable things with chilren. Couple that with the testosterone males have evolved (which makes them more agressive), and the potential for physical harm is even higher. No matter how much feminists chant they should be allowed to do anything men can't, everyone, no matter how feminist, is unappologetically sexist in this area.

Male babysitters: don't dare apply.

Q) Why does almost everyone prefer a female masseuse?

A) Evolution.

Being the main care-takers of children, females have evolved a natural ability to be better at healing, and better at taking care of the sick. The generally lower sex drive (compared to the average male) also makes females less creepy when they touch you. Both men and women generally agree, they would NOT want a male masseuse.

Every single sexist thing about us stems from a long, deep-routed evolutionary history. Why is not such a big deal if a woman slaps a man as it would be the other way around? Evolution. Why do women a slap on the wrist for sex with a minor, compared to men? Evolution. Why are women expected to look beautiful at all times (often going to extremely uncomfortable or dangerous lenghts do so), while men can be much sloppier? Evolution. Why is okay for women to shriek at spiders and mice, and okay for them to cry and sob in public, but men must be hardcore at all times? Evolution.

Men are bigger, stronger, scarier creatures with sometimes dangerously high sex-drives. Males have a history where they were forced to fight to become the alpha male in order to ensure their genes would pass on. Women are smaller, weaker, cry more, and are more beautiful. As such, there are double-standards for each, some having pros and cons.

Conclusion? Sexism in of its self isn't bad; in fact, in can be beneficial. Too much "open-mindedness" or "equality" can lead to disaster in some cases (like male babysitters). The line comes when there's absolutely no justification for the sexism (like paying women lower wages for the same job, or not letting them hold public office).

I'm sexist. If I ever have kids, she won't get to stay out as late as my son. Sorry. But honestly, it's so much safer, and so much better that way.

Breast Milk

So I'm reading a book called "Five Perfectly Good Reasons To Punch A Dolphin In The Mouth". Hysterical. But there's one part of the book that bothered me: the part where it refered to selling (human) breast milk as "disgusting".


Are you kidding me? What two things are better? A nice full boob and mouthful of nutritious milk.

It boggles my mind that there are people who think the idea of selling human breast milk is disgusting. Frankly, I'm shocked that people haven't jumped on this idea ages ago. Why on earth aren't there chain stores offering a nice plump boob to thirsty patrons? I mean, aside from the health risks if the woman is a smoker, druggie, or carrier of syphilus.

First, let's get the obvious out of the way: One comes from a huge disgusting bovine, and one comes from a woman. In short, do you want your milk coming from:

a)






Or

b)




To me, option "A" is the clear choice. Also, since we've become a health-crazed society, why wouldn't you want breast milk sold in grocery stores everywhere? Breast milk has antibodies, as well as much more easily digested protein than cows milk. Furthermore, you can be sure that humans aren't being pumped full of growth hormones and raised in unghastly and highly unsanitary factories like cows are. Not yet, anyway.

The sooner we get breast milk and All-You-Can-Suckle buffets available everywhere, the healthier and happier society will be.