Archive for January, 2005
I’m glad Osama Bin Laden has not been captured. Now before you call the NSA and have me declared an enemy of the state, you might be interested to know that there are other people who don’t want him caught just yet either – and many of them were elected by the American people.
Don’t get me wrong, I was scared and sickened as I watched live, late-breaking, up to the minute coverage of the country getting sucker-punched on September 11.
Within hours of the attacks, details emerged that the conventional weapons that the terrorists employed against the crew and passengers of those flights were box-cutters and flight training, but make no mistake: the weapon of mass-destruction the terrorists used was CNN.
The blanket coverage from the media destroyed our centuries old innocence and belief that our safety was never truly in jeopardy here. Whatever horrors went on in South Africa, whatever terrorism occurred in the Middle East, whatever genocide occurred in Cambodia, it wasn’t here. We were safe here. How many of us believe that just as strongly today as we did on September 10th?
This is not going to turn into the millionth rant about the evil media conglomeration that has supposedly programmed us and controls our lives for profit. Quite the contrary, the media is the most important soldier in this war, with no disrespect intended to those in uniform.
Just as the terrorists used the media against us, the Bush administration is using the media against the terrorists.
America, for all its faults, deep down is a country full of good guys. The American people will not support beating up on a weaker kid, even if that kid deserves it. They will not allow their Armed Forces to be used to exact revenge, only to bring justice. Most importantly, the populace in the United States will not fight a faceless enemy or a helpless people.
Before the powers that be could unleash U.S. soldiers and weaponry against the Taliban and al Queda, they knew they had to put a face on the enemy. Despite the fact that the Pentagon was attacked, the World Trade Center was destroyed, and thousands were lost, there still existed a need to give the general public someone to hate together, one person’s name and face to fight and crusade against.
It’s worked before. How many of us had any kind of beef with Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War started? By the end of the campaign, we were wiping our behinds with Saddam toilet paper and despising an Iraqi leader we’d never heard of.
Our economy certainly required a stable world market for oil, and liberating the democratic nation of Kuwait seemed like the right thing to do, but it was bringing Saddam Hussein’s face into our homes using every form of media in existence that caused the citizens to place yellow ribbons everywhere they could, in passionate support of our troops fighting the war in the Gulf.
Now to the present. Among the first actions of the US government was to arrest throngs of people for visa violations, having suspected ties to terrorist organizations, being possible material witnesses, anything they could think of. Then they widely publicized these sweeping arrests, and let it be well known that those caught were being detained indefinitely, while the public’s imagination was left to wonder about the interrogations that followed.
The result was that members of al Queda and other terrorist organizations feared the worst and wondered if they were next. Some placed phone calls trying to exchange information and give or receive instructions, some fled the country, and others are now doing their best to stay out of sight. The important thing was that people that were already being tracked were spooked and they moved or they made a call, which made them even easier to find and monitor in the future.
The President then addressed the nation in a speech broadcasted coast to coast, live on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CBC, BBC and every other network on the planet except for MTV. Though had they broadcasted it I’m sure Carson Daly’s analysis of the President’s address would have been enlightening.
And who can forget that image of Congress standing shoulder to shoulder singing God Bless America. Hell for a moment even I believed in the old bags.
So as long as Osama Bin Laden is free, his face will be on television as the focus of an international manhunt and we will give our politicians a green light to use the Armed Forces to destroy his (and other) terrorist assets in far-away nations. Let him sit and rot in a cave for the time being, and let the U.S. government handle its business in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and wherever else they must go to keep me safe.
Many of the key terrorists will be snatched in the middle of the night, or be dealt with by some Army Rangers and a silencer. And we will give the President two thumbs up for the entire campaign, as long as Bin Laden himself has his fate shared with all of us, beginning with the words:
“We interrupt this program with an important development in the war on terrorism.”
January 1st, 2005
No, this isn?t your racy Aaron McCray type article about how schools treat minorities unfairly; in fact this article has nothing to do with race or gender period. I?m not going to preach about how we should have separate classrooms for boys and girls, or separate schools for smart kids and burnouts. I?m not even going to preach that I think it?s unfair how burnouts can get the same degree by taking fewer classes of less difficulty; that?s another topic.
What I?m talking about is a type of segregation that existed prior to Dick Clark?s rockin? new years eve, still exists now, and unfortunately (along with Dick Clark) will exist for a long time to come. Maybe I?m just old, or maybe my high school was weird, but I remember back in 8th grade on that magical day when we got to select classes for our first year of high school.
At the top of the form I remember having to choose:
Course of Study: [ ] College Prep [ ] Vocational [ ] General
I thought nothing of it at the time and checked College Prep, as I had a great dream of playing football for the University of Michigan (later that year however I learned my chances of playing college football were slightly less than my chances of running into Elton John at my local Hooters). This reminds me of a long story about hockey, high school wrestling and garden gnomes, but I?m trying to stick to my topic.
In my first two years of high school, everything was fine. I took computer classes, shop classes, and the usual math, English, and science. Then junior year things split up. Shop and computer people went off to vocational training while college bound students stayed in the classroom. I was torn on which way to go, why couldn?t I do both? Thankfully, and with a little bit of ?encouragement? from my parents, I went on to college, but I wish I would have been able to get some real training in CISCO networking or CAD.
It doesn?t stop there though, it gets worse in college. If I want to ask deep questions about life I can major in philosophy. This was fun, but I wasn?t allowed in the computer lab. If I want to answer these questions I can major in Physics. I got access to the physics lab, but I couldn?t do theory. Thankfully the decision was easy. I wanted a degree that would get me a job, so I chose engineering. Now I get to work with AI and computers, which is great, but everybody gives me weird looks when I discuss the philosophical consequences of this AI.
Why can?t high school students get hands on experience while at the same time preparing for college? In the old days there was one subject that encompassed all: philosophy. Going back to Plato?s academy, everybody learned everything. ?let no one enter who does not know geometry? etc etc. People were well versed. Nowadays, this just isn?t the case. As an employer, wouldn?t you prefer your potential employees to have knowledge of more than just their concentration?
You just don?t see the same type of well-rounded employee anymore. Humanities courses are seen as ?additional requirements? instead of useful classes. Is being well-rounded still important or do we prefer people with much knowledge, but limited scope? Or maybe this is just a problem in my hometown? Does anyone else notice this?
January 1st, 2005
Are we weaker?
The other day my mum went to the op-shop to buy a rug for our dog. The owner saw the rug that mum picked and said “you know, that’s not really suitable for a human”. Mum laughed, told her it was actually for our dog and everything was fine.
But this got me thinking, once upon a time when humans walked the earth we didn’t have rugs. Maybe some fur they skinned off an animal, but that would still not be considered suitable for humans. The more we learn about our bodies, they more we try to protect them. But is this resulting in our races weakness?
It doesn’t stop at clothing – food is a prime example. Once upon of time we ate from trees and bushes, killed animals and cooked them over a fire. We didn’t have sanitary conventions. We drank what water we could, not filtered mineral water sold in bottles. Yet we lived. Our life expectancy was much lower, yes, but the human race survived.
There was less diseases. Our systems were stronger. Did you know that if a baby is kept in very sanitary conditions it was a much higher chance of developing asthma. If a baby ingests a small amount of dirt its respiratory system will strengthen.
The diseases that did exist would kill more often. The conditions were harsh. If your body couldn’t handle these conditions then you would die.
But your weak genes wouldn’t be passed on to the next generation. As a whole humans benefited a great deal from these deaths.
Now we live in a sterile world. The weak survive, they prosper. The human races weakens.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
Later,
Kung Fu
January 1st, 2005
As human animals we have only 3 basic needs: Food, Shelter, and Sex. Yes, I said sex. It seems we are hard wired with an instinct to promote the survival of our species. As women, we desire to have children. As men, we desire to impregnate women, and though we are not always aware of it, our primal urge is to impregnate as many as possible.
As many as possible? Yes, that?s right. In fact, that?s probably how the human race actually did survive. By choosing a life partner, males have only one chance to pass on their genes. Choose a celibate (or stubborn) female, and our chances of having an heir greatly decrease.
This idea seems very efficient???..until you throw in civilization. You see, when we are young, we depend on our parents for these 3 basic needs. (yes even sex, although it takes on different forms?just read up on your Freud if you don?t believe me). When we reach puberty, we learn to start satisfying these needs by ourselves, and unfortunately this means the sex need too. Shockingly, the pregnancy rate for girls under 15 years old was 12.2% in 1997. That?s 12.2% of girls 14 or under. I won?t even go into the rest, as they are too shocking for me. Obviously we have a problem here.
I?m sure some of you may remember hearing on the news about the mother that drowned her kids in the bathtub, the lady that gave her baby away at a bus-stop and of course the Ramsey parents. It?s cases like these that just make me think: ?some people shouldn?t have children.?
In America we need a license to drive. We need a license to sell beer. Hell, we even need a license to catch a fish to eat. Why not require a license to breed? Or better yet?..
I just read about how it?s now possible to reverse a vasectomy. (that?s where the male gets a little snip making it impossible to impregnate a female.) We circumcise most babies at birth, why not give them a little snip too? Imagine no more rape babies, no more teenage pregnancies, no more kids having kids, no more saving lunch money for birth control, and no more stealing condoms out of dad?s dresser drawer.
Want kids? Great! Complete the required psychological exam proving you are an able parent, make sure you?re not on welfare, pay a nominal fee (most likely going toward education) and you?ll get your license to breed. That?s it. No background checks, no Criminal record check, not even a credit check! Just show your license to the doc, and he?ll reconnect you.
No more population problems, no more idiot parents, no more teenage pregnancies or unwanted children, no more marriages built solely around a child. We could virtually eliminate genetic defects, put an end to orphans, and practically reduce abortions to zero! Oh what world!
January 1st, 2005
I was in my local McDonalds recently, stocking up on grease-soaked alternatives to healthy living. I ordered a #1, the Big Mac meal complete with fries and a Coke. I asked the cute blond behind the counter to hold lettuce. I handed her my cash and she gave me my change. In less time than it took me to fill up my cup from the self-serve fountain island, they?d filled my order and that of the guy who ordered after me. I put the cup on the tray, and more out of habit than suspicion, I popped the cardboard box open to inspect my Big Mac. There, peaking out from between the buns and beef patties, was a fine showing of lettuce. Arching an eyebrow more out of amusement than irritation, I signaled for the cute blond to come back over. I pointed to the lettuce and reminded her that I had ordered my sandwich sans lettuce.
She threw me this exasperated grin and said, ?What does sans mean??
?It means without, minus.?
Her face tracked no recognition, so I decided to simplify.
?I?m saying that I ordered a #1 with no lettuce.?
Her face bloomed into understanding. She smiled, winked, and walked away. Then she continued to wait on customers. I watched all of this with something approaching stupefied wonder. At a loss for words, I waved her back over.
She asked me what I needed.
I looked at her.
She looked at me.
I said nevermind, and sat down at a booth.
Whilst busying myself with picking off the shredded lettuce from my sandwich, I spied a sign hanging on the wall at the far end of the serving counter. It read, ?McDonalds: Proudly Employing America?s Future.?
I?m very worried.
January 1st, 2005
A lot happens in the battleground that is the mind of a teenager. You make choices and take actions that are sometimes in contrast to who you truly are, all to win the war of acceptance.
As you mature and grow in years, the battle lines that were drawn in your youth get blurred. You used to struggle to free yourself from the oppression of your parents to fit in with your peers. Fitting in was everything. With age and experience comes the realization that it is more important that you fight for your own feelings, thoughts and beliefs, even if they are different from your friends.
There is something about me that has been a closely guarded secret of mine since my high school years. I made a discovery, of sorts, during an impressionable time of my life, and I have successfully hidden it from my family and most of my friends.
At first I was completely ashamed, fearing that if word ever got out, I’d be ruined. Please try to understand, the stigma attached to this both in society and in the media was very different a decade ago. It was looked upon by the general public in an extremely narrow-minded and negative way. What kept me from telling people was the sure embarrassment I would have suffered.
I would have been mocked at school, my parents simply would not understand, and my friends would have never looked at me the same ever again.
Thankfully, times have changed and society has evolved. I know that there are others like me out there, and that is very comforting. With mainstream acceptance, there has even been a society built by those like me. There are even parties so we can get together, knowing we all have something in common.
I admit that I am a tiny bit hesitant to formally ‘tell the world’ my secret, but I finally feel comfortable and secure enough to share this information about myself not only with my family and friends, but with the general public. So here goes:
Mom, dad, everyone – I visit chatrooms.
January 1st, 2005
One of my friends just recently underwent an abortion, and it made me start to think. This was an unplanned pregnancy, and although she wanted the kid, medical reasons demanded that she have an abortion or risk losing her life. Some of you may argue that she should have sacrificed her life for the child, (and many that know her in real life may argue this point as well).
Regardless, she was, and still is, very shaken by this experience. Was this abortion morally permissible? Before you answer, allow me to present a situation.
One day you read in the paper, that a certain balding Canadian webmaster is dying. You have heard of this webmaster and are familiar with his cult-like following, however you yourself have never even been to, nor plan on visiting his site.
The next day, however, you wake up in the hospital, connected to a machine. On the other end of this machine lies this little balding man who is furiously searching the net for porn. Eventually one of his patrons explains that you have a rare blood type, which when hooked up to this machine, can keep their idol alive. He explains that they could not bear to see him die, so they kidnapped you in the night and hooked you up to the machine. He also explains that if you unhook yourself, this webmaster will certainly die.
Now you are faced with a dilemma. If you unhook yourself, this man you do not know or care for will die. If you don?t unhook yourself, you will be forced to spend the rest of your life in the hospital hooked up to this putrid smelling bald guy. What would you do?
I?m willing to bet that a large majority of you would have said ?sucks to be you? and gotten the hell out of there. After all, it?d be different if you volunteered, but you were kidnapped for Christ?s sake. Not only that, it?s almost 4pm and you?re going to miss a Friends re-run.
Ok, where am I going with this? Well, let?s apply this situation to abortion now. Yeah, that?s right, we?re going to talk about sex. Hide the children! I think it?s clear by now that ?being kidnapped? was my equivalent of being raped. Those who said they?d unplug themselves, must now agree that abortion is permissible in cases of rape. You most likely also considered the fact that spending your life in the hospital wasn?t best for you, thus agreeing that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother?s life is in danger (like my friend).
But let?s expand this onto a larger scale. You didn?t CHOOSE to be hooked up to this machine, in fact your intent was to not be hooked up. Dare I say that sex with the use of contraceptives (no the rhythm method is NOT a contraceptive) signifies intent not to have a child? I think you can see how the rest of this plays out.
If we look at it on the large scale then, it would seem that abortion is only wrong in cases where the fetus was ?invited? inside the body, or to put another way a woman ?volunteered? her body as a host to the child. I?m not really sure what this will accomplish, I just hope it provides some help for my friend.
January 1st, 2005
Are you ready for 107 minutes of commercial-free, non-stop hit music? Chances are whether you just listen to tunes on your way home from work, or you?re a radio junkie that lives for Rick Dee?s Weekly Top 40 Countdown, you?ll be listening to fewer commercials on the radio these days.
With the decline in air-time the radio stations are making available to advertisements, what about the small businesses like Larry?s Body Shop that rely on radio to get their word out to the masses? Fortunately, radio remains one of the most affordable advertising mediums in North America, with the cost of airing a commercial having been virtually unaffected by the suddenly scarce advertising opportunities.
The mind boggles.
A radio station gives away its content for free, but has a very cost effective plan for their advertisers that doesn?t even come close to covering the station?s operating costs. Sounds a lot like a dotcom.
How can it be that the stations have advertising revenues less than their expenses, yet remain viable businesses? Who cares how they do it. Nelly?s fresh new song ?#1?, your new favourite, just came on.
Ah, therein lies your answer. It is a little known secret in the music industry that Nelly paid to have that song put on the air at every major radio station across the country. In fact, every song you hear over the airwaves, was paid for by the record label (who passes the cost on to the artist) to be put into that station?s playlist.
It?s all managed through a group of middlemen known as indies, which is short for independent record promoters. The way the entire system works is fairly simple; the record labels pay the indies thousands of dollars per song per station to get their goods into your head as you listen to Jim and Kim In The Morning on KISS-FM. The indie then passes on the proceeds to the radio station, but not before taking an extremely healthy cut for themselves.
You would think that the record labels would balk at the notion of having to pay radio stations to play music from their artists. The reality is that they?re quite content with the arrangement, as they now have the means to dictate what the next big hit will be. The radio stations like it, because they have found a way to create a revenue stream from the content they provide. And the public is happy they can listen to over an hour of music without hearing a single commercial.
So is it one of the world?s few situations where everybody wins? Or is it a deceptive practice, aimed not at consumer benefit, but rather is a tool of the labels to push their artist?s records up the sales charts?
Should the corporations behind all this be ashamed of their conduct? Have the record labels played the FCC, Congress, and indeed the people for fools by using morally questionable, and borderline criminal, payola tactics all in the name of getting a record up to number one?
Then again, two is not a winner. And three nobody remembers. Eh, eh!
January 1st, 2005
War makes people afraid. When people are afraid they are easier to control. The key to keeping people under control is to perpetuate fear.
War helps the economy by driving the manufacture of extra military products and encouraging people to spend more.
War is humanity at its most primal and tribal state.
War makes politicians look good.
War is the extreme of separatist thinking.
War makes people feel safe in their fear. War makes people think that good is being done.
War is the destruction of people and property, in the name of political, social, religious and conceptual endeavors.
War is horrible and gray.
War drives hatred.
War considers murder and torture an “expenditure”.
War makes people lose family members and friends.
War is hell.
War leaves agonizing and unforgettable impressions that haunt those who serve in it until the end of their lives.
War manipulates the perceptions of people through the use of propaganda.
War unlocks the potential in some people to sodomize children with their guns, kill innocent people at point plank range and rape civilians.
War allows children to be napalmed.
War allows the unthinkable to be justified.
War protects the borders of countries, but aggravates the disturbance of peaceful relations amongst all countries.
War encourages those who question it to be punished as heretics.
War makes societies lose rationality or common sense.
War is a male driven, testosterone release.
War uses the young as its pawns.
War directors never understand the full implications and horrors of what they instruct.
War is divisive.
War allows people to be surrounded by the bodies, blood and guts of their friends and predecessors, invoking direct terror into them.
War is the sound of crackling bones as a soldier steps out of a watching tower onto a dead body.
War is the excruciatingly sharp pain of having a bullet go through the inside of your stomach.
War is the rupturing and burning of your insides as you inhale agent orange.
War is the pungent stench of genocide and mass graves.
War is lunacy.
War is terror.
War allows people to become prisoners of war, fighting with a bloodhound for a stale bun.
War allows people to be locked in cages that hang from trees with 20 other people, all smeared in feces and urine, sharing diseases and starving from malnutrition.
War is hatred.
War is death.
War is pain.
War is suffering.
Fuck War.
January 1st, 2005
Wanna know something? I have no fashion sense. I?m not kidding, I wear orange and blue, khaki and grey, even pink and green. I?m a fashion disaster.
Now that I think about it, I have no taste in music either. My car doesn?t bump, I can?t dance to save my life, I don?t enjoy dancing at clubs. I definitely can?t hear Jimmi.
Save for hockey and tennis, I have no athletic ability. I?m no ?baller?, I ain?t got no game, I can?t take you to the hole, I can?t even jump. I?m a chump, if I score on you, you suck.
I drive a piece of shit car, and I know it?s a piece of shit. I can?t afford anything better than a piece of shit.
I am inadequately equipped. Ladies know this just by looking at me.
I do not enjoy math, I am no good at math.
I do not own my own business.
I do not go to a big name college.
I have loose morals.
I really have no fashion sense.
Truth is, I?m a cracker. That?s right, I?m white. It?s ok though, I?m cool with it.
I don?t complain when people get jobs over me because of their roots. I understand that I don?t deserve the job. After all, I?m just your ordinary run of the mill white boy. I?m a dime a dozen.
I cool with the fact that white guys like me don?t have our own TV station, national awareness months, magazines and radio stations geared toward us. I don?t need them, I?m ordinary. I?m the majority.
I?m cool knowing that some of you will call me racist, even though I just put myself down in the previous twenty-seven statements. I know that those of you who do completely missed the point of this article. But I can deal with it. I?m white. I?ve been dealing with it all my life.
January 1st, 2005
Next Posts
Previous Posts
