Thursday, February 28, 2008
Random Thoughts
Spam has a monopoly on the market. Have they ever had to deal with an antitrust lawsuit? They've cornered it. Are there very many Spam competitors? How low do you have to be to be a Spam competitor? What decrepit, depressing convenience stores must you be sold in? Is the market very big for Spam knockoff product? Who is buying you? When it comes to your choice of...whatever Spam is...is there really a lot of variety and choice?
How come the only types of sprees are shopping and shooting? That's it, just those two. No one ever goes on a loving spree.
One time, my friend and I went to the movies, and one of the trailers was for the movie Mission Impossible 1. This really dates the story. I don't know if you remember this, but in the trailer, Tom Cruise is simply rock climbing. He is climbing up this rock for about three minutes, with no other scenes, no narration, no music, nothing. At the end, he finally reaches the top, and the screen goes black for a moment. At that moment, my friend yells out: "What is this, Zyrtec: The Movie?"
(Zyrtec was running almost identical ads on TV at this time, and we'd always make fun of them because they never said what the product actually DOES, it simply showed someone rock climbing, both the ads and the movie trailer were remarkably similar).
He got some laughs, but I can't help but wonder - what would Zyrtec: The Movie be about, would it be very different from Mission Impossible, and how long until Hollywood actually does it?
Barack Hussein Obama has a terrible name. It's certainly not presidential. Firstly, no one knows what a "Barack" is. The closest available thing in our minds is a place where soldiers live. Which is ironic because he wants to cut and run. (also, in college, he apparently was known as "Barry".) Next we have "Hussein", which, despite its negative connotations, is EXTREMELY ironic, because supposedly we went in to Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, which was a major factor in the Iraq war - certainly Saddam Hussein was a central figure in this conflict - and it is in the NAME of the person who might be President. (The one who wants to cut and run.) No one could have imagined this at the beginning of the war. The most anti-war person on the planet is named Hussein. The irony is just astounding. Truth really is stranger than fiction. Finally, we have "Obama". This is only one letter off from public enemy #1: Osama Bin Laden. Many people have already called him "Osama" by accident by a slip of the tongue. When you put it all together, "Barack Hussein Obama" is far from a presidential name. It is just scary.
During the summer, in news reports about heat, they always say "check on your pets and the elderly." So in their minds, they equate DOGS with human beings...? Also on the news they say "honor student died" or "honor student was kidnapped". Why does this validate them as a human being? Should I be less sad or upset about their plight if their grades weren't as good? You never hear "C student found dead...public fairly indifferent."
Speaking of the news, what is the deal with "Weather on the 3's"? Why is this so important to people? What is so great about the 3's? Why so specific? Who needs this? Who requested this? Who has all his watches and clocks perfectly synchronized with the weather people? I imagine a guy, drenched in sweat, hair dishevelled, with bags under his eyes, feverishly checking his watch: "It's almost 11:03!!!! Here comes THE WEATHER!!!" And how come some are on the 8's? Why the competition? Some are on the 1's, others 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's, etc., etc., Why don't all the stations pick one number and go with it? This proves it's meaningless! Much like trying to follow weather that closely - there's nothing you can do to change it, so it makes all this Storm Team 8, Doppler 3000 radar, Satellite Laser Nuclear Green Screen whatever seem very, very silly. I hate all the fearmongering. It does nothing but make them look stupid, because they must get their kicks inspiring terror in old people. (presumably these are the same old people that you should watch carefully on hot summer days, along with your cockatiel.) Because there's no other reason for the inflated hoopla. Mark Twain once said "If you don't like the weather in New England, wait five minutes." This is far more wise than Doppler 3000.
Friday, February 22, 2008
NES Review #4: Chubby Cherub
Chubby Cherub, published in October 1986 by Bandai, is a very fun game of the "cute" variety, in the spirit of Rainbow Islands, Balloon Fight, Clu Clu Land, Mappy Land, Adventure Island, etc. In the game you play a naked, pleasantly plump angel that goes through and eats floating treats in the sky. Once you get the hang of flying, the crazy concept, incredibly catchy music and the overwhelmingly bright, cute colors soon win you over to its nutty, childish charm. Imagine if the newspaper comic strip "love is..." became an NES game.
Bandai probably went into the trend of "fitness games" and power pad games after this as penance for glamorizing being chubby and eating cakes and candy with no ill consequences. Actually, you continue to be lighter than air no matter how many sugar-based treats you eat. You must avoid barking dogs, who when they bark, flying letter "B"'s come out of their mouths and in your direction. Don't get caught inbetween a telephone pole and an angry barking dog! The dogs seem to get more angry and vicious as you go along...when the game starts out you face up against a hyperactive puppy, and as the game progresses, you face a large pit bull with a spiked collar. However, your first line of defense is to shoot hearts at them. Makes sense I suppose. Instead of falling in love, they die. How apt, yet perverse. Before I dive into the freudian mythos behind Chubby Cherub, and its basis in Greek mythology, I should say that he is simply a cherub, not cupid. But he looks like he might know cupid. The second line of defense is to turn momentarily invisible (or blinkingly transparent, as the case may be.)
Not to be confused in any way with Kid Icarus, this lighthearted, sugary game is fun for all ages and represents NES fun at, if not its BEST, close to its best. Regardless of anything else, you've got to appreciate a game that has a screenshot of itself on the cartridge, and has an inexplicable Asian mascot (?) besides Chubby. He appears at the level screens and at the end of each level. Are we to assume Chubby is doing these perilous missions for him? And why? Does he work for him? Maybe it's explained in the instruction book, which I don't have. I strongly recommend Chubby Cherub. It helps if you are already have a proclivity towards the "cute" genre, but it's hard not to "love" this pre-PC, pre-'super-size me' hero and his whimsical, candy-filled adventures.
Bandai probably went into the trend of "fitness games" and power pad games after this as penance for glamorizing being chubby and eating cakes and candy with no ill consequences. Actually, you continue to be lighter than air no matter how many sugar-based treats you eat. You must avoid barking dogs, who when they bark, flying letter "B"'s come out of their mouths and in your direction. Don't get caught inbetween a telephone pole and an angry barking dog! The dogs seem to get more angry and vicious as you go along...when the game starts out you face up against a hyperactive puppy, and as the game progresses, you face a large pit bull with a spiked collar. However, your first line of defense is to shoot hearts at them. Makes sense I suppose. Instead of falling in love, they die. How apt, yet perverse. Before I dive into the freudian mythos behind Chubby Cherub, and its basis in Greek mythology, I should say that he is simply a cherub, not cupid. But he looks like he might know cupid. The second line of defense is to turn momentarily invisible (or blinkingly transparent, as the case may be.)
Not to be confused in any way with Kid Icarus, this lighthearted, sugary game is fun for all ages and represents NES fun at, if not its BEST, close to its best. Regardless of anything else, you've got to appreciate a game that has a screenshot of itself on the cartridge, and has an inexplicable Asian mascot (?) besides Chubby. He appears at the level screens and at the end of each level. Are we to assume Chubby is doing these perilous missions for him? And why? Does he work for him? Maybe it's explained in the instruction book, which I don't have. I strongly recommend Chubby Cherub. It helps if you are already have a proclivity towards the "cute" genre, but it's hard not to "love" this pre-PC, pre-'super-size me' hero and his whimsical, candy-filled adventures.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I love Jamaica
About a year ago, I went to Ocho Rios, Jamaica. I always think about what a great place it is. One of the main things that makes the place interesting is it is a mixture of warm sunny weather, green mountains in the distance, and beautiful foliage everywhere, with poverty and very aggressive beggars that aren't afraid to let you know that they want money from you. This underlines one of the contrasts of this sweet yet troubled place. The spirit of not worrying and being mellow infuses the actions of the populace and is intrinsic to the behavior of everyone there. Everyone is very chilled out, and the American idea of a breakneck pace and ambition at all costs is just not known there. That concept would be totally alien to them. Yet their beggars are far, far more aggressive than American ones. I guess they are more mellow once they have harrassed and cajoled tourists out of their money. I forgive the country for this one lapse, and, if anything, it adds to the many colors and flavors of this wonderful place.
Locals sit outside their shacks and make their arts and crafts, carved wood statues and such, hoping tourists will buy them. Even in the non-touristy areas, there are two very prevalent things wherever you go: Red Stripe beer and Bob Marley. Either they genuinely like these things, or they realize this is what tourists like, or both, but they are everywhere in the form of ads and T-shirts.
I also love Reggae music. Mainly the golden age of the 70's. If you read one of my previous posts, you know how much I love music of the 70's, and Jamaica produced some of the most innovative, brilliant and compelling music of that decade. Just that classic Reggae beat conveys the warmth and mellowness of Jamaica that translates all over the world, even to the coldest climates. Perhaps that is what makes it so attractive: It shows the world a sunny, carefree side to life - not all of it, of course, much of reggae tells of the poverty and hardship they have to endure, and also the concept of being slaves brought there from Africa infuses the genre as well, but that's what makes it great. It is diverse, I don't know if people realize that. On that small Island, in the 70's alone we heard the toasting of Big Youth and I Roy, the consciousness of Burning Spear, the dub of Lee "Scratch" Perry, the harmony of the Heptones and Abyssinians, the "lovers rock" of Gregory Isaacs, and the international success of Desmond Dekker to name but a scant few. For all this great music to come from one small space in one time reminds one of the Renaissance. (Interestingly enough, Italy experienced a similar renaissance yet again in the 1970's with their progressive rock, maybe I will do a blog post about that someday.)
Jamaica represents escape. Escape from the rat race and relentless consumerism, competition and blind ambition to an island paradise of warmth and greenery where troubles don't exist. This is extremely attractive, maybe not entirely true, but, who cares? Just thinking about this wonderful place puts me in a different mood, one of relaxation to the best of my ability. The locals would choke on their jerk chicken laughing if they saw how intensely some Americans rush through life in some mad rush. Towards what?
To see the Jamaican schoolchildren in their all-brown uniforms, the hand-painted signs, the old architecture existing amongst smaller shacks and roadside stands for food and crafts searching for shade from the hot sun under big green trees, surrounded by colorful foliage, in the tourist areas, the jewelry stores and souvenir shops, and of course the beggars, you see the brilliance of this unassumingly great place that swears by the phrase "don't worry!"...However well or poorly I have conveyed the spirit of Jamaica, it isn't a description. Words have nothing to do with it. It is a FEELING. When you are there you sense the feeling. The feeling of a slowed down pace that comes from a troubled paradise. I would go back in a heartbeat! Long live this beautiful land.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Marriage
One of the things I don't understand about the concept and the tradition of marriage is the contradiction between "til death do us part" and divorce. The fact that there is a built-in out signifies a flaw in the structure, a contradiction from the get-go that implicitly assumes it won't work because humans are weak, faithless and forever changing. Note that it's not "til death do us part, or, until I just don't feel like it anymore." Building this institution on this ground is a bit like building a house in the sky, or perhaps more accurately, the San Andreas fault. But then again, to not have divorce would be somewhat unfair - like it was when Henry the VIII or whoever it was, invented it. People locked into marriages they could never escape were happy back then, right? So it's a tricky thing. A thing so incredibly faulty, flawed and contrary to human nature, why do we bother with this tradition as a species? Here is why:
Another thing I've noticed is that getting married is for girls. It's a totally feminine conceit that is drilled into them from a diabolically young age. Adults project their unconscious, unfulfilled wishes onto their children their "dream marriage", their "dream man", their "special day." It's relentlessly beaten into them like a pizza chef pounding dough. It's unfair to the children, and to the human race, to fill their heads so mercilessly with fantastical lies that, in the end, merely equate to how much the families involved have to SPEND in a financial way to make this absurd "dream" come true. Is it any wonder people are either single and upset, or unhappy with their marriage? How can ANYTHING in this earthly existence compete with what they've been promised?
I can tell you straight men don't sit around drinking beer, smoking cigars, playing poker and excitedly discussing their wedding day. They only do it because they are strongarmed into it by a woman vainly pursuing the dream that they had no hope of escaping, and it doesn't matter what the consequences are, and how much money must be spent to construct the whole illusion. And to just get divorced in the end adds yet another layer of insult to what is, on many levels already, quite injurious.
If gay people want this, it is somewhat puzzling, but what they really want is the financial benefits that come with it. As always, it always comes back to money. Marriage is a money deal because the state wants it that way to maintain the status quo. What this has to do with "love" is anybody's guess. But the DJ, the tuxedo rental and dress rental people, the people that host the wedding/reception, catering etc., etc., love money. And married people love the benefits it provides. I've heard the arguments that "it doesn't matter what gender you are, it's hard enough to find someone at all, they deserve everything straight people get, etc., etc.," and I TOTALLY get it. I just have two questions. One is, why do they want to be like us? Why do they emulate the traditions of straight people? Why don't they have their own thing? I thought they were happy in the niche they created for themselves in society, which took a lot of work, over many years, to carve out. Now they want to come over to the "dark side" of heterosexual rituals after all the strides they've made for their own culture? This is much like the makers of vegetarian burgers, hot dogs, turkeys and chicken. By putting it in the very form of REAL food, rather than coming up with their own shapes and designs, whether they know it or not, they are acknowledging the true original as just that, and doing a disservice to their cause and constituents.
The second thing is, when Rome fell, it was after all structures and traditions had gone out the window. This left them weak and vulnerable, and was the first crack in the armor. It opened the floodgates to the fall of their society. Now what I'm about to say might shock you, based on what you've read so far: As much as I despise the concept of marriage, and feel it deserves all the ridicule in the world for its hypocrisy, stupidity, absurdity, and its ridiculously old-fashioned, pie in the sky idealism rooted in the belief that 2 human beings of opposite genders belong to be together for their whole lives, when it is acknowledged that the sole purpose of males is to fertilize and impregnate as many females as he possibly can, dating back to caveman times and before, and that humans are slightly evolved animals - I believe it has worth as a pillar of society, the structure of which keeps humanity, or at least American society, relatively on track. Humans crave structure and tradition, and this is exactly what marriage provides. It gives humans something to aspire to: Get a job, get married, have kids and then properly die and have a nice funeral now that you've done all you're good for because you propagated the species in the correct form as the law allows. The gay marriage agenda puts a crack in THIS armor. We should learn from the past.
You might say I have contradicted myself by professing to believe in two opposing points of view. Perhaps I have. What can I say, I'm a complex guy with a lot of conflicting beliefs. Life isn't always cut and dried and simple. I believe there is room for both viewpoints. One can love and hate something (or someone) in equal measure.
I'm not married, and perhaps this whole thing is a bit naive, but it is from the perspective of someone who is completely unmarryable, so I have a unique perspective on the matter - an outsider perspective. And the REALLY crazy part is, if the tradition was such that the female asked the male to marry them, and a really great girl asked me to marry her, I would probably accept! (but not before signing an ironclad prenup which enforces the fact that I don't have to give her half, or all, of my stuff or money that I've built up throughout my entire life. The idea that someone would have to do that EVER, under ANY circumstance, is disgusting and downright criminal. It's what criminals do with murder and torture, and what women do by saying "I do" and temporarily seeming to love you. There is parity there. If you think that is extreme, that's because IT IS, and has nothing to do with me.)
Another thing I've noticed is that getting married is for girls. It's a totally feminine conceit that is drilled into them from a diabolically young age. Adults project their unconscious, unfulfilled wishes onto their children their "dream marriage", their "dream man", their "special day." It's relentlessly beaten into them like a pizza chef pounding dough. It's unfair to the children, and to the human race, to fill their heads so mercilessly with fantastical lies that, in the end, merely equate to how much the families involved have to SPEND in a financial way to make this absurd "dream" come true. Is it any wonder people are either single and upset, or unhappy with their marriage? How can ANYTHING in this earthly existence compete with what they've been promised?
I can tell you straight men don't sit around drinking beer, smoking cigars, playing poker and excitedly discussing their wedding day. They only do it because they are strongarmed into it by a woman vainly pursuing the dream that they had no hope of escaping, and it doesn't matter what the consequences are, and how much money must be spent to construct the whole illusion. And to just get divorced in the end adds yet another layer of insult to what is, on many levels already, quite injurious.
If gay people want this, it is somewhat puzzling, but what they really want is the financial benefits that come with it. As always, it always comes back to money. Marriage is a money deal because the state wants it that way to maintain the status quo. What this has to do with "love" is anybody's guess. But the DJ, the tuxedo rental and dress rental people, the people that host the wedding/reception, catering etc., etc., love money. And married people love the benefits it provides. I've heard the arguments that "it doesn't matter what gender you are, it's hard enough to find someone at all, they deserve everything straight people get, etc., etc.," and I TOTALLY get it. I just have two questions. One is, why do they want to be like us? Why do they emulate the traditions of straight people? Why don't they have their own thing? I thought they were happy in the niche they created for themselves in society, which took a lot of work, over many years, to carve out. Now they want to come over to the "dark side" of heterosexual rituals after all the strides they've made for their own culture? This is much like the makers of vegetarian burgers, hot dogs, turkeys and chicken. By putting it in the very form of REAL food, rather than coming up with their own shapes and designs, whether they know it or not, they are acknowledging the true original as just that, and doing a disservice to their cause and constituents.
The second thing is, when Rome fell, it was after all structures and traditions had gone out the window. This left them weak and vulnerable, and was the first crack in the armor. It opened the floodgates to the fall of their society. Now what I'm about to say might shock you, based on what you've read so far: As much as I despise the concept of marriage, and feel it deserves all the ridicule in the world for its hypocrisy, stupidity, absurdity, and its ridiculously old-fashioned, pie in the sky idealism rooted in the belief that 2 human beings of opposite genders belong to be together for their whole lives, when it is acknowledged that the sole purpose of males is to fertilize and impregnate as many females as he possibly can, dating back to caveman times and before, and that humans are slightly evolved animals - I believe it has worth as a pillar of society, the structure of which keeps humanity, or at least American society, relatively on track. Humans crave structure and tradition, and this is exactly what marriage provides. It gives humans something to aspire to: Get a job, get married, have kids and then properly die and have a nice funeral now that you've done all you're good for because you propagated the species in the correct form as the law allows. The gay marriage agenda puts a crack in THIS armor. We should learn from the past.
You might say I have contradicted myself by professing to believe in two opposing points of view. Perhaps I have. What can I say, I'm a complex guy with a lot of conflicting beliefs. Life isn't always cut and dried and simple. I believe there is room for both viewpoints. One can love and hate something (or someone) in equal measure.
I'm not married, and perhaps this whole thing is a bit naive, but it is from the perspective of someone who is completely unmarryable, so I have a unique perspective on the matter - an outsider perspective. And the REALLY crazy part is, if the tradition was such that the female asked the male to marry them, and a really great girl asked me to marry her, I would probably accept! (but not before signing an ironclad prenup which enforces the fact that I don't have to give her half, or all, of my stuff or money that I've built up throughout my entire life. The idea that someone would have to do that EVER, under ANY circumstance, is disgusting and downright criminal. It's what criminals do with murder and torture, and what women do by saying "I do" and temporarily seeming to love you. There is parity there. If you think that is extreme, that's because IT IS, and has nothing to do with me.)
Thursday, February 14, 2008
NES Review #3: Abadox
Personally, I'm a sucker for any game that's a made up word. This new vocabulary unintentionally created by NES that promises great game playing adventures because you have no frame of reference for what the heck they mean. For example: Gyruss, Zanac, Gradius, Xexyx, Klax, Sqoon, Faxanadu, Hydlide, Trog, Gyromite, Xevious, Qix, etc., etc. I believe it takes a lot of creativity to not just make the game, but make up a WORD that goes with it. This type of unbridled, total creativity is largely missing today. It is very appealing because a made up word as a title commits to nothing. You take your chances with it, because there has never been anything like it. The results might be great, like Zanac, or, they might be a frustrating Life Force knockoff that is SO incredibly hard it takes all the fun out of the game. As you might have guessed, I'm referring to the word that NEVER should have been made up: ABADOX.
The subtitle of the game is "the deadly inner war", and the sub-sub title should have been "just go and play Life Force instead". Not that Life Force is SUCH a great game (I prefer Gradius, which is a similar but superior Konami title.) But why would you knock off a less-than-excellent game like Life Force anyway? That's such a strange choice. Abadox has many of the same ideas and even some of the same villains, bosses and obstacles. (note the big teeth that go up and down in level 1 and the boss of level 1) I don't have a huge frame of reference beyond level 2, because I've never gotten past it, nor has any other human being on this planet. The main flaw of the game is that it is JUST TOO HARD. It's good to have challenge in a game, but it shouldn't be impossible. I realize it must have been hard to strike that balance as a game developer, but this just errs far too far on the side of "let's drive the kid that just paid however much for the game completely insane." Nice motivation.
Released in the U.S. in March 1990 by the Milton Bradley Company - "Milton Bradley Presents" on the title screen not usually heralding a GREAT video gaming experience (i.e. Cabal) - these guys should stick to board games. The plot consists of a little space man in "the belly of the beast" - you shoot what are supposedly things inside the stomach of a large being, like flying eyeballs, pterodactyls and the skeletons of cows. Practically the only enjoyable thing about this game, and it's a cold comfort, is just how WEIRD and demented the baddies are. This NES surrealism that I really like tends to be overshadowed by the fact that you can't touch the walls or floors without dying, the obstacles are too busy and difficult to navigate, and the bosses take far too many hits.
However, this game ALWAYS works in my player (not all games always do) and once you hear that familiar roaring/rumbling sound on the title screen, the bile begins to rise in your throat simply in ANTICIPATION of the frustration and annoyance you know you are going to feel, based on past experience. I rarely play the game, and there are many other space shooters I would recommend before this one (see titles mentioned previously in this article)...maybe they figured by 1990 kids were getting "too good" at video games and Natsume and MB felt they should knock kids down a few pegs because they were getting too arrogant. On a system practically built upon hard, hard games, along with the infamously difficult Ghosts N' Goblins, I would say Abadox is the hardest. I would say buy this game only if you have to box or fight someone later that day and you want to get all fired up and angry. You will surely win the fight, and perhaps punch their entire head off.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Strange Things
There are a lot of strange things in life. More than that, I believe there is a lot of undiagnosed mental illness out there. As well as diagnosed. It seems no matter where you turn, something weird, strange and even surreal is happening. Just go to any city, or anyplace at all that people are congregated together, and bizarre behavior will follow. Now, in the age of the internet, craziness can also thrive when people are alone in front of their computers. Sure, it's not out in the open, and it might even be better this way, as long as nuts that are alone (as opposed to lone nuts, which seems to have a connotation of assassin, based on past experience) don't harm anybody or put out illegal material such as child pornography.
Sometimes it may be entertaining and even funny to watch, but in moderation. How long can you observe craziness without going crazy yourself? When does the line get crossed? Take the homeless. Are you suggesting that this guy couldn't get a job SOMEWHERE doing SOMETHING:
OK, yes, it was tragic when those ninjas killed his family. But just begging for change on the street simply plays into the hands of the ninjas, who obviously want you to be unsuccessful. You should show those ninjas who is boss by picking yourself up and getting a job and moving on with your life.
Now, the fact that I analyzed that in a serious way blurs the boundary. Maybe I'm crazy myself for honestly believing that guy. Where is the line I ask you, where? But at least THAT homeless had more creativity (or something) than this one:
Now, while www.sparechange.com I'm sure is a very reputable website (I've never actually been there), wouldn't it be easier to just hand him the change? I know a lot of homeless go to the library for warmth and shelter. Since they have computers there with the internet, maybe the entreprenurial spirit hit this one?
Here's the thing. If things were just a little bit different, if circumstances were arranged just slightly in the scheme and organization of life, it could be me that is homeless. But seeing that I'm not, and just GIVING them money sends a message that begging is OK and yields results, I believe giving the homeless money just enables them. Not to mention addictions to drugs and alcohol.
But, for whatever reason, I am attracted to strangeness in life. It represents a change from the monotony of everyday life. For that reason, it can even be refreshing. People that are living "outside the box" are attractive and interesting because they represent the subconscious wish to have freedom from the constraints of normalcy in life.
Difference and variety are obviously important. You get to see how the "other half" lives. It is a window into a fascinating world simply because it is different. Another reason why freakishness is interesting to me is because freaks on the outside are physical, outward manifestations of FEELING freakish on the inside. I may not have any deformities (unless you count curly hair), but I feel that I will never fit into society in any comfortable, "normal" way. Society as I see it is stupid, crass, commercial, hypocritical, greedy and corrupt. I don't want to be part of that world. I could pretend well to "fit in", but on the inside I have an inner loathing for it and all it stands for. So I laugh at pictures like this:
Monday, February 11, 2008
Michael Moore
I'm not a fan of Michael Moore. However, that wasn't always the case. I enjoyed his first movie "Roger and Me" well enough, and "The Big One" was even better in my opinion. I also liked his show "TV Nation". It had its moments, was funny, and had guests like Steven Wright and covered some interesting topics. But that was when the focus seemed to be on humor, not as much on bashing America.
I used to see Moore primarily as a comedian, who happened to have some social criticisms, which is always welcome. But something happened. He turned mean-spirited, His "humor" was always at the expense of something (America) or someone (the troops) who have much more value than he does. He doesn't have the right to go after actually important institutions - he's way out of his depth - he's simply a ham-fisted (please excuse the expression) commentator, and who really cares about what this "hefty haranguer" has to say anyway? Who IS he? What makes him qualified to make these lie-filled judgments in the first place?
Moore continued his anti-corporate rants with books by major publishers such as the ironically titled "Stupid White Men" (What is Moore exactly?) -- the very title of which gets under my skin because it is socially acceptable and NOT edgy to make fun of white men. It is the last acceptable race that is totally OK to make fun of. If Moore had titled his book "Stupid Black Men", he likely would have been run out of town on a big fat rail. Or at least not taken seriously, which he really shouldn't be anyway and people need to realize that. This credentials-less hack enjoys preaching to the converted about how America is bad bad bad and the healthcare system of Cuba is really wonderful. This is probably the most popular baldfaced wish by the liberals that America will go commie. Usually they put it in coded speech, but because Moore wins awards from other liberals such as the Oscar, he has the gall (or lack of talent) to drop the pretense.
I guess the thing that annoys me most about Moore is that he humorlessly criticizes the very institutions that allow him to become a millionaire doing what he does. He gets awards, accolades, is lauded around the world, and gets to travel the globe preaching his anti-America diatribes, and most importantly makes millions. He stumbled onto the idea that he could make quite a nice living bashing the USA. Remember he didn't start out that way. He found his niche and his rhythm doing this midway through his "career".
Of course, no one really knows about answer films "Celsius 41.11" and
"FahrenHYPE 911" that refute Moore's lies and inaccuracies because they don't have the liberal Hollywood machine powering them.
It's obviously because of the troops and the veterans of America that have ensured Moore's freedom to bash, slander and smear. Rather than be grateful to live in a nation that allows you totally free reign to say as you please (not to mention a sweet profit - remember that capitalism that you hate so much, Michael? I guess you OFFICIALLY are a "Stupid White Man" now.), he takes this great freedom completely for granted, like a lot of people do. The very fact that I can voice my opinion now about HIS opinion, and not be thrown in jail, punished or stoned to death, I greatly appreciate. We didn't get here as a society through people like Michael Moore. We got here through actually BRAVE people and smart people like General Petraeus. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely and totally for criticism, protest, dissent and an opposing point of view. It's through this conflict that ideas are raised and some progress is made. But I feel Moore is a cheap hack who has exploited the "hate America, hate Bush" endless drumbeat of the left as a underhanded way to make millions of dollars and actually BECOME part of the institutions he claims to hate - criticizing it all the while, and the mechanism that allows it to happen. This is LOW. We as a nation should totally ignore Moore. Hey, that rhymes!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
I love ALF
As we all know, "ALF" stands for a lot more than just "Alien Life Form". It stands for nostalgic, 80's hilarity and originality at its best! Created by Paul Fusco, who is from my hometown of Hamden, and originally performed at small rock clubs, ALF's ridiculously sarcastic charm wormed its way into the nation's heart in the 80's. First premiering in 1986, he's from the planet Melmac, he eats cats, and lint is more valuable than gold on his planet. His planet blew up after everyone on Melmac plugged in their hair dryers at once. He ended up in the home of Willie Tanner, with his wife, son and daughter. Hilarity ensues when there is a culture clash of milquetoast human and party animal alien.
Now that we've gotten the facts out of the way, I would like to say that ALF has a huge nostalgic value for me. I used to tape the show on Beta (competitor to VHS, smaller, high-quality) tapes. It is the first show I remember ever taping because I liked it so much. I may still have the tapes somewhere, I'm not sure. As a child of the 80's, there was something immensely appealing about this concept of a wise-cracking alien in a family home. He could be as snarky as he wanted to be and the parents couldn't punish him. He just had to hide from the neighbors, the Ochmoneks (I had to do some research on the spelling), the wife, Raquel, was played by the actress that played Jerry Seinfeld's mom on Seinfeld, Liz Sheridan.
ALF was truly a show of the 80's, and on top of the concept and the writing, there was something visually appealing, probably because of its uniqueness, about the way ALF looked, especially in that suburban setting. It was a contrast no other show had. It was just fun to watch. I know I've spoken to at least one other person who used to tape the show (although he was much older and his dad probably didn't have to help him, it shows the trans-generational appeal of the show).
Final notes: I remember there was a question on the show "Fun House" with J.D. Roth where the question was "what does ALF stand for?" I rolled my eyes just at the question, but it was multiple choice (!) and the only other one I remember was "astronaut's little friend". Now, that's just insulting.
Also: Al Jean and Mike Reiss, writers of The Simpsons wrote some episodes of the show (Mike Reiss is from Bristol and I met him and saw him speak, he is smart and hilarious) ALF made a splash in the 80's, and despite some inexplicably unpopular ideas, such as his short-lived talk show, he seems to be making a comeback, what with his recent appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, which generated a high amount of viewer mail. ALF Lives!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Music of the 70's
It is my belief that the 70's were the best decade so far for popular music. Bands of just about every genre built upon the freedoms started in the 60's and built upon them in heretofore unheard of ways and explored musical freedoms and ideas as far as they could possibly go, until the 80's arrived. While the 80's offered some great music as well, the facts that they couldn't go any farther than their forebears, and a tendency towards glossier and glossier production styles becoming the norm, the fruits this decade bore were not quite the same as the one before.
70's PROGRESSIVE (PROG)ROCK - this genre, derided as overly virtuosic and bombastic (a trait never denied by its makers; in fact it is part and parcel of the genre)is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Taking what happened in the sixties and vastly improving upon it musically and idea-wise, leaders of the genre like Genesis, Yes and ELP filled stadiums in the 70's, because clearly the public had an appetite for this type of material.
Khan
PUNK ROCK - A reaction to prog, this simple, angry genre was born in the 70's, and, for all intents and purposes, died there too. All the best punk bands are 70's bands: The Ramones, The Dictators, The Dead Boys, The New York Dolls, The Stooges. Once again, they took what came before and made it new and fresh. Unfortunately, this genre went quite downhill after this with the advent of all sorts of infighting subgenres such as skinheads, hardcore, punk/metal hybrids, etc., however, being a
"77" punk band is a proud title for many bands today.
SOUL/R&B/FUNK/REGGAE - Even the "urban" genres of the day experienced huge growth and creativity spurts. People like Marvin Gaye and Barry White introduced orchestras in a very creative way, female artists like Minnie Riperton and Thelma Houston (not to mention Aretha Franklin, of course) released genre-defying, even mind-bending albums not possible to record the decade earlier. It was also here that musical geniuses like Roger Troutman appeared. Bootsy Collins and George Clinton took to very funky excesses started by James Brown and took them to great extremes. In the reggae world, albums like Culture's two sevens clash and others showed the 70's had its own identity and creativity.
RAP/HIP HOP - this genre began in the 70's and, though it has changed a lot, can truthfully be called a "70's genre". All its major hallmarks and archetypes began in the 70's.
Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five
DISCO - While the 70's are known as the "disco decade" by uninformed people, I submit to you that disco was not that bad. It was simply soul music with a slighly different beat. It was the idiots who WENT to discos who gave it a bad name. I call this the "Led Zeppelin" phenomenon. Just because their fans are largely idiots, don't take that out on the band, it's not their fault.
Gloria Gaynor
POWERPOP - A 70's genre through and through, a miracle occured when this genre was born. Prizing hooks, melodies and short songs that are pleasant to the ear, and giving them a little "Oomph" (but not so much that it became "punk", although some bands did do that), and taking the reins from the Beatles and Beach Boys, more "B" bands emerged such as Big Star and Badfinger who made great, great music. It was a pretty big phenomenon then, and still continues today. See also: The Raspberries
Badfinger
HARD ROCK/HEAVY METAL - BLACK SABBATH! That's all I have to say. Black Sabbath. Working on the theory that Black Sabbath IS metal, and they released their first album in 1970, the stage was set for a tidal wave of "heavy" bands that followed. Early Heavy bands like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and here in the US, Blue Cheer and Iron Butterfly (these are just the most prominent examples, not necessarily the best)initiated a worldwide movement still strong today of heaviness. Don't forget, this was born in the 70's too!
Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
COUNTRY - the decade "outlaw country" was born, as examplified best by David Allan Coe, as well as Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings, expanded what the genre could do, as did artists like Mickey Newbury. This brought new facets, ideas, thoughts and instrumentation to country. It says a lot when country, primarily thought of as a "traditional" genre, could even be susceptible to the changes brought by the 70's like everyone else.
David Allan Coe
This was just a brief, brief overview in an attempt to make my point. I could probably write a book on this subject. So anyone that says "The seventies sucked" or "it was the worst decade for music", do politely tell them they are mistaken (I was going to say "shoot them" but I decided to go the more gentlemanly route.)
70's PROGRESSIVE (PROG)ROCK - this genre, derided as overly virtuosic and bombastic (a trait never denied by its makers; in fact it is part and parcel of the genre)is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Taking what happened in the sixties and vastly improving upon it musically and idea-wise, leaders of the genre like Genesis, Yes and ELP filled stadiums in the 70's, because clearly the public had an appetite for this type of material.
Khan
PUNK ROCK - A reaction to prog, this simple, angry genre was born in the 70's, and, for all intents and purposes, died there too. All the best punk bands are 70's bands: The Ramones, The Dictators, The Dead Boys, The New York Dolls, The Stooges. Once again, they took what came before and made it new and fresh. Unfortunately, this genre went quite downhill after this with the advent of all sorts of infighting subgenres such as skinheads, hardcore, punk/metal hybrids, etc., however, being a
"77" punk band is a proud title for many bands today.
SOUL/R&B/FUNK/REGGAE - Even the "urban" genres of the day experienced huge growth and creativity spurts. People like Marvin Gaye and Barry White introduced orchestras in a very creative way, female artists like Minnie Riperton and Thelma Houston (not to mention Aretha Franklin, of course) released genre-defying, even mind-bending albums not possible to record the decade earlier. It was also here that musical geniuses like Roger Troutman appeared. Bootsy Collins and George Clinton took to very funky excesses started by James Brown and took them to great extremes. In the reggae world, albums like Culture's two sevens clash and others showed the 70's had its own identity and creativity.
RAP/HIP HOP - this genre began in the 70's and, though it has changed a lot, can truthfully be called a "70's genre". All its major hallmarks and archetypes began in the 70's.
Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five
DISCO - While the 70's are known as the "disco decade" by uninformed people, I submit to you that disco was not that bad. It was simply soul music with a slighly different beat. It was the idiots who WENT to discos who gave it a bad name. I call this the "Led Zeppelin" phenomenon. Just because their fans are largely idiots, don't take that out on the band, it's not their fault.
Gloria Gaynor
POWERPOP - A 70's genre through and through, a miracle occured when this genre was born. Prizing hooks, melodies and short songs that are pleasant to the ear, and giving them a little "Oomph" (but not so much that it became "punk", although some bands did do that), and taking the reins from the Beatles and Beach Boys, more "B" bands emerged such as Big Star and Badfinger who made great, great music. It was a pretty big phenomenon then, and still continues today. See also: The Raspberries
Badfinger
HARD ROCK/HEAVY METAL - BLACK SABBATH! That's all I have to say. Black Sabbath. Working on the theory that Black Sabbath IS metal, and they released their first album in 1970, the stage was set for a tidal wave of "heavy" bands that followed. Early Heavy bands like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and here in the US, Blue Cheer and Iron Butterfly (these are just the most prominent examples, not necessarily the best)initiated a worldwide movement still strong today of heaviness. Don't forget, this was born in the 70's too!
Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
COUNTRY - the decade "outlaw country" was born, as examplified best by David Allan Coe, as well as Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings, expanded what the genre could do, as did artists like Mickey Newbury. This brought new facets, ideas, thoughts and instrumentation to country. It says a lot when country, primarily thought of as a "traditional" genre, could even be susceptible to the changes brought by the 70's like everyone else.
David Allan Coe
This was just a brief, brief overview in an attempt to make my point. I could probably write a book on this subject. So anyone that says "The seventies sucked" or "it was the worst decade for music", do politely tell them they are mistaken (I was going to say "shoot them" but I decided to go the more gentlemanly route.)
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Excuses
My other job is working as a poller in an institute where we call people and ask them surveys that take about 3-5 minutes. All they have to do is give simple opinions, there are no hard questions. A surprising amount of people, no matter where you call, or what time of day it is, say "I'm just walking out the door." It is truly amazing just how many people are "just walking out the door" at any given time (read: when they could be giving a short survey.)Alternatively, some say "I just walked IN the door." Besides the common classics "I'm on the other line" and "We have company over", and of course "We're in the middle of dinner" (It's always "the middle" -- sometimes people say they are making/preparing dinner, etc.) here are some other actual excuses that have been said by actual humans (keep in mind, they could simply just decline, no details are needed):
"I don't watch the paper"
"I can't, I'm breastfeeding"
"I just got out of the bath"
"My husband is in a backbrace"
"I'm going to a basketball game"
"I'm playing basketball with my son in the living room"
"I'm taking my son to basketball practice"
"I'm watching hockey"
"I'm doing my taxes"
"I have the flu"
"I have a migraine"
"I'm asleep"
"I'm feeding triplets"
"I'm nursing my one month old son"
"I'm getting ready to go to a funeral"
"we're watching a family movie"
"We're painting today"
"It's TRICK OR TREAT, I have to give out candy"
"I'm a Roman Catholic Nun, a Sister"
"We have to go to a graduation"
"My husband just got out of hospice and he has terminal cancer"
"We're packing for vacation"
"We're going to a banquet"
"I'm in the midst of cooking"
"I'm baking cookies"
"I just got back from a 100 mile trip: 100 miles there and 100 miles back"
"I'm eating an ice cream cone, if I take the survey, it will melt"
"I'm in labor" (I got this one on two separate occasions)
"If you call again, I'm gonna call the deputy sheriff"
"We're getting ready to eat lunch"
"I'm putting together a swingset"
"My son has autism and he spilled milk all over the house"
"I have to go to my wedding in two hours"
"I'm a 96 year old woman!!!!!"
"I'm taking my granddaughter to football practice and they're (?) waiting in the car"
"I'm having a pizza delivered"
"I'm painting my living room - if I take the survey the paint will dry - it's a big living room and right now we're working on the molding"
"I don't play survey games"
I just got out of the hospital from a heart attack"
"I don't have any opinions"
"I'm waiting for a repairman to call, and if we miss the call, he won't come"
"The only survey I have is God. Ain't no survey gonna make me no richer or no deader"
There are others, believe me. Many people offer their dogs to take it, saying "he can bark". Presumably these are the same people that put their dogs' names on their answering machines. That's almost as bad as when people put their little kids' names on their machines. "You've reached Bob, Joan, rover and rex", "You've reached Dave, Sue, and little Timmy" -- no one's calling for little Timmy, trust me. He doesn't know what an answering machine IS. If someone does call for little Timmy, be alarmed.
There are a lot of old people still out there surviving, and good for them. Many times you can hear things going on in the background, i.e. barking dogs, screaming kids, people yelling, and, of course, the TV: "WHEEL! OF! FORTUNE!", The Entertainment Tonight theme song, etc.
I had no idea before I worked there that people saw their answering machines as some sort of platform for their religious views - all Christian. Many people, in different states, who obviously don't know each other, do this. How did this catch on? Are they hoping someone will accidentally call, hear their machine, and then be convinced by it and convert to Christianity? Who knew? Who will be converted by this? It's quite selfish. For example, one person said "You've reached the home of (such and such). Please leave a message. But first, I've got a message for YOU. In Galatians 3:16...." And then they proceeded on a fifteen minute tirade about how "Jesus rocks" or something like that. But that's an extreme case. MANY people end their messages with "Have a blessed day." or "Be blessed." I don't get this. Am I , as a mere mortal, in control of this somehow? I thought only God could determine if I am blessed or not. Can I bless myself? I mean, if it was up to me, I would have a blessed day every day. So then is God out of the picture?
But, through excuses, you see the stages of life play out: "I just had a baby", "I'm putting my kids to bed", "(such and such) is having a birthday", "My father just died", -- you see the full spectrum of life playing out in real time, for no other reason that you call hundreds (thousands?) of people at home, at random, over a period of months and years. It's a unique position to be in, so you get a unique perspective. You see birth and life and death unfolding in front of you through the magic of people's excuses and their unwillingness to take a short survey.
"I don't watch the paper"
"I can't, I'm breastfeeding"
"I just got out of the bath"
"My husband is in a backbrace"
"I'm going to a basketball game"
"I'm playing basketball with my son in the living room"
"I'm taking my son to basketball practice"
"I'm watching hockey"
"I'm doing my taxes"
"I have the flu"
"I have a migraine"
"I'm asleep"
"I'm feeding triplets"
"I'm nursing my one month old son"
"I'm getting ready to go to a funeral"
"we're watching a family movie"
"We're painting today"
"It's TRICK OR TREAT, I have to give out candy"
"I'm a Roman Catholic Nun, a Sister"
"We have to go to a graduation"
"My husband just got out of hospice and he has terminal cancer"
"We're packing for vacation"
"We're going to a banquet"
"I'm in the midst of cooking"
"I'm baking cookies"
"I just got back from a 100 mile trip: 100 miles there and 100 miles back"
"I'm eating an ice cream cone, if I take the survey, it will melt"
"I'm in labor" (I got this one on two separate occasions)
"If you call again, I'm gonna call the deputy sheriff"
"We're getting ready to eat lunch"
"I'm putting together a swingset"
"My son has autism and he spilled milk all over the house"
"I have to go to my wedding in two hours"
"I'm a 96 year old woman!!!!!"
"I'm taking my granddaughter to football practice and they're (?) waiting in the car"
"I'm having a pizza delivered"
"I'm painting my living room - if I take the survey the paint will dry - it's a big living room and right now we're working on the molding"
"I don't play survey games"
I just got out of the hospital from a heart attack"
"I don't have any opinions"
"I'm waiting for a repairman to call, and if we miss the call, he won't come"
"The only survey I have is God. Ain't no survey gonna make me no richer or no deader"
There are others, believe me. Many people offer their dogs to take it, saying "he can bark". Presumably these are the same people that put their dogs' names on their answering machines. That's almost as bad as when people put their little kids' names on their machines. "You've reached Bob, Joan, rover and rex", "You've reached Dave, Sue, and little Timmy" -- no one's calling for little Timmy, trust me. He doesn't know what an answering machine IS. If someone does call for little Timmy, be alarmed.
There are a lot of old people still out there surviving, and good for them. Many times you can hear things going on in the background, i.e. barking dogs, screaming kids, people yelling, and, of course, the TV: "WHEEL! OF! FORTUNE!", The Entertainment Tonight theme song, etc.
I had no idea before I worked there that people saw their answering machines as some sort of platform for their religious views - all Christian. Many people, in different states, who obviously don't know each other, do this. How did this catch on? Are they hoping someone will accidentally call, hear their machine, and then be convinced by it and convert to Christianity? Who knew? Who will be converted by this? It's quite selfish. For example, one person said "You've reached the home of (such and such). Please leave a message. But first, I've got a message for YOU. In Galatians 3:16...." And then they proceeded on a fifteen minute tirade about how "Jesus rocks" or something like that. But that's an extreme case. MANY people end their messages with "Have a blessed day." or "Be blessed." I don't get this. Am I , as a mere mortal, in control of this somehow? I thought only God could determine if I am blessed or not. Can I bless myself? I mean, if it was up to me, I would have a blessed day every day. So then is God out of the picture?
But, through excuses, you see the stages of life play out: "I just had a baby", "I'm putting my kids to bed", "(such and such) is having a birthday", "My father just died", -- you see the full spectrum of life playing out in real time, for no other reason that you call hundreds (thousands?) of people at home, at random, over a period of months and years. It's a unique position to be in, so you get a unique perspective. You see birth and life and death unfolding in front of you through the magic of people's excuses and their unwillingness to take a short survey.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Election Coverage, Part 1
OK, we all know that making fun of President Bush is a national sport, and, granted, he doesn't speak in public very well and this leads to some hilarious moments regardless of your political position. But is the answer to this electing Hillary Clinton to the most powerful position we have?
Hillary Clinton is a lying, cheating, deceitful, insincere, cackling two-faced harridan whose Machiavellian grab for power is based more on a compulsion TO WIN and to have power than an altruistic desire to help America. Like a junkie who builds up a tolerance and needs more and more just to achieve an effect, Hillary cannot, and will not be satisfied until she grabs the ultimate prize - the presidency - and to her it is completely irrelevant HOW she does it, as long as she does it.
Even though Democrats and liberals claim to abhor racial attacks and are "above" race, surprise of all surprises, the Clintons (it is a two-headed hydra, after all) launch several attacks against their opponent Barack Hussein Obama of a race-baiting nature. I would say that is the very definition of hypocrisy, but then the Clintons are so far gone and just so used to deceits and hypocrisy, I doubt they even notice little blips on their radar like this, and besides, to them, dragging your opponent in the mud in a desperate joust to win trumps any supposed "ideals" that supposedly define their life's philosophies and life's fights and struggles.
Despite a history of rape charges, cover-ups, lies, deceits, corruptions, impeachments, Hugh Rodhams, Roger Clintons, and at least one murder that we know of (Vince Foster), why would Americans CHOOSE to go back to this? Bill Clinton COULD have been more aggressive on terror, after all, he was aware of Bin Laden, but he chose to do nothing. Is this passive non-strategy on terror the Clinton plan? Because I would rather not be just another person to perish at the hands of the Clinton machine.
Do we REALLY want to go back to this? Is this what America REALLY wants? Since it is highly doubtful that Hillary would be in this position if she didn't happen to be Bill's wife, do we want to keep close tabs on this administration...what I mean is, what with the sneakiness and philandering going on, we would have to check on them every two seconds, like a baby, instead of trusting them to do their jobs. "Trust" and the Clintons don't exactly go together, if you know what I mean.
Since she probably figured she could just walk in and become president, she's probably not happy about the strong presence of Hussein Obama (Barack better watch his back), and in one debate, she was haranguing him in her classic, girlish fashion, and the next, they were all "Buddy-buddy". This blatant, pathetically phony display is only rivalled in plastic soullessness by John Edwards. (It looks like BOTH Americas made their feelings known about this political absurdity.)
Hussein has one thing that Hillary doesn't. He has likability, and isn't boldfacedly powermad. he should really change his middle name from "Hussein" to "Fluff", because no living human knows any of his platforms, plans, or strategies, but they enjoy his dancing on "Ellen" and his appearances on "Tyra", and I believe he has mentioned the word "change" one or two times (but then again, all of them have, Republicans included), and also speaks about "hope", "the future"and uh..."change", that's the ticket. I believe people are bamboozled by his fluffiness and lack of appearance on any hard news TV shows. Either that, or they find Hillary so distasteful and they must pick a Democrat, so they will go with him, policies sight unseen.
I'm not asking for perfection, but the standards of the Democrats must be pretty low to even allow Hillary to get as far as she has. Even I would prefer Hussein over her, if a Democrat MUST be elected. That's saying something!
Hillary Clinton is a lying, cheating, deceitful, insincere, cackling two-faced harridan whose Machiavellian grab for power is based more on a compulsion TO WIN and to have power than an altruistic desire to help America. Like a junkie who builds up a tolerance and needs more and more just to achieve an effect, Hillary cannot, and will not be satisfied until she grabs the ultimate prize - the presidency - and to her it is completely irrelevant HOW she does it, as long as she does it.
Even though Democrats and liberals claim to abhor racial attacks and are "above" race, surprise of all surprises, the Clintons (it is a two-headed hydra, after all) launch several attacks against their opponent Barack Hussein Obama of a race-baiting nature. I would say that is the very definition of hypocrisy, but then the Clintons are so far gone and just so used to deceits and hypocrisy, I doubt they even notice little blips on their radar like this, and besides, to them, dragging your opponent in the mud in a desperate joust to win trumps any supposed "ideals" that supposedly define their life's philosophies and life's fights and struggles.
Despite a history of rape charges, cover-ups, lies, deceits, corruptions, impeachments, Hugh Rodhams, Roger Clintons, and at least one murder that we know of (Vince Foster), why would Americans CHOOSE to go back to this? Bill Clinton COULD have been more aggressive on terror, after all, he was aware of Bin Laden, but he chose to do nothing. Is this passive non-strategy on terror the Clinton plan? Because I would rather not be just another person to perish at the hands of the Clinton machine.
Do we REALLY want to go back to this? Is this what America REALLY wants? Since it is highly doubtful that Hillary would be in this position if she didn't happen to be Bill's wife, do we want to keep close tabs on this administration...what I mean is, what with the sneakiness and philandering going on, we would have to check on them every two seconds, like a baby, instead of trusting them to do their jobs. "Trust" and the Clintons don't exactly go together, if you know what I mean.
Since she probably figured she could just walk in and become president, she's probably not happy about the strong presence of Hussein Obama (Barack better watch his back), and in one debate, she was haranguing him in her classic, girlish fashion, and the next, they were all "Buddy-buddy". This blatant, pathetically phony display is only rivalled in plastic soullessness by John Edwards. (It looks like BOTH Americas made their feelings known about this political absurdity.)
Hussein has one thing that Hillary doesn't. He has likability, and isn't boldfacedly powermad. he should really change his middle name from "Hussein" to "Fluff", because no living human knows any of his platforms, plans, or strategies, but they enjoy his dancing on "Ellen" and his appearances on "Tyra", and I believe he has mentioned the word "change" one or two times (but then again, all of them have, Republicans included), and also speaks about "hope", "the future"and uh..."change", that's the ticket. I believe people are bamboozled by his fluffiness and lack of appearance on any hard news TV shows. Either that, or they find Hillary so distasteful and they must pick a Democrat, so they will go with him, policies sight unseen.
I'm not asking for perfection, but the standards of the Democrats must be pretty low to even allow Hillary to get as far as she has. Even I would prefer Hussein over her, if a Democrat MUST be elected. That's saying something!
Friday, February 1, 2008
To believe in alien life does not make you a nut
It seems that if you say you believe that aliens exist, or at least have a strong suspicion, you are branded as a nut or some kind of kook by all the people that don't happen to believe. I think it is time for this "aliens definitely don't exist fascism" to end.
We know for a fact that UFO's exist. By this I simply mean things flying around in the sky, that we don't know what they are. Using the strict definition "Unidentified Flying Object." There is plenty of video and eyewitness footage testifying to this. When you couple that with the thousands upon thousands of people that claim to have had encounters, that seems fairly compelling. Now, let's assume most of the people that claim to have seen alien life in person are wrong in some way. It was a hoax (there would be no reason to start a hoax to say you have seen aliens because most people that come out as having had that experience lose jobs, friends, family and the media brands them as a nut and their life is, for all intents and purposes, ruined), they were dreaming (How this could be explained when more than one person is involved, you tell me. Thousands of group hallucinations?), or let's just say most were wrong for the sake of argument. Is it possible that ALL of the people are mistaken? EVERY last one of them? It is rare in life when 100% of something is true. Could this be the only thing? Let's just say that only 1% actually saw alien life. Is that a reason to discount everything we have learned about alien life so far?
You know the popular conception of an alien?
Pretty much this:
Did you ever ask yourself HOW exactly this image got to be known as the famous "alien" that we all know today? Long before this was known or popular, before the internet, people from totally different parts of the world that did not know each other, when asked to describe the alien in their encounter, all pretty much described the above alien. None of these people in these different countries around the world knew each other or had any contact with one another. Don't you think it is interesting that they all described the same thing?
We know for a fact that UFO's exist. By this I simply mean things flying around in the sky, that we don't know what they are. Using the strict definition "Unidentified Flying Object." There is plenty of video and eyewitness footage testifying to this. When you couple that with the thousands upon thousands of people that claim to have had encounters, that seems fairly compelling. Now, let's assume most of the people that claim to have seen alien life in person are wrong in some way. It was a hoax (there would be no reason to start a hoax to say you have seen aliens because most people that come out as having had that experience lose jobs, friends, family and the media brands them as a nut and their life is, for all intents and purposes, ruined), they were dreaming (How this could be explained when more than one person is involved, you tell me. Thousands of group hallucinations?), or let's just say most were wrong for the sake of argument. Is it possible that ALL of the people are mistaken? EVERY last one of them? It is rare in life when 100% of something is true. Could this be the only thing? Let's just say that only 1% actually saw alien life. Is that a reason to discount everything we have learned about alien life so far?
You know the popular conception of an alien?
Pretty much this:
Did you ever ask yourself HOW exactly this image got to be known as the famous "alien" that we all know today? Long before this was known or popular, before the internet, people from totally different parts of the world that did not know each other, when asked to describe the alien in their encounter, all pretty much described the above alien. None of these people in these different countries around the world knew each other or had any contact with one another. Don't you think it is interesting that they all described the same thing?
Humans are still evolving. Did you ever notice that people, even from the 30's and 40's look a little bit different than people do today? And there is a theory that people's pinky fingers are getting smaller and smaller and eventually we as humans will not have a pinky finger. Our features are becoming more and more streamlined as we evolve and adapt to our environment. Now, if Erich Von Daniken is to be believed, Aliens came here in ancient times, and "planted" us. We, as humans, are just aliens that have not fully evolved to their level yet. We will eventually look like that picture above. What we call "aliens" are just humans, evolved millions of years.
The idea that they only visit "backwoods" areas is false and a lie perpetrated by the alien haters. UFO's have been seen in major cities such as New York, Hollywood, St. Louis, Chicago, near Galveston, Texas, Dusseldorf, Germany and most famously, Mexico City. And, I'm sure, many others. I just wish that people would embrace the idea of possible alien life more openly, instead of close-mindedly dismissing it out of hand. Just because the haters cannot conceive of a universe that is unimaginably vast, and, incredibly self- centeredly, simply assuming that humans are the ONLY beings in this unimaginably vast universe, frankly is more mind-blowing than the fact that there probably are aliens. In other words, that there more than likely ARE aliens out there is more plausible to me than assuming humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe. I would just like to say that I'm not a nut, and the time for people that think there probably are aliens that exist to be THOUGHT of as nuts, is long past. That is primitive, bully thinking. Unless you happen to be a nut ANYWAY, independently of believing in aliens. That is another matter entirely, and there are a lot of nuts in the alien game, because of the haters, they have been ghettoized and stigmatized. Now that it is 2008, I think the haters should be thought of as crazy and unrealistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)