Sunday, April 30, 2006
the frigg show friday got me all nostalgic for the old days (daze). and a little weepy. move back chadwick!
i'm going to nyc in june -- it's entirely possible i will not return.
nap time i guess.
Friday, April 28, 2006
i'm just irrationalizing personal knee-jerks. begin fallible sucks. not being able to admit it would suck harder right?
1. You have 10 bucks and need to buy snacks at a gas station, what do you get?
diet dr. pepper, water, copius amounts of red bull
2. If you had to be reincarnated as some sort of sea dwelling creature, what would you be?
3. Who's your favorite redhead?
4. What do you order when you're at a pancake house?
5. Last book you read?
"the chocolate war" -- robert cormier
6. Have you made out with anyone on your friend's list?
almost everyone, soon enough everyone.
7. Describe your favorite pair of underwear.
elastic waistband, doesn't inhibit my junk, fits.
8. Describe the last time you were injured.
9. Of all your friends, with whom would you want to be stuck in the middle of a jungle?
probably jenny sweden, despite having never met her
10. Are there any odd things that make you feel uncomfortable?
only normal things make me uncomfortable
11. Are there any weird things that turn you on?
12. What is the wallpaper on your cell phone?
a giant, gaping vagina
diet something with caffeine
14. Flavor of pudding?
pistachio (also favorite nut)
15. What type of shirt are you wearing?
16. Prescription medication?
love the Rx
17. If you could use only one form of transportation for the rest of your life, what would it be?
that giant white flying dog from "the neverending story"
18. How many people are on your friends list?
19. How many people on your list do you know in real life?
most.. i guess
20. What are you listening to right now?
21. Most recent movie you've watched:
22. Name 3 things you have with you at all times:
watch, throwing stars, guilt
23. Would you rather give or receive a foot massage?
24. Name a teacher you had the hots for:
i've never had a hot-for teacher
25. What is a saying that you use a lot?
move that gigantic cotton candy!
27. What is your favorite part of the chicken?
28. What's your favorite town?
29. Favorite kind of cake?
30. What's the first word that comes to mind right now?
31. When was the last time you saw your mom in person?
32. What makes you feel like puking?
33. Who got you to join myspace?
obviously i don't know otherwise i'd be serving time for having murdered them.
34. What did you have for dinner LAST NIGHT?
lean cuisine motherfucker
35. How long have you been at your current job?
2 years in june
36. Is Tom on your friends list?
he deleted me
37. What's the last thing you said out loud?
38. Look to your left, what do you see?
blake babies poster
39. Who is the last person who spent $100 on you?
40. Who's your favorite villain?
41. What's the last piece of clothing you borrowed from someone?
borrow clothing? i don't think guys really do that.
42. What's the last piece of clothing you bought?
underwear from goodwill
43. What phrase makes you laugh no matter where, when or how?
"you said you didn't like the grease from fried bacon, so i boiled it."
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
our governemtn spends more on big guns and bombs than any other country in the world, nay, in HISTORY. someone please explain to people that a small penis isn't a character flaw -- it's not something you have much control over, and thus shouldn't be delusionally beating or killing people to compensate for. don't bring the rest of us non-aestheticists (invented word) down with you.
what does it say that the phrase "big, swinging dick" is equated to supreme power? and is there something on par concerning vaginas? the big, gaping vagina? doesn't have the same bombast. i blame john "women are things" cassavetes. and of course 9/11. and clinton.
proof that i practice what i preach -- i sold my 30" flat panel monitor in lieu of a 19", which displaces at least half the size. i'm immersed in possession reduction, since they're fleeting anyway, by nature. i'm not going for minimalism necessarily, just a bit of fat-trimming. although i have been listening to alot of philip glass.
also, my left nut for an effective mass transit system in this town. the destitue petrol-dependents out there are probably with me.
Monday, April 24, 2006
yes i realize it's contrary to complain about too many calls on one day and the lack thereof on another. also it's puzzling that i develop a headache on a day in which i'm not being bothered at all. maybe i need to be needed.
actually -- i hate being needed but need to be wanted. or i drank too much caffeine.
oooohhhh god, oh geez. i feel an oncoming cd spending spree. whee.
I Support President Bush on CULTURE OF LIFE!
Dear Pinko Reporter - President Bush asked me to tell you how DISGUSTED us mainstream ultra-evangelicals are with your SICKENING disrespect for human life! He and the Pope are RIGHT about how condom use is immoral interference with life, but plugging drooling zombies into smoothie machines is A-OK. Because even if Terri Schiavo's brain was the size of a marshmallow peep, her eyes were OPEN, and that's PROOF she was THINKING - just like when RONALD REAGAN had NO MEMORY of a criminal conspiracy to sell arms to evildoers. As for ABORTION - the lives of pea-sized womb boogers are WAY more sacred than dumb girls who practically BEG for incestuous rape by dressing like tramps. Besides, everyone knows that parasitic tadpole people deserve PROTECTION - at least until they're born and start begging for pork barrel handouts like education and healthcare, or get convicted by all-white juries for being total retarded minors. So stop QUESTIONING the President's CULTURE OF LIFE, otherwise foreigners think it's OK to be uppity when He wants to bomb Arabiac babies and grandmas who are guilty of terrorism-by-proximity! Sheesh! Read a poster already!
Saturday, April 22, 2006
right now there's some neo-con chucklefucker on c-span beating the drum for war in iran. lick my balls.
in total six retired generals have publicly denounced donald rumsfeld and his competancy as secretary of defense (formerly known as "secretary of war") and his war plan, or lack thereof.
the preznit, months ago, averred that he would find the source of the valerie plame leak (he didn't use the phrase "smoke 'em out," as he did concerning osama bin laden all those years ago, but he wanted to), and scooter libby testifies that the source of the leak was the president himself.
it's no wonder we, the public, are so easily manipulated into focusing our attention on issues like immigration (the public that watches cable news, that is). think about it -- it was the only thing you could read about two weeks ago. and now, where is it? i haven't seen headline one dealing with it in almost a week.
maybe if the mainstream (i don't concede "mainstream,"), or rather CORPORATE, media weren't so willing to carry water for the bushista cosa nostra teabaggers and avoid relevant issues to document tom cruise eating his new baby's placenta, maybe we wouldn't be living in a severely mismanaged america, inc. today.
i incessantly gripe about our system of government. i complain about a myriad of things, but few disconcert me as much as the political state of our country. why is that so? most people, you too -- reading this, could not be more disinterested with politics. i don't blame them; we are brought up by television and hypnotized by the flickering screens of computers, distracted with utterly irrelevant items like who to vote off "american idol" or what to do on the weekend. we have our own lives, and the vast majority of us are probably too busy making ends meet and dealing with our own vices and responsibilities to take notice of what occurs on a grander scale. because the ways in which politics affects us are often so minute, and the changes so gradual, that it slips by unnoticed.
this is why i think the rising gas prices are a good thing. an elevated level of awareness in the populous is almost invaluable.
or how about south dakota banning ALL abortions? no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother's health. who's to say this doesn't set a precedent for other states to follow suit? i'm in louisiana, so you HAVE to know that our state legislation, and maybe a majority of the state citizenry, aren't averse to like legislation.
i don't mean to be a wonk who only bitches about what i perceive as unjust in government (watch a movie called "naked" by mike leigh -- the guy complains about everything but does nothing in the way of offering solutions). public campaign financing would fix about 95% of the problems we face today. politicians would only have to please their constituents (us) and not the corporations that fund their campaigns, their jobs.
also we need a little bit of anarchy. i'm hesitant to use the word "anarchy" becuase it seems so pejorative at face value. how about, reform? a little revolution? non-violent, of course. our elections have become farses in which we pick the lesser of evils. we need more than a dichotomous party system. i commend ralph nader for dipping his toe into the water of a third party, but i still consider him a douchebag for only doing it once every four years. if he were genuine in his intent to create a third party --- green, independent, whatever -- then he would pursue the notion constantly, not just sporadically every four years. in that sense, he's a phony. i regret voting for him in 2000 (not that my vote matters much in louisiana).
speaking of which, the electoral college needs to be eighty-sixed. it's antiquated and not applicable today as it was a couple centuries ago. presidential candidates campaign only in swing states. it makes me feel un-loved. is it any wonder such a small percentage of americans actually vote?
partisanship: it's turned into sports. people toe the party line regardless of their own personal beliefs or consideration for the good of the country as a whole. party loyalty has superceded national loyalty. i don't believe one side is better than the other -- they both suck taint (with the exception of a few individuals -- russ feingold, lincoln chafee). if you want to know my laundry list of qualms with the republican party just peruse every other post i've ever written. my biggest problem with the democrats is their eager willingness to apologize for their liberal values and capitulate to the more moderate wing of the party (the FUCKING dlc, par example, who submarined paul hackett's senate run in ohio because he was a little too frank, a little too much of an iraq war veteran, and a little too likely to win).
fuck it. vote out every incumbent.
currently listening: zero 7 the garden (2006)
Friday, April 21, 2006
i wondered how someone would develop a physical attraction to children like one of the characters. just the thought of it, to me, has the same effect as thinking about having sex with my mother (that dreadful oedipal notion that no man EVER wants in his head, especially during coital and/or masturbatory activities). it evokes a nauseating feeling of vile revulsion; it makes my skin crawl. but it's definitely a physical reaction -- biological, chemical, natural, etc.
the societal norm for men and women is to be attracted to (of age) members of the opposite sex, and most are. for those who are stimulated by people of the same sex, though, wouldn't you think the same physical, biological elements involved in heterosexual attraction exist in them, just for members of the same sex?
it's just so apparent to me that physical attraction is more than just culturally suggested mores -- it's something you can't help. for pedophiles nothing excuses taking advantage of children, but it says something about the nature of human attraction, and homosexuality. that, as i've always thought, it isn't just a choice, as the fred phelpses and jerry falwells of the world would have their sheeple believe (either because they're gay themselves and/or there's money to be made).
i've never really doubted that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with just deciding one way or the other, this is just reinforcement.
also, the movie's opening scene with jon lovitz and jane adams is sublimely cathartic on a personal level.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
lately i've been renting old movies from blockbuster. i considered "how green was my valley" but first read the plot synopsis, and it turns out the movie's NOT about a hooker who makes a ton of money.
not shocking really -- 1941 wasn't the most progressive of times for sex in films. "lolita" didn't come out until 1962 and the innuendo and symbolism alone (if you have a sick mind, as i do, and pick up on them) were considered scandalous, not to mention the plot. i find that drole -- only perverted minds understand the subtext, so the people complaining about the perversion must, by default, be perverted themselves. assumed didacticism isn't temporally dependent apparently. yeah, no shit sherlock.
currently listening: the mendoza line full of light and full of fire (2006)
shannon mcardle is a HOTTIE, and as we all know you have to be physically attractive to make good music. she sounds like a somewhat scaled-back neko case and i like it.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
i watched "hostel" last night, which quentin tarantino "produced." how fantastic it must be to get payed to affix your name to something. the movie: lots of gore, hot naked eastern european chicks (chicks?), not particularly entertaining. overall i never find horror movies that frightening. the scariest movie i've seen was "the mothman prophecies" and it was only pg-13, not that mpaa ratings necessarily mean anything.
it will be a cold day in lafayette when i go see any "scary movie" or "date movie" or any movie michael bay had a hand in making. it would be tantamount to watching "american idol." i'd rather have my eyeball pulled out like the asian girl in "hostel."
me and my incessant puns! do you see what i have to deal with on a regular basis? for fuck's sake.
my blog is going through revisions right now. bear with me, bear in mind that change is good, bear me no ill will.
Monday, April 17, 2006
uncle sam ---> hand ----> up shirt ----> tit ----> squeeze ----> purple.
"hawks" in government and their disciples (religious inference intended) have no such inner inquiry. there is no use in debating, no negotiation or possible capitulation ever necessary. you're either with us or against us.
they deal in absolutes, despite absolutes not existing in nature. everything is gray; true or false questions are inherently inaccurate narratives because all is objective. observing the process will change it. we see a teal car; i say it's blue, you say it's green.
the official definition of teal: "moderate or dark bluish green to greenish blue." who's right? neither of us. both of us.
but recognition of middle ground doesn't seem to be a capability of today's curmudgeons in charge; especially so with the curmudgeon-in-chief. actually, revision: they may be capable of self-scrutiny, but those that are just don't practice it (for money, re-election, and/or power -- the three great motivators).
i constantly quote philosophers who captured certain sentiments perfectly (especially emerson, even though he once wrote, "i hate quotations. tell me what you know."). bertrand russell said, "the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
the best thing about human beings, and maybe the only saving grace, is their (i'm not human, i'm a robot) ability to be intellectually curious about anything and everything. some choose to take advantage, some don't. i have my own theories about why, mostly concerning emotional (im)maturity and nature/nurture bric-a-brac. for some it's a conscious decision -- they're cognizant of certain truths but choose to feign ignorance to further their own personal agendas (again, money/power). for others it's just stupidity.
either they don't see or don't care about (which is worse?) the synergy of humanity; the ontological effects of policies and actions symptomatic of short-sightedness, myopia, greed, malice, and ultimately the externalization of personal demons (daddy didn't love me so i'm going to fuck all these people over).
"since my job was outsourced to an indian computer technician i now hate all foreigners."
"i was robbed by a black person, so all black people are criminals."
generalizations based on singularities are the big, dick-swinging albatrosses of our culture.
although this all is only my opinion and i may be wrong.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
what is this "sex" you speak of
2. How do you flush the toilet in public?
you mean when using a public toilet? either with my foot or not at all.
3. Do you wear your seatbelt in the car?
4. Do you have a crush on someone?
my left hand
5. Name one thing that you start to get tense about if you are close to running out of it:
6. What famous person do you (or other people) think you resemble?
7. What is your favorite pizza topping?
9. Do you crack your knuckles?
10. What song do you hate the most when it gets stuck in head?
my downstairs neighbor is a bitch
11. Did just mentioning that song make it get stuck in your head?
12. What are your super powers?
the ability to blame anything on myself
13. Peppermint or spearmint?
14. Where the fuck are your car keys?
probably with my car, wherever it is
15. Whose answers to this questionnaire do you want to hear?
mine, and mine
16. What's your most annoying habit?
annoying... to me or others? probably the same, drinking
17. Where did you last go on vacation?
18. If you could punch one person in the nose and get away with it? sean hannity
19. What is your best physical feature?
20. What CD is closest to you right now?
21. What 3 things can always be found in your refrigerator?
water, diet something, spilled mystery liquid
22. What superstition do you believe/practice?
25. Do you talk on your cell phone when you drive?
i don't do either, much less simultaneously
27. What song(s) do you sing most often in the shower?
28. If you could go back or forward in time would you and when?
definitely go back in time, to fifth grade, assuming i could maintain my current knowledge
29. What is your favorite Harrison Ford movie?
"the empire strikes back," although i don't like star wars. that one was a real downer, so i like it.
31. What OCD qualities do you have?
i wash my hands 20-30 times a day
32. How many kids do you want to have?
three, and i'd like to own some additional people
33. If you could kiss anyone famous who would it be?
34. Would you really want to kiss someone you didn't know, even if they are famous?
even if they aren't
35. What do you do when no one is watching?
plenty -- noone is ever watching
36. If they made a movie about your life, what actor/actress would play you?
jared from the subway commercials
37. Would you rather die in a blaze of glory or peacefully in your sleep?
38. What candy, from when you were a kid, do you miss the most?
39. What is your favorite kids movie?
40. Favorite musician(s)/bands you've seen in concert?
41. Have you ever been in love?
42. Do you talk to yourself?
for interesting conversation
43. Is there anybody you just wish would fall off the face of the earth?
me, to see where i'd go
Friday, April 14, 2006
while watching internet porn last night on a site called "8th street latinas" it occurred to me, what many coporatists have been saying lately may have credence -- mexicans really do take the jobs americans don't want. snap!
it's sad and funny to watch racist xenophobes rail against the corporatists who like slave labor, in regard to the immigration hoo-ha. personally i love mexicans and the latino community as a whole. with the possible exception of george lopez -- he's just not funny.
i saw a video clip on the news yesterday of anti-protest protesters lighting the mexican flag on fire, saying "burn baby burn." my jaw literally dropped (not unlike the girl from "8th street latinas"). if i had to pick a race to lambaste lately it would be white americans. we suck hard.
why are color commentators for men's sports always men and those of women's sports are usually women? i ask this after an enthralling afternoon of texas a & m and olklahoma women's softball yesterday.
side note -- the UL softball team is ranked 13th in the nation. is that anything?
my laughing buddha tchochke was destroyed this weekend by my cat, uber (borth pictured left). i was heartbroken. i was on my knees repeatedly yelling "there is no god! there is no god!" now i'm worshipping my statue of a non-laughing, more pensive version of buddha. it's not as cheery, but is on top of my television so i can meditate and watch "trading spouses" at the same time.
incidentally, if you're wondering, i don't actually worship anything or watch "trading spouses." also, you shouldn't have been wondering.
myspace has sucked me in, addict-style. i must be the myspace target market: people mesmerized by flashing monitors both at work and home, few real-life friends, a lacking social life, possible self-esteem issues, and a yearning for acceptance and validation from strangers. the "phillip mythos" i can portray on my profile enables me to highlight what i view are my finer points, in all my me-ness.
HOWEVER, i make great strides not to misrepresent myself. inaccurate portrayals on a profile eventually become apparent when you actually meet someone face-to-face, if that is your goal. you always reap what you sow.
i like meeting people from myspace. i'm not one for approaching strangers in bars (at which time noone is really themselves thanks to lady liquor) and frankly have no idea how anyone meets anyone else anymore. it reminds me of a great "seinfeld" quote:
GEORGE: I read somewhere that this Brentano's is the place to meet girls in New York.
JERRY: First it was the health club, then the supermarket, now the bookstore. They could put it anywhere they want, no one's meetin' anybody.
so is the myspace phenomenon something that comes with an embarrassing social stigma? when someone asks how you met person x and you say "on the internet" is it still like saying "i'm a loser who couldn't hack it socially in the non-virtual world?" i'm just trying to keep my finger on the pulse, out of my ass.
while i'm on the myspace topic, it's odd that my goal is to make friends and yet i'm continually trying to whittle down my "friends" list. it seems counterintuitive.
as passover nears my mind is naturally preoccupied with christian fervor. jesus is making a comeback y'all; a "resurrection," if you will. he will lower the price of gas to $10.00 a barrel. he will assist rappers in winning emmy's because they spend $50,000 on diamond-studded crucifixes. he will help football teams win superbowls. he will help chastity dunwoody of cotter, arkansas, win the state lottery and buy cigarettes and more scratch-offs. he will denounce love between anyone but a man and a woman; jesus' definition of love is conditional. he will assassinate hugo chavez, smite the wicked, and finally put an end to the oppression of christians, the scant 90%.
and is there anything more sinful and heavenly than a gigantic cadbury creme egg? methinks not. however the pro-life, anti-choice community reveres eggs of all kinds and must therefore picket the secularism of passover -- how many innocent ounces of cream filling must be aborted before we as a society wake up?. the damn chocolate bunnies and baskets and egg hunts for children. won't soemone please think of the children? why must the cadbury bunny cluck like a chicken? identity crisis? i'll tell you what that is, that thar goddamned rabbit's a homuhsexial, that's what. because as everyone knows, fags cluck.
i'm in the research and develpment phase of internalizing the belief that all people, regardless of gender and any preaching and renunciation of stereotypical attractions to the opposite sex, are at their base motivated first and foremeost by looks. they'll renounce assholes but continue to adore them (i really should have been a better wife, it's my fault). it especially holds true for men, moreso in fact (or at least not as well concealed), but only because it's par for the course for the typical manly-man to objectify women.
you have varying degress of resolve and standards about what you cllaim to be "looking for" in someone else, but most of it is inherent, instinctual lower-maslow-level desire for a suitable birth mate. in colloquial terms, self-aggrandizing horse shit. it undermines every notion of intellectiual progression that humanity has made in terms of relationships.
sex columnists are full of shit, enabling and placating people's desire, imbuing it with noble notions of depth and not being superficial. but the superficiality always lies just beneath the surface (pardon the pun), manipulating the behavior of all.
it's a psycopathic, perpetually horny hand up the puppet asses of every living creature.
adam smith recognized "the invisible hand of capitalism." i lay claim to "the invisible hand of human relationships."
as the famous philosopher master p said: "life ain't nothin' but bitches and money."
was anyone aware that christians are the new jews? i just heard about the attack on easter. what a savages nation. i never realized that the 85 hristian minority in this country was withstanding such persecutional onslaughts.
frankly i wasn't even aware that there were any christians left in this country. are they all in hiding? is this why they don't speak out? i am hereby starting a "save the christians" fund (tax-deductable, of course. checks payable to "cash").
dog bless bill o'reilly and tom delay and rick scarborough and james dobson for pioneering the "save christianity" movement. here's a protest picture of a handful of christians' futile attempts to stem persecution from the homosexual-dominated american majority:
before you know it the reference to "god" in the pledge of allegiance will be ousted. what then? one nation, under canada? concentration camps for christians and evangelicals? we have to stem the tide of secularism right now before we all start treating people as equals, respecting other religions, and, god forbid, embracing actual humanitarian efforts.
lest we want our children being taught that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist, they'll grow up thinking that "the flintstones" is fiction. uh, yabba-dabba-DUH liberal jew media, the earth is olny 6,000 years old. get a bible-loving clue.
a wave of sociopathy just swept over me, exactly as they used to in lives past. my sociopathic tendencies used to be hard core in ye olden days, but since all the mood stabilizers i'm constantly on mitigate whatever inherent bete noires my physiology perpetuates, i'm happily ensconced in the middle, on the journey towards pastel averages.
i'd like a second opinion on this quote i heard the other day: "comedy is tragedy plus time." i guess it holds true for certain things, but no one rule can encompass the innumberable facets that go into comedy. anachronisms can be funny, sure. making fun of terri schiavo -- not so funny during the days leading up to her death (although i did dip into some pre-mortem humor, tactless bastard i am), but a year later, GOLD!
brecht. i grow acerbic of this journey; pondering, weak and weary.
maxim magazine sent me a free copy of their 100th issue, self-heralded as a "mind-altering special collector's edition." how could i not.
this is a men's magazine right? sort of a scaled-back playboy?
everyone in here is very shiny. lots of chicks in scant two-pieces and homosexual male models guised as metrosexuals. plenty of ads for cigarettes, chewing tobacco, alcohol and cologne. i picture broke college guys leafing through the magazine, rubbing cologne samples on their necks and pictures of jessica simpson on their crotches, all while pretending that $3.00 half-gallon of president's choice brand rum they're drinking is actually the new bacardi grandmelon.
just as all those thirtysomething iowa farmers' wives "sex and the city" die-hards watch the show thikning how much they have in common with carrie bradshaw and her fabulous, swinging, single, manhattan lifestyle.
why would one subscribe to maxim? i understand liking to look at hot ladies but doesn't everyone know there's free porn out there? moving pictures with sound. thanks internet.
maxim ---> garbage
a headline in the washington post today read "scores killed by quakes in iran." initially i thought it said "quakers" instead of "quakes" and wondered if somehow quakers were coerced by the bush administration into preemptively attacking iran. "there be weapons of mass idleness in iran there brothers -- time to raise a barn of pain and churn some chaos." it's sad those are the only things about quakers and the amish i know. also the no likey electricity.
incidentally how much will local radio stations play a flock of seagulls if we do publicly bomb iran? they love the obvious cheese of such jokes.
final four weekend: in another life i was an avid college basketball fan, now i'm not an avid anything. as usual i'm pulling for ucla to beat lsu just so the locals have to suck down some disappointment. yes i am that vindictive. if george mason was in my final four bracket a few weeks ago i'd be rolling around in uncut cocaine right now. but probably not. for now tony chachere's will have to do.
appropo of nothing (or everything), here are gandhi's eight sins:
- wealth without work
- pleasure without conscience
- commerce without morality
- worship without sacrifice
- politics without principle
- rights without responsibility
- knowledge without character
- science without humanity
people en masse are oblivious to most things over four feet in front of and all things behind them. on maslow's hierarchy they are the lower-tier life-long revelers (thus the appeal of the lowest common denominator). they run on the wheel to get a pellet to run some more. just trees, no forests, no big pictures whatsoever. no sense of empathy or realization that differences in other humans exist arbitrarily in nature. dog forbid other people reside in the same planar world they do and may be affected by their running and pellet-eating, happy members of the ubiquitous ignorant fuckers association, for fuckers.
they're republicans, jocks, meatheads, elitists, c.e.o.'s, abramoffs, egotists, nurturing child impulses for revenge and possessions and one-upping everyone always just because. money and power aren't means to helping others, just ends in and of themselves. intellectual immaturity leaves their baser instincts free to run rampant and dictate their behavior, so they eschew compassion and thumb their noses at the poor and colored and blame them for being born poor and colored. get off your lazy ass and get a job, go back to mexico amigo.
the fervor perpetuates itself because it's easy; it requires no effort or sacrifice from anyone to blame wrongs on the wronged. it's easy to provoke a fight in the desert and send other people's family to back up your grandstanding with their lives. who wouldn't want such luxury? who wouldn't want the silver spoon birth? the view is great from the hijacked moral high ground.
look at the pyramid. how can that bulbous bottom level not cause me to be pessimistic? why does it have to get narrower towards the top? if there were a divine creator why would he/she/it/oprah have made it so?
i'm bitter. i need to stop reading local letters to the editor. fucking neanderthals. fuck them right in their cro-magnon asses.
i'm having odd cravings for licorice jelly beans and old tom and jerry cartoons, despite despising both. maybe the mind needs a refresher now and then of why it likes and dislikes certain things, especially with alcohol-addled brains like mine. dammit brain, why can't you repress the traumatic and highlight the instances, existent or non-, of personal resounding glory (because pinky, we're trying to take over the world)? fuck.
i watched a great woody allen movie (redundant) yesterday called "anything else." as of now i'm in the process of renting every woody allen movie via lackluster online. i am a woody allen fan. why only now? i don't know.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
why all the fluorescents? cheaper? it seems most businesses use them -- to stem relaxation in employees/customers? blimey.
easter is coming, easter is coming! everyone smear blood over your doors so the ghost of charlton heston won't kill your first born son with a shotgun (it's his right as an american dammit).
i was once catholic. waking up on easter morning to find a basket of candy and accoutrement was the bee's knees. going to church thereafter was not. the same held true for christmas mornings -- you wake up to a bevy of new presents and can't open them until after a six-hour church service. not really six hours, but a child's well of patience does not spring eternal, so it seemed so.
my conclusion: chocolate jesus much better than cardboard communion jesus.
masses during easter and christmas are hilarious. people who only go to church on the highest of holies never know when to stand/sit/kneel. it's so awkward. i may attend easter mass this weekend just for the entertainment. protly not though.
the reading of "the passion" is funny too. the congregation passively mumbling "crucify him, crucify him" would make baby mel gibson cry. lots of going through the motions, which ostensibly is what organized religion is anyway.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Join the Resistance: Fall in Love
Falling in love is the ultimate act of revolution, of resistance to today's tedious, socially restrictive, culturally constrictive, humanly meaningless world.
Love transforms the world. Where the lover formerly felt boredom, he now feels passion. Where she once was complacent, she now is excited and compelled to self-asserting action. The world which once seemed empty and tiresome becomes filled with meaning, filled with risks and rewards, with majesty and danger. Life for the lover is a gift, an adventure with the highest possible stakes; every moment is memorable, heartbreaking in its fleeting beauty. When he falls in love, a man who once felt disoriented, alienated, and confused will know exactly what he wants. Suddenly his existence will make sense to him; suddenly it becomes valuable, even glorious and noble, to him. Burning passion is an antidote that will cure the worst cases of despair and resigned obedience.
Love makes it possible for individuals to connect to others in a meaningful way—it impels them to leave their shells and risk being honest and spontaneous together, to come to know each other in profound ways. Thus love makes it possible for them to care about each other genuinely, rather than at the end of the gun of Christian doctrine. But at the same time, it plucks the lover out of the routines of everyday life and separates her from other human beings. She will feel a million miles away from the herd of humanity, living as she is in a world entirely different from theirs.
In this sense love is subversive, because it poses a threat to the established order of our modern lives. The boring rituals of workday productivity and socialized etiquette will no longer mean anything to a man who has fallen in love, for there are more important forces guiding him than mere inertia and deference to tradition. Marketing strategies that depend upon apathy or insecurity to sell the products that keep the economy running as it does will have no effect upon him. Entertainment designed for passive consumption, which depends upon exhaustion or cynicism in the viewer, will not interest him.
There is no place for the passionate, romantic lover in today's world, business or private. For he can see that it might be more worthwhile to hitchhike to Alaska (or to sit in the park and watch the clouds sail by) with his sweetheart than to study for his calculus exam or sell real estate, and if he decides that it is, he will have the courage to do it rather than be tormented by unsatisfied longing. He knows that breaking into a cemetery and making love under the stars will make for a much more memorable night than watching television ever could. So love poses a threat to our consumer-driven economy, which depends upon consumption of (largely useless) products and the labor that this consumption necessitates to perpetuate itself.
Similarly, love poses a threat to our political system, for it is difficult to convince a man who has a lot to live for in his personal relationships to be willing to fight and die for an abstraction such as the state; for that matter, it may be difficult to convince him to even pay taxes. It poses a threat to cultures of all kinds, for when human beings are given wisdom and valor by true love they will not be held back by traditions or customs which are irrelevant to the feelings that guide them.
Love even poses a threat to our society itself. Passionate love is ignored and feared by the bourgeoisie, for it poses a great danger to the stability and pretense they covet. Love permits no lies, no falsehoods, not even any polite half-truths, but lays all emotions bare and reveals secrets which domesticated men and women cannot bear. You cannot lie with your emotional and sexual response; situations or ideas will excite or repel you whether you like it or not, whether it is polite or not, whether it is advisable or not. One cannot be a lover and a (dreadfully) responsible, (dreadfully) respectable member of today's society at the same time; for love will impel you to do things which are not "responsible" or "respectable." True love is irresponsible, irrepressible, rebellious, scornful of cowardice, dangerous to the lover and everyone around her, for it serves one master alone: the passion that makes the human heart beat faster. It disdains anything else, be it self-preservation, obedience, or shame. Love urges men and women to heroism, and to antiheroism—to indefensible acts that need no defense for the one who loves.
For the lover speaks a different moral and emotional language than the typical bourgeois man does. The average bourgeois man has no overwhelming, smoldering desires. Sadly, all he knows is the silent despair that comes of spending his life pursuing goals set for him by his family, his educators, his employers, his nation, and his culture, without ever being able to even consider what needs and wants he might have of his own. Without the burning fire of desire to guide him, he has no criteria upon which to choose what is right and wrong for himself. Consequently he is forced to adopt some dogma or doctrine to direct him through his life. There are a wide variety of moralities to choose from in the marketplace of ideas, but which morality a man buys into is immaterial so long as he chooses one because he is at a loss otherwise as to what he should do with himself and his life. How many men and women, having never realized that they had the option to choose their own destinies, wander through life in a dull haze thinking and acting in accordance with the laws that have been taught to them, merely because they no longer have any other idea of what to do? But the lover needs no prefabricated principles to direct her; her desires identify what is right and wrong for her, for her heart guides her through life. She sees beauty and meaning in the world, because her desires paint the world in these colors. She has no need for dogmas, for moral systems, for commandments and imperatives, for she knows what to do without instructions.
Thus she does indeed pose quite a threat to our society. What if everyone decided right and wrong for themselves, without any regard for conventional morality? What if everyone did whatever they wanted to, with the courage to face any consequences? What if everyone feared loveless, lifeless monotony more than they fear taking risks, more than they fear being hungry or cold or in danger? What if everyone set down their "responsibilities" and "common sense," and dared to pursue their wildest dreams, to set the stakes high and live each day as if it were the last? Think what a place the world would be! Certainly it would be different than it is now—and it is quite a truism that people from the "mainstream," the simultaneous keepers and victims of the status quo, fear change.
And so, despite the stereotyped images used in the media to sell toothpaste and honeymoon suites, genuine passionate love is discouraged in our culture. Being "carried away by your emotions" is frowned upon; instead we are raised to always be on our guard lest our hearts lead us astray. Rather than being encouraged to have the courage to face the consequences of risks taken in pursuit of our hearts' desires, we are counseled not to take risks at all, to be "responsible." And love itself is regulated. Men must not fall in love with other men, nor women with other women, nor individuals from different ethnic backgrounds with each other, or else the usual bigots who form the front-line offensive in the assault of modern Western culture upon the individual will step in. Men and women who have already entered into a legal/religious contract with each other are not to fall in love with anyone else, even if they no longer feel any passion for their marital partner. Love as most of us know it today is a carefully prescribed and preordained ritual, something that happens on Friday nights in expensive movie theaters and restaurants, something that fills the pockets of the shareholders in the entertainment industries without preventing workers from showing up to the office on time and ready to reroute phone calls all day long. This regulated, commercial "love" is nothing like the passionate, burning love that consumes the genuine lover. These restrictions, expectations, and regulations smother true love; for love is a wild flower that can never grow within the confines prepared for it but only appears where it is least expected.
We must fight against these cultural restraints that would cripple and smother our desires. For it is love that gives meaning to life, desire that makes it possible for us to make sense of our existence and find purpose in our lives. Without these, there is no way for us to determine how to live our lives, except to submit to some authority, to some god, master or doctrine that will tell us what to do and how to do it without ever giving us the satisfaction that self-determination does. So fall in love today, with men, with women, with music, with ambition, with yourself. . . with life!
One might say that it is ridiculous to implore others to fall in love—one either falls in love or one does not, it is not a choice that can be made consciously. Emotions do not follow the instructions of the rational mind. But the environment in which we must live out our lives has a great influence on our emotions, and we can make rational decisions that will affect this environment. It should be possible to work to change an environment that is hostile to love into an environment that will encourage it. Our task must be to engineer our world so that it is a world in which people can and do fall in love, and thus to reconstitute human beings so that we will be ready for the "revolution" spoken of in these pages—so that we will be able to find meaning and happiness in our lives.
What if everyone decided right and wrong for themselves, without any regard for conventional morality? What if everyone did whatever they wanted to, with the courage to face any consequences? What if everyone feared loveless, lifeless monotony more than they fear taking risks, more than they fear being hungry or cold or in danger? What if everyone set down their "responsibilities" and "common sense," and dared to pursue their wildest dreams, to set the stakes high and live each day as if it were the last? Think what a place the world would be!