Gay Men vs Fags Part II

As I've said before I have some gay men that I consider good friends. I would never have met, or continue to hang out with these guys if it wasn't for them being best friends with Nicole (my fiancé as we go to print), but this is more to do with the fact that I alos have a lot of straight friends that I'm even closer with that I never hang out with; its just a product of a busy life. But since they are Nicole's best friends, I spend a lot more time with them than I do a lot of my straight friends whom I consider myself to be closer with and have a stonger bond with.

That being said, I really love these guys. They are great. They are intelligent and have great senses of humor and know how to party, and 99% of the time, they don't really act that gay. Don't get me wrong, the man on the street would probably peg them immediately, because they are a bit too coiffed and well dressed and stylish. I also have another gay friend who is 100% outwardly straight. 0% indication that he's a poo packer. I met him of my own accord, years ago. And standing next to Freddy, these other two friends would probably be instantly identifiable. But let me get to the point:

A couple of these guys, the slightly gayer to begin with ones, sometimes come out of their shells a bit much. When they've had a few glasses of wine, and around a couple other gay guys, sometimes they'll turn into my definition of a complete flaming fags. Effeminate head cocks, eyelash bats, squealing like a little girl at jokes, valley girl speech, the whole bit. That bothers me a bit because I think its retarded and completely unneccesary but if that's your identity and that's what you feel comfortable with, do what you gotta do, I guess. (Its the "gotta" part that puzzles me though...)

But what really creeps me out is they start referring to their friends and other gay men as, "she," and "her," and, "honey." To me this is the height of the flaming faggotry that I cannot help but despise. Well, I guess despise is the wrong word; too strong of a word. I don't despise anyone unless they are doing harm to someone else. But it really fucking creeps me out never the less, and it makes me uncomfortable and makes me feel like, "Oh my God I have to get out of here I cannot deal with you flaming faggots..."

People can do whatever they want to do, and I'll try not to judge people for that. But its a common sentiment that you hear,
"I have no problem with people being gay, but keep you sex life out the conversation, as long as I don't have to think about what you do behind closed doors, we can get along fine."

Referring to eachother and "she," is just about the equivalent of dropping your pants and going at it on my dining room table. (Well, maybe not. I'd physically throw them out of my house if they did that.) But she and her? that is just psychologically disturbing to me. So you're really NOT an otherwise normal guy who's just attracted to the same sex, you DO have this whole psychological baggage thing and you wish you were a fucking girl? It leaves me with no option but to conclude that it IS a mental illness. Put it back on the books ladies and gentlemen, he just called Rob, "she."

You've got a penis, be a fucking man. I don't care if you like to stick it between hairy muscular buttocks, don't act like a little bitch, or I can't be around you.

Quote of the Day

A large income is the best recipe for happiness I ever heard of.
- Jane Austen

What is the Point of the "Close Door" Button in Elevators?

I doesn't ever work. Its a placebo button. I feel like I'm in some B.F. Skinner experiment, if I push the correct button I'll be rewarded by being taken to the correct floor. If I push the "CLOSE DOOR" button, its supposed to elicit some conditioned response for me to salivate about getting to the proper floor quicker. And I suppose that the little placard that says, "should elevator or doors fail to operate, do not become alarmed, press the red alarm button. There is little chance of running out of oxygen, our staff are on call 24 hours a day and will assist you," is yet another test.

Don't become alarmed, press ALARM? What the fuck is that? I suppose that's the, "you'll get an electric shock if you don't realize the irony of this instruction," parameter of the experiment.

Quote of the Day

Pornography lies about women, but it tells the truth about men.

Fly at Your Own Risk Airlines

I Think someone should start a new airline called, "We Won't Be Cowed Air," or "No Fear Airways," or "Alternative Air." That last one's kinda' catchy.
Essentially it would be an airline where security goes back to pre-9/11 standards, and maybe they do some behavioral profiling ala El Al, (like that, see what I did there?) they put a Marshal on every plane, and maybe if the government gets their act together and overcomes the dogged complexities of MAKING A FUCKING LIST, they could screen passenger names against known terrorists; but essentially, they just go back to pre-9/11 security, hair gel, pocket knives, all of it. Its fast and cheap and they don't violate your privacy or confiscate your property. As long as the cockpit doors are fortified, what's the concern? People should be able to bring anythign on a plane that thay are legally allowed to walk down the street with.

And if you're "brave" enough to fly on this airline, (because in all practicality and according to every TSA, FAA and independent-watchdog-group study, it wouldn't be any less safe than the other airlines under the current procedures) you would actually arrive on-time, un-molested, feeling confident and proud to be an American.

The truth is, post 9/11 airport security is entirely symbolic. It wastes time and money, and doesn't do anything for safety. The same percentage of knives and guns make it through in undercover tests as did pre-9/11. Its all a big horse and pony show to make people feel safer, without actually making them safer. I think I speak for many others when I say that it actually makes me feel far less safe, because current procedures openly display how backwards, poorly thought out, inefficient, and imcompetent TSA really is. So I say, let me keep my lighters and pocket knives and liquids and gels, let my hide my drugs in my shampoo, and if I end up on the 1 in 5 million planes that actually gets hijacked or blown up, I'll take my fucking chances. The chances are far greater that I will die in a car accident on the way to the airport, or that the plane will crash due to some human or technical error, that by terorist attack.

Maybe it could be called, "I Took Statistics In High School Airlines."

Quote of the Day

Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science.
- Gary Zukav

How is it that people feel so confident about cherry picking their way through reality? Doesn't the very act of cherry picking what you'll believe in, undermine your whole reason for believing it? I'm talking about people that reject out right proven facts so they can go on believing their little fairytales that make them feel better about certain psychologically troubling unknowns. If you want to believe that the Earth is 6000 year sold, or that American Indians are a lost tribe of Israelites, you can't also believe in DNA testing, or put money in the NYSE that uses atomic clocks to execute transactions. How can a physical process be valid enough for you to send someone to jail for life, or risk thousands of dollars of your retirement on, but not be valid when it comes to disproving myths that were obviously made up by centuries old tyrants and con-men? Doesn't the belief that a certain physical process is true when you want it to be but not true when you don't want it to be, mean that said physical process can't be trusted at all?

Discrimination Against Animals

I just went down to the cafe to get another snack and saw yet another appauling thing on the State Run Media Channel: apparently a man in Arlington Texas is suing his would be employer because he is so fat he can't fit through the front door of the building, so they told him they were giving the job to someone else. The interview was conducted in a different building, presumably with a wider door.

Im so sick of idiotic irresponsible people blaming someone else for things that are their own stupid fault, and then suing over it. If I don't want to hire a man because he is too fat to show up to work, or because he is such a slob that he grosses out the customers and they patronize my competitor, of course the fucker gets fired. If you are not qualified for the job, you don't get the job. "Qualified" includes managing to be physically present AT the location where the work needs to be done.

If this guy wins, it will set a terrible precedent for the policy of firing employees for showing up to work drunk or high. If this guy isn't responsible for his own unhealthy food addiction, chemical abusers can hardly be responsible for their own unhealthy substance addictions. Addiction has been proven to be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. But caused BY using to much of the shit your addicted to. Sure its a chemical imbalance and can be best treated as a medical condition, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of ending up that way. Its still your fault.

People can't sue others because of their own lack of will power to control themselves. Its kind of what allows you to be called a "person," rather than, "an animal;" the ability to control your behavior. Stop blaming everyone else America, look in the fucking mirror. ITS YOUR FAULT. Even if its not, TOO FUCKING BAD, LIFE ISNT FAIR. Just because your life sucks you can't go around expecting someone who's done nothing wrong to you to pay you for it.

What if We Did Shoot all of the Religious People...Into Space?

1. The planets population would actually be reduced to a sustainable level, probably 1 billion or so.

2. By sheer math, the average IQ would go up about 40 points.

3. 2/3rd of the Republicans Party would be gone.

4. Stem cell research would kick into high gear, hundreds of afflictions would probably be cured in the next 20 years rather than 40.

5. America would be a respectable country on the world theater again.

6. AM radio would be silent.

7. The megachurches could be converted into utterly un-Christian things, like homeless shelters.

8. The EPA would actually protect the environment rather than auctioning it off to industry in order to hasten the rapture.

9. We wouldn't need to pump 20 billion a year into Israel any more, because they wouldn't need to defend themselves against anyone.

10. The only nuclear threat we'd have to worry about was N. Korea. We could give them the 20 bil from Israel, but instead of giving it to Kim himself as a bribe, airdrop small dnomination Korean bills over the towns and villages, along with food and clothes and weapons, so they could over throw him themselves.

11. One that note, the trillion a year we spend on national defense, could be cut by 1/50th, leaving the rest for education, development of renewable energy sources, water desalinization, and generally restoring the health of the planet.

12. There are a gazillion more benefits, but I'm tired of thinking about this.

Muslims Are Really Fucking Stupid

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I absolutely never make sweeping generalizations about race, class, gender, or religion, but jesus christ, muslims are fucking retards. I was just downtairs in the cafe buying a muffin, and they have a TV there that they always keep tuned to the FOX State Television channel, and the lower third graphic is the same story its been since last friday: muslims outraged over Pope's comments. This latest incident only further supports my view that the world would be an entirely better place if we could just take all the Muslims and Christians and put them on Mars, (or maybe Pluto, because that's apparently in a parallel universe now.)


Sure the Pope is almost as retarded as these furious Muslims for saying what he said, but the one minor difference is that Muslims are pretty much wrong about everything, and the Pope is pretty much wrong about everything, except when he mentioned last friday that Muslims trying to spread their religion by the sword are barbaric savages.

So what do the Muslims do to demonstrate that they are not barbaric savages? The same thing they did 6 months ago when they were angry about some cartoons that depicted them as barbaric savages, they riot and kill people and burn everything down and act like barbaric savages.

Wow! Guess we were wrong! What they heck were we thinking? Where do we get off making such accusations, they are certainly not grounded in any kind of reality! Jeepers!

I started this post just to highlight a much simpler concept of retardation, but as soon as I thought about it for half a milisecond I realized the irony of their, "IM NOT RAISING MY VOICE!!!!!" response every time Muslims are publicy accused of being violent uncivilized monsters.

What I was going to say, half a miliscond before, was just that Muslims are really fucking stupid because they always seem to light a car on fire, dance around it shooting guns in the air, and throwing American flags onto the fire. These guys were literally dancing and leaping around. One of them did a little Gene Kelley Singin' in The Rain mid-air double leg pump move. It was hilarious. Another guy threw a flag on the flames, but the rising smoke sort of blew it back off and it landed on the ground, half aflame, so he picked it back up again to thow it back and you could see him recoil because it burnt his forearm a bit as he did so. How highly evolved.

My 1st thought was, uh, the Vatican... is uh... in Italy? But I guess to them the American flag represents the other 6 billion people on earth who are not part of their local tribe of savages.

My second thought was, I fucking hate the US government as much as these guys do, probably more because I actually understand it, yet I don't express that hatred by lighting shit on fire and prancing around shooting bullets into the air. But for Muslims its practically a cultural pastime. Pray 5 times a day, denigrate a few women-dogs, and dance around a buring tire at least once firing guns aimlessly.

If someone were to say, oh, commit an atrocity against my mother, and I caught the son of a bitch, and I lived in a lawless society, I would pretty much shoot him in the head, throw him in a dumpster and be done with it, (well maybe in the balls 1st, and in the head 5 minutes later.)
I certainly would not pluck his eyeballs out, cut off his penis and tongue and shove them down his throat, slice the 1st digit off every finger, disembowel him and string him up to a lampost by his intestines, and then take a shower in his blood as it rains down onto the sidewalk. This is essentially the state we find Sunni's in mass graves all over Iraq, executed by Shiite death squads. Oh I forgot drilling holes in their heads with electric drills. That's very common.

There is a difference between revenge, and being a fucking monster. I guess this is the point where I need to mention that of course, most Muslims are very decent and civilized people, and judging all Muslims by Al Qaeda and Hamas is like judging all white people by the KKK, but the KKK are not on TV every other day causing problem for the entire world and getting millions of people killed. If they were, the other white people would go and crush them in about a week. Its the bad Muslims that are the #1 threat to the global peace right now, and if its such a small minority, why aren't the other Muslims who must be pissed at the bad rap they're getting, DOING something about it? I know, I know, its not that easy.

But the truth is, its not THAT small of a minority, it millions of Muslims, countries full of them. Most of Pakistan for example. Whom, let me mention, we allow to have nuclear weapons and to continue supporting the Taliban. Im going off topic here so lets return to the issue at hand:

Islam fucking sucks. Christianity fucking sucks. Ortodox Jews fucking suck. Hindus, not so bad I guess. Buddhists, rock on. Scientologists... ha! you guys are hilarious, please continue with your amusing comedy routine.

Atheism sucks too, but atheists don't blow themselves up in cafes and dance clubs.
Fuck everyone.

While Im ranting against the idiocy of Christian Fundamentalist Sheep

I was thinking about how its even possible to TRULY believe the Christian fundy line, deep down in your heart of hearts, (far far away from the brain I guess) and how they reconcile the rampant contradictions that must plague then at every turn through the real world, (and through their own story of what even they supposedly believe,) and this occurred to me:

If they believe that Adam and Eve were created by God, and all other humans are descendants of this primordial couple, yet they don't believe in evolution, where do all the races come from? Where do Asian people come from? Chinamen are strikingly absent from the Bible. Come to think of it, EVERYTHING not in the eastern Mediterranean is absent from the Bible, when, according to Genesis, did God create that?

Furthermore, extend the same logic (a word not in the vocabulary of these people) to all the plants and animals that we eat and keep as pets. Were there toy poodle and cabernet sauvignon sections on the Ark?

Do they even believe in DNA?

Aye Chihuahua....

Christian Politicians are Hypocrites

This is fairly obvious in a general sense. I heard a Republican politician use this quote, so I looked it up, and of course found it on a Christian website, but I think it was originally Shakespeare.


"The devil, too, can quote Scripture and deceive men with it. But his use of Scripture is defective. He does not quote it completely but only so much as it serves his purpose. The rest he silently omits." [LW 52:175]

You'd think that people doing such thinly veiled devilish things to their fellow man and to the planet as a whole, while quoting scripture and assuming a position of piousness, might be a bit more wary about throwing around such quotes, but I suppose they are fully confident in the blindness of their constituents.

Its just staggering to me that evil politicians standing on a pulpit claiming to be doing "God's work" essentially say, "Those who quote scripture in order to promote their own self interest are actually evil and not to be trusted."

How fucking blind do you have to be to fall for that!?.....America?

All the great Republicans, and there are several, don't really talk about the Bible much. Any Republican that claims to be holy, is obviously the opposite based alone on their BEING a Republican who claims to be holy. This quote essentially tells you directly, "Don't trust people like me." And they even go so far as to say, the true sign that it's the devil is when the user cherry picks what fits his arguement, and omits the rest.

hmmm, where have I seen this in the public political forum?

No wonder the world hates us. We're fucking morons.

The Vagisil Half-Time Report, Brought to You By Cialis

This Wired blog post by Tom Long, was orginally found
here
"Whoa! Check out those babies. Nice branding, baby."

Well, why the hell not? I mean, is there anything out there that isn't branded these days?

Using symbols and slogans and logos to sell a product or a company has been around for as long as there have been products and companies to sell. But selling, like so much else in this increasingly hyper and over-hyped world of ours, has mutated into something uglier -- call it consumer marketing.

Technology's march only serves the beast. Each advance (if advancing is what it is) diffuses the way we get our information. If we now have 3,089 ways of taking in news and information, the marketing swine will find 3,089 ways of shoving their "buy this" message down your throat, whether you want to hear it or not. There is no escape.

With hundreds of thousands of marketers out there, clamoring to be heard over the din of their collective, orgiastic whoring, you can't read anything, watch anything or go anywhere without a ceaseless assault on your senses. The message, regardless of how subliminal, never varies: Buy this, own this, drink this, drive this, wear this, be this. In order to be cool, you must consume consume consume.

And we flock to the message like proverbial lambs to the slaughter. How many Americans are being eaten alive by consumer debt in order to drive the coolest car, waste a life in front of the coolest computer or plasma-screen TV, drop a bundle in the coolest vacation spot? Ads in glossy magazines -- peopled by hard-bodied, edgy young models Photoshopped to impossible perfection -- determine our look, our smell, even our 'tude. We can all be rebels, man, and look really chic doing it.

Everything's a commodity now, just another way for somebody to make money off of somebody else. Have you watched a baseball game on TV lately? The game itself is almost secondary to all the selling going on, and I mean during the game. Highlights -- the big hit, a great play -- are not simply replayed for your enjoyment. They're sponsored by advertisers, giving us such inanities as "the Toyota Drive of the Game" (big hit) and "the Carl's Jr. In Your Face Play of the Game" (great play).

It seems as if every graphic that flashes on screen, whether it's the score and count or the out-of-town scores, has a corporate logo attached to it. Every other televised sport, from hockey to football, is just as bad.

Marketing's fingerprints are all over popular culture these days. In Hollywood, the art of "product placement" in a mainstream movie gets nearly as much attention as the casting of its prepackaged, bankable star. Plot? Character development? Whatever.

Watch enough of this crap and you become desensitized to it, which, of course, is just what They want you to do. Docile consumers don't think too much, which makes them pliant and easy to sell to.

What's the problem with that, you ask. Simply, mass consumption diminishes us. We shed our individuality like snakeskin to conform to whatever commercial whim is defining "individuality" at a given moment. Think different? How many Apple owners are out there, anyway? Millions? How iconoclastic is that? You want to "think different"? Throw your damned computer out the window and brush up on your cursive.

Surrendering your individuality in order to fit in, to belong, is to surrender both your critical-thinking ability and that natural skepticism so vital to being fully engaged in a participatory, democratic society. The price we pay for sitting back and doing and questioning nothing, distracted by the accumulation of useless stuff while our so-called leaders run amok in the world, has never been more evident than it is today.

- - -

Movie Reviews

Ever wonder what the studios expect us to think when every single movie trailer or poster claims that this film is the best movie of the year? Do they think that we only see that one trailer or poster that happens to be making that claim at that time? Don't they realize that people see more than 1 movie trailer per year, and if every single one of them claims to be the best movie of the year, the consumer is left to realize the physical and mathematical limitation that only one can be #1, and certainly not more than one, let alone ALL of them.

So they really shoot themselves in the foot, as big studios do with just about everything that was probably really cool in earlier stages. Because when everyone all at once says they are #1, whomever they are saying it to, can only assume that none of them are #1, or at least are left to assume that one of them really is, but since they all appear identical its too much detective work to bother trying to figure it out so instead they decide to stay home and watch Deadwood.

Its like in the end of The Three Amigos, when the whole town dresses up as the 3 amigos so that Don Guapo doesn't know who the real 3 amigos are, and therefore, doesn't end up shooting anybody, and instead, is defeated.

I think this is called, the dilution effect. I think so not because I've heard that before, but because I think I'll call it that. Because that's exactly what the studios do. Dilute the market. If they were just a little more honest about the product they are trying to slang, maybe they would sell more of it. Instead of saying, this is absolutely the most heart warming and hilarious romantic comedy of the year, they said, this is a really funny, really cute romantic comedy. And its unique from the others because there is this really well written scene in the park where a bird poops on the guy just as he's introducing himself to the girl, etc etc.
Okay, well maybe just,
"this is a really funny, really cute romantic comedy that you won't want to miss."

I suppose I should address the concept that the studios themselves aren't the ones who make these claims, its actually the critics, but does anyone actually separate the two? The critics quoted are just mouthpieces of the studios. Sure the reviews are independently formed ideas, but the studios get to cherry pick these independently formed ideas and put together only the favorable ones, so really, its not that independent of a critique. No matter how god awful the film, there will always be at least 5 or 6 critics who will say,

"this is the most unbelievably incredibly fantastic movie I've ever seen!!!!! A trillion stars!"

If they expect us to believe these reviews, then they should expect us to believe that there is perpetually going to be a huge disaster tomorrow, every day. Because every time there is a disaster, someone comes forward and says they predicted it, and they can usually prove that they 'predicted' it. This is because every single day, someone somewhere publicly predicts that tomorrow there will be a disaster, and then when one happens, whoever that plucky charlatan is, is "proven" to be psychic.

Perhaps if there were some standardized panel of critics, and this panel was the only source the studios were allowed to cite, and they always had to cite them this panel no matter what, even if the reviews for a particular film were bad, the studios would actually GAIN.
Why?
Because essentially this is what they do already, just not publicly. You might think that if they had to publish this Supreme Panel's opinions, no matter how terrible the review, that would actually be shooting themselves in the foot even more by admitting when movies are horrible, but not really. With the dilution effect, they bring down every film to an average level and destroy any sense of trust. The studios already operate under a system where they know that they produce a majority of money losers, but they bank on those one or two box office giants to carry them through to the next year, and pay for all the losses of the stinkers. There is a term for this but I can find it anywhere on the internet. If they were just honest, they could gain the publics trust, and not dilute everything, and people would start going back to see movies again because they know what they are getting. If those films that are reviewed poorly by the Supreme Panel are doomed to failure before they even release, the net monetary gain of all combined releases is no worse off than it is are under the current system where the studios pay for shit movies with the money that the blockbusters generate.

And most importantly they'd have some level of trust, rather than trying to trick people into seeing bad movies and eventually disenfranchising the entire public into not wanting to take a chance on any movies as all, which is where we are today.

The moral of this story, DONT LIE. Every studio exec has probably learned this the hard way with their wife: its better to be honest and face the consequences that to be caught lying and face THOSE consequences. Usually the wives don't leave you for a lie because they love you more. Audiences aren't so loyal.