Janeane Garofalo used to do this comedy routine about the absurd arguments between different religions all based on the word of a book, and how it was as if people had declared "The Bridges of Madison County" sacred ground on which nobody builds. It's disturbing just how accurate an interpretation that is.
CNN's Christiane Amanpour did a three-part special report entitled "God's Warriors" where she looked at extremists in the three major monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The impression you come away with can only be described as appalled disbelief. You normally assume that people turn to religion to find peace and satisfaction. But instead, many of these people couldn't be more miserable. Everything angers them, everything hurts them, and they are constantly dissatisfied with everything. Not only that, but when peace and accomodation become possible, they often provoke conflict where there was none.
It's maddening, and it's enough to make a rational person think that the whole lot of them are completely insane from start to finish. Jewish settlers who are surprised when Arabs are mad that they've been kicked off the land they own, and blame the Arabs for the atrocities of Germans. Muslim women who are angry when Westerners question the fact that they have to be covered head-to-toe, and yet act surprised when they aren't allowed to run for public office in the theocracies they defend so vehemently. And Christians...oh those American Christians.
I can't speak as authoritatively on other religions because while I've read a lot, I've never lived them. Christianity, though...I've had an insiders look, and sometimes it's terrifying. There's a distinct difference between "Christianity": the philosophical belief that promotes charity, humility, love, and moral behavior; and the special brand of Christianity that we think of when we see television evangilists, Republican Senators, and homeschool documentaries. They talk about abortion and gay marriage as though Jesus and Moses had reached down from Heaven and personally written a whole new book of the bible about them. Yet greed and gluttony, which are mentioned in the same book as being worse sins than sleeping with a man, are given a pass. Did they get a special Bible decoder ring that the rest of us didn't, which tells them which sins god really cares about, and which ones he was just kidding about? It's okay to be fat, and materialistic, and step over homeless people on the street...but don't even think about telling someone of the same sex that you love them, cause that's just wrong.
In all the religions, the broader themes of the religions - things like love, good works, introspection, peace - are overlooked in favor of minutae. Things like dress codes, holy sites, and ritual take precedence over actual substance and real character. The worst part is that whole new generations of young people are being privately schooled away from any differing viewpoints, indoctrinated and brainwashed, and left with an even more narrow, watered down, unwaveringly selective view of these faiths. Like the kids in Teen Mania (seriously, that name alone is telling) who blame popular music and Paris Hilton for the fact that their parents abandoned them and that they liked drinking and having sex in high school. If listening to music makes you do bad things, it's not because of the music, it's because you're an idiot. Playing violent video games doesn't make you commit violence - being a poorly raised psychopath who thinks Grand Theft Auto is tame does.
And if your faith makes you want to fight other people, it's not because god wants you to, it's because you're a jerk.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Life Begins at Contemplation
Anyone who pays attention to politics, or at least the polarizing, media-hyped, red-state/blue-state politics that is trumpeted during any election - or the 2 years leading up to one - are presented with certain bullet points; one being that Republicans hate all non-white people and Democrats want Mexican Islamic terrorists to move into your neighborhood and date your daughter. Another is that Republicans think life begins at the mere thought about having sex with your girlfriend while Democrats think children up to 8 years of age can be murdered as long as it's for "a good reason". Exaggerations? Yes. Far from how it's usually depicted? No. Abortion is a divisive issue for many people which would be perfectly understandable to me except many of those same people don't care so much when it comes to genocide ("That's all the way over on another continent") or the death penalty ("It says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - unless they kind of deserve it").
Here's the dirty little secret though that nobody tells you...
During President Clinton's terms in office, the number of abortions performed nationwide went down each year. During President Bush's terms, those numbers have gone up. Why? Well, it could have something to do with moral leadership, seeing as how Bill Clinton had morals (aside from the whole adultery thing) and George Bush has PR people to say he has morals. But really, it's much colder and simpler. When people have money, jobs, and educational opportunities, they have fewer abortions. See, people with money are more likely to have the baby since they'll actually be able to feed and clothe the baby. People with good jobs will actually have the baby when they're pregnant because they'll have health insurance to take care of it and won't have to be worried about finding someone willing to hire them while they're 6 months pregnant. And people who are educated are smart enough to not spend all of their free time on their back with their drunken paramour and are also wise enough to use contraception. However, when you're the kind of President who tells schools that condoms and sex education are sinful and abstinence is the only thing worth teaching, then when teens eventually do have sex - and they will - then they do it unsafely and before they are intellectually and emotionally prepared. That's what leads to abortions.
And oddly enough, the perceived sin of contraception in America also leads to abortions the world over. See, President Reagan in all of his wisdom initiated a policy that prevents the United States from providing aid of any kind to overseas clinics that perform or even inform people about the option of abortion. That aid includes contraceptives. We are so appalled that they are giving abortions to people who are unintentionally pregnant that we are refusing to give them the tools to prevent those people from having more unplanned pregnancies and thus...more abortions. Cause really, if you let it happen once, chances are you may let it happen again.
The House of Representin' just passed a bill that would overturn that policy, and no doubt if it passes the Senate, President Bush will be waiting with his stamp and pen to veto it, but honestly, how irresponsible is that? I can understand if he doesn't want to give them money because that could be used to actually facilitate abortions. But this is just giving them contraceptives...a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus prevent abortions. I believe in personal responsibility, and believe that no one should ever have an abortion if only because no one should ever put themselves in a situation to become pregnant when they aren't willing and/or able to take care of that child - though of course that's sometimes unpreventable. So, like most Democrats, I believe the mantra that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare". President Bush however seems to think they should be "illegal, dangerous, and performed often instead of educating people on safe sex, encouraging responsible behavior, and trying to help poor people to a level where they can economically take care of a family" (albeit that is a much less-catchy mantra).
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say "How dare you, Republicans, be supporting more abortion! I for one think there should be fewer abortions, and that's why I support this bill!"
That would make an awesome bumper sticker.
Here's the dirty little secret though that nobody tells you...
During President Clinton's terms in office, the number of abortions performed nationwide went down each year. During President Bush's terms, those numbers have gone up. Why? Well, it could have something to do with moral leadership, seeing as how Bill Clinton had morals (aside from the whole adultery thing) and George Bush has PR people to say he has morals. But really, it's much colder and simpler. When people have money, jobs, and educational opportunities, they have fewer abortions. See, people with money are more likely to have the baby since they'll actually be able to feed and clothe the baby. People with good jobs will actually have the baby when they're pregnant because they'll have health insurance to take care of it and won't have to be worried about finding someone willing to hire them while they're 6 months pregnant. And people who are educated are smart enough to not spend all of their free time on their back with their drunken paramour and are also wise enough to use contraception. However, when you're the kind of President who tells schools that condoms and sex education are sinful and abstinence is the only thing worth teaching, then when teens eventually do have sex - and they will - then they do it unsafely and before they are intellectually and emotionally prepared. That's what leads to abortions.
And oddly enough, the perceived sin of contraception in America also leads to abortions the world over. See, President Reagan in all of his wisdom initiated a policy that prevents the United States from providing aid of any kind to overseas clinics that perform or even inform people about the option of abortion. That aid includes contraceptives. We are so appalled that they are giving abortions to people who are unintentionally pregnant that we are refusing to give them the tools to prevent those people from having more unplanned pregnancies and thus...more abortions. Cause really, if you let it happen once, chances are you may let it happen again.
The House of Representin' just passed a bill that would overturn that policy, and no doubt if it passes the Senate, President Bush will be waiting with his stamp and pen to veto it, but honestly, how irresponsible is that? I can understand if he doesn't want to give them money because that could be used to actually facilitate abortions. But this is just giving them contraceptives...a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus prevent abortions. I believe in personal responsibility, and believe that no one should ever have an abortion if only because no one should ever put themselves in a situation to become pregnant when they aren't willing and/or able to take care of that child - though of course that's sometimes unpreventable. So, like most Democrats, I believe the mantra that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare". President Bush however seems to think they should be "illegal, dangerous, and performed often instead of educating people on safe sex, encouraging responsible behavior, and trying to help poor people to a level where they can economically take care of a family" (albeit that is a much less-catchy mantra).
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say "How dare you, Republicans, be supporting more abortion! I for one think there should be fewer abortions, and that's why I support this bill!"
That would make an awesome bumper sticker.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The First Amendment Extends to High Fives
In fact, I think the original text was "The necessity of demonstrating through physical means the awesomeness of a given event, the right to High Five your bros shall not be infringed". Damn John Adams had to stand in the way, yet again.
A school in Vienna, Virginia has a strict "no touching" policy, which makes sense when you consider that most touching between adolescents is inappropriate, whether it's the awkward groping of the first "for reals" girlfriend, the homoerotic ass slapping of "straight" athletes, or the numerous physical tortures perpetrated on the whole of the chess team/av club. So really, on the surface it seems normal. But this policy is so strict in fact that a student got in trouble for putting his arm on his girlfriend's shoulder when he leaned down to say something to her at her lunch table. Surely, you would think that even in this hyper-sensitive, overly-cautious, dateline-myspace-predator obsessed day and age we could distinguish and allow for consensual, non-sexual, non-violent touching. Of course, you'd be wrong.
On CNN, they spoke to the head of the PTA (because the school was at least smart enough not to try and defend such a crazy policy). This woman then espoused the dangers of even the "high-five" (as the kids are calling it these days). Her reasoning is this: when you and your buddy are high-fiving in the hallway, of course other people are gonna wanna get in on that action. Soon a third person is high-fiving you, then four, then five people are high-fiving in a virtual orgy of celebratory hand-slapping. In such a situation, traffic in the hallway would come to a complete standstill as, almost contagiously, all of the students break into spontaneous high-fives. Elbows would fly, legs would kick, and people would be bound to get hit in the head. Despite my exaggerations, that last sentence was literally what she said would happen. I mean, I know just what she's saying. When you and your friends are high-fiving, you get so caught up that you can't help but kick your heels and flail your arms wildly. Sure, someone always gets hit in the eye, and more than once I've had a friend end up in the hospital, but it's so worth it for an awesome, full-power high-five.
The other argument for the policy, suggested by the school, is that some handshakes are actually secret gang signs. Luckily though, if you don't allow people to do those handshakes in school, the entire gang network breaks down. In fact, the only reason I ever joined a gang was for the cool handshakes. If I couldn't high-five my gangmates (that's what they call them, right?) in school the next day after a sweet drive-by shooting, I don't think I would have joined. "Hardly worth it," I would have said.
The only thing possibly more absurd was the father of the boy who was at the center of the news story that first sent me on this rant. Just as he was proclaiming that high-fives are constitutionally guaranteed as free speech (though not in as concise terms or complete sentences for that matter) he also stated that people of other cultural heritages who attend the school who might not be so into physical contact in the classroom should adapt to be more American when they come here...you know, since the things we do make so much sense.
It's so much harder when you disagree with everyone on every side of an issue.
A school in Vienna, Virginia has a strict "no touching" policy, which makes sense when you consider that most touching between adolescents is inappropriate, whether it's the awkward groping of the first "for reals" girlfriend, the homoerotic ass slapping of "straight" athletes, or the numerous physical tortures perpetrated on the whole of the chess team/av club. So really, on the surface it seems normal. But this policy is so strict in fact that a student got in trouble for putting his arm on his girlfriend's shoulder when he leaned down to say something to her at her lunch table. Surely, you would think that even in this hyper-sensitive, overly-cautious, dateline-myspace-predator obsessed day and age we could distinguish and allow for consensual, non-sexual, non-violent touching. Of course, you'd be wrong.
On CNN, they spoke to the head of the PTA (because the school was at least smart enough not to try and defend such a crazy policy). This woman then espoused the dangers of even the "high-five" (as the kids are calling it these days). Her reasoning is this: when you and your buddy are high-fiving in the hallway, of course other people are gonna wanna get in on that action. Soon a third person is high-fiving you, then four, then five people are high-fiving in a virtual orgy of celebratory hand-slapping. In such a situation, traffic in the hallway would come to a complete standstill as, almost contagiously, all of the students break into spontaneous high-fives. Elbows would fly, legs would kick, and people would be bound to get hit in the head. Despite my exaggerations, that last sentence was literally what she said would happen. I mean, I know just what she's saying. When you and your friends are high-fiving, you get so caught up that you can't help but kick your heels and flail your arms wildly. Sure, someone always gets hit in the eye, and more than once I've had a friend end up in the hospital, but it's so worth it for an awesome, full-power high-five.
The other argument for the policy, suggested by the school, is that some handshakes are actually secret gang signs. Luckily though, if you don't allow people to do those handshakes in school, the entire gang network breaks down. In fact, the only reason I ever joined a gang was for the cool handshakes. If I couldn't high-five my gangmates (that's what they call them, right?) in school the next day after a sweet drive-by shooting, I don't think I would have joined. "Hardly worth it," I would have said.
The only thing possibly more absurd was the father of the boy who was at the center of the news story that first sent me on this rant. Just as he was proclaiming that high-fives are constitutionally guaranteed as free speech (though not in as concise terms or complete sentences for that matter) he also stated that people of other cultural heritages who attend the school who might not be so into physical contact in the classroom should adapt to be more American when they come here...you know, since the things we do make so much sense.
It's so much harder when you disagree with everyone on every side of an issue.
Monday, June 11, 2007
You're Just Never Satisfied
You know what bugs me about modern media? It has become too interactive. You can look up things at your leisure on the internet, or text in your votes with your cell phone, or e-mail the pundits your opinions, or get the DVD with 10 different possible endings because the studio wanted to satisfy every single person in the world. People have so many options, and so much input, that they start to feel like other people owe them; they start to feel like they should have some sort of creative input into everything.
Worst of all is television. Take, for example, Lost. This year, it got tons of flack from fans, who also gave it intermitent flack last year, because they wanted all of the mysteries answered in every episode. Of course, that would be stupid since if you answered all of the questions, it would no longer be a mystery, and then you'd just have a show about a bunch of people who used to be stranded on an island, and where's the fun in that?
But their complaint was that the show wasn't what they wanted, and yet they continued to watch it, or at least talk about it, when really...the show was what it always was. Plus, it was free, so they were free to just watch something else or nothing at all. My feeling with creative endeavours, whether they be books or movies, music or television is that people have a story to tell...if it entertains me and I enjoy it, so be it. If not, then I'll find that somewhere else and maybe someone other than me will enjoy what they have to say. When American Idol comes on I don't watch it and complain about what I want the show to be...I just don't watch it. It's their show, not mine.
The other problem is that people start to blame the artist for the audience's expectations. My sister will often complain about a perfectly good movie she saw simply because it wasn't what she thought it would be. Meaning, she sees the trailer and, for whatever reasons, thinks the solution to the mystery was going to be more supernatural or that the romance of the lead characters was going to be a bigger deal, and then blames the movie for not being what she expected or wanted rather than being pretty good at what it was. A movie or a show is what it is, or at least what the makers want it to be. Should it be their fault that it isn't what we expect, even if our expectations are based on nothing to do with them?
My point is about The Sopranos. A show I like, but probably not as the be-all-end-all that some people think. It's a quality show that is interesting, unconventional, and at times insightful. Is it the word handed down by some supreme deity to change our world like the monolith from 2001? No, nor does it need to be. It is what it is, and quite good at it. But, somewhere during the long break between the 5th and 6th season, people seem to have forgotten what that show was really about. In their memories, they remember all of the crazy hits, the strippers, the drugs, the mob fights and surprises. What they don't seem to remember is that 80% of the show was always therapy sessions, dream sequences, ambiguous glances, and silent scenes with characters deep in thought. The problem is The Sopranos was an unconventional show from the start, but it also attracted a huge audience of people who would be equally pleased if every episode was just wall-to-wall sex with strippers with brief interludes of massive explosions killing dozens of people with no talking whatsoever. They complain that this show has gotten worse, and there's not as much action, but if they were paying attention, this show is exactly what it has been all along. It's barely changed at all.
So why are they all so up in arms about the finale? First, is there any ending that would have pleased everyone? Some people wanted Tony to die, or to end up in jail, or they wanted Phil and everyone he knows to die, and others wanted AJ to kill himself or Meadow to die or Janice to become a mob boss or any number of crazy theories, none of which would have made anyone happy. If anything, David Chase gave the audience exactly what it wanted...an ending that implied something, but left enough room for people to interpret whatever ending they wanted.
The fact is, the show is what it always has been, and nothing would have satisfied people's expectations. The finale of The Sopranos was great, if only because it knew that it was better to serve the needs of the show than the varied and unreasonable expectations of a fickle and uncreative audience. They complain that this ending was open ended, but what ending wouldn't have been? Nothing is ever completely wrapped up. Unless the show ended with Tony building a doomsday device that would blow up the entire Earth, then after the show ended, these characters were always going to go on and do other things and live their lives without us watching. At least they didn't try to have some cheesy or sappy or silly ending (like Seinfeld perhaps) that would have betrayed the essence of the show. Stop bitching people. David Chase doesn't owe you anything. You don't like the ending, too bad, it's not their fault. It's yours. Go buy Sex in the City on DVD and enjoy it.
Worst of all is television. Take, for example, Lost. This year, it got tons of flack from fans, who also gave it intermitent flack last year, because they wanted all of the mysteries answered in every episode. Of course, that would be stupid since if you answered all of the questions, it would no longer be a mystery, and then you'd just have a show about a bunch of people who used to be stranded on an island, and where's the fun in that?
But their complaint was that the show wasn't what they wanted, and yet they continued to watch it, or at least talk about it, when really...the show was what it always was. Plus, it was free, so they were free to just watch something else or nothing at all. My feeling with creative endeavours, whether they be books or movies, music or television is that people have a story to tell...if it entertains me and I enjoy it, so be it. If not, then I'll find that somewhere else and maybe someone other than me will enjoy what they have to say. When American Idol comes on I don't watch it and complain about what I want the show to be...I just don't watch it. It's their show, not mine.
The other problem is that people start to blame the artist for the audience's expectations. My sister will often complain about a perfectly good movie she saw simply because it wasn't what she thought it would be. Meaning, she sees the trailer and, for whatever reasons, thinks the solution to the mystery was going to be more supernatural or that the romance of the lead characters was going to be a bigger deal, and then blames the movie for not being what she expected or wanted rather than being pretty good at what it was. A movie or a show is what it is, or at least what the makers want it to be. Should it be their fault that it isn't what we expect, even if our expectations are based on nothing to do with them?
My point is about The Sopranos. A show I like, but probably not as the be-all-end-all that some people think. It's a quality show that is interesting, unconventional, and at times insightful. Is it the word handed down by some supreme deity to change our world like the monolith from 2001? No, nor does it need to be. It is what it is, and quite good at it. But, somewhere during the long break between the 5th and 6th season, people seem to have forgotten what that show was really about. In their memories, they remember all of the crazy hits, the strippers, the drugs, the mob fights and surprises. What they don't seem to remember is that 80% of the show was always therapy sessions, dream sequences, ambiguous glances, and silent scenes with characters deep in thought. The problem is The Sopranos was an unconventional show from the start, but it also attracted a huge audience of people who would be equally pleased if every episode was just wall-to-wall sex with strippers with brief interludes of massive explosions killing dozens of people with no talking whatsoever. They complain that this show has gotten worse, and there's not as much action, but if they were paying attention, this show is exactly what it has been all along. It's barely changed at all.
So why are they all so up in arms about the finale? First, is there any ending that would have pleased everyone? Some people wanted Tony to die, or to end up in jail, or they wanted Phil and everyone he knows to die, and others wanted AJ to kill himself or Meadow to die or Janice to become a mob boss or any number of crazy theories, none of which would have made anyone happy. If anything, David Chase gave the audience exactly what it wanted...an ending that implied something, but left enough room for people to interpret whatever ending they wanted.
The fact is, the show is what it always has been, and nothing would have satisfied people's expectations. The finale of The Sopranos was great, if only because it knew that it was better to serve the needs of the show than the varied and unreasonable expectations of a fickle and uncreative audience. They complain that this ending was open ended, but what ending wouldn't have been? Nothing is ever completely wrapped up. Unless the show ended with Tony building a doomsday device that would blow up the entire Earth, then after the show ended, these characters were always going to go on and do other things and live their lives without us watching. At least they didn't try to have some cheesy or sappy or silly ending (like Seinfeld perhaps) that would have betrayed the essence of the show. Stop bitching people. David Chase doesn't owe you anything. You don't like the ending, too bad, it's not their fault. It's yours. Go buy Sex in the City on DVD and enjoy it.
Monday, March 26, 2007
No Place Like Homeworld
So earlier today I was watching the BBC/Discovery Channel series "Planet Earth" because hey, who doesn't like to hear about their own planet. It's easy, especially when you live in a densely urban metropolis like New York City (or all of New Jersey for that matter), that there are vast stretches of the world that don't have buildings and electricity and highways and Fox News (oh what a wonderful place that would be). The things that are out there, and down there and way up there, are mind-blowing (much like last night's season finale of Battlestar Galactica, but let's not go there). It's impressive, and a little sad too given that many of these creatures are bound to die out because of human expansion.
To be fair, nature is harsh, and when one species expands, others tend to suffer, and I'm not suggesting that it should be us to suffer. I'm supporting the home team. But as much as possible, we should protect the natural world, if only so we can go make interesting documentaries about it. For instance, feel free to eradicate all of the viruses you want, and the giant, creepy looking fish that live in the depths of the oceans can f*ck themselves for all I care. But really, we can stretch our legs, build our cities, and still find room for Elephants and Penguins, right? With only minimal effort we can reserve some biodiversity. If you want to think of it in selfish terms, the more species there are, the more we can learn about life in general and perhaps one day we'll learn that the cure for cancer can be found in some obscure creature that we were just paving over, literally.
It should also be noted that studies have found that humans have a natural fondness for the appearance of young animals, especially mammals. Now, it doesn't take a detailed study to tell me that baby polar bears are adorable, but they've found that this adoration crosses species, meaning that even a Wolf thinks it's adorable when your kid runs around the house in his feety pajamas. Genetically, naturally, we have an inclination to be fond of the young...meaning that across the board we are less likely to kill young creatures, even though they are helpless and it would be easy, thus ensuring that more animals will survive to adulthood. So it's not just tree-hugging hippies, but all people who are, through the miracle of evolution, compelled to protect life, even when it's not our own or even our own species'.
But on that note, what is wrong with Germans? Yes, that's a phrase I've probably used often, but I'm sure you've heard of the German "environmentalists" who are demanding a baby polar bear in captivity be killed because it's mother rejected it. Their argument is that in the wild, without its mother caring for it, it would be dead, and so the natural thing to do is kill it. But really, once you're taking animals out of the wild and putting them in small cages where you feed them out of a bucket at regular intervals, haven't you thrown natural selection out the window. Yes, nature is cruel sometimes, but that doesn't mean we have to keep it going. This bear is most likely never going back out into the wild, and if it does, sure it may not be able to take care of itself, but that's no reason we have to end its life now. You know what, if a human baby was rejected by its mother and left in the wild, it would die too, but we still have orphanages. We don't leave them to fend for themselves. It's one thing to allow nature to happen and not want to interfere in natural occurences, but it's quite another to idolize nature as though anything that happens naturally should be encouraged or idolized. There's a reason people built societies, because nature has a lot of flaws.
So, to some up: Nature can be stupid, but let's try to keep a lot of it just in case. Also, feel free to kill anything with tentacles, cause those things freak the hell out of me.
To be fair, nature is harsh, and when one species expands, others tend to suffer, and I'm not suggesting that it should be us to suffer. I'm supporting the home team. But as much as possible, we should protect the natural world, if only so we can go make interesting documentaries about it. For instance, feel free to eradicate all of the viruses you want, and the giant, creepy looking fish that live in the depths of the oceans can f*ck themselves for all I care. But really, we can stretch our legs, build our cities, and still find room for Elephants and Penguins, right? With only minimal effort we can reserve some biodiversity. If you want to think of it in selfish terms, the more species there are, the more we can learn about life in general and perhaps one day we'll learn that the cure for cancer can be found in some obscure creature that we were just paving over, literally.
It should also be noted that studies have found that humans have a natural fondness for the appearance of young animals, especially mammals. Now, it doesn't take a detailed study to tell me that baby polar bears are adorable, but they've found that this adoration crosses species, meaning that even a Wolf thinks it's adorable when your kid runs around the house in his feety pajamas. Genetically, naturally, we have an inclination to be fond of the young...meaning that across the board we are less likely to kill young creatures, even though they are helpless and it would be easy, thus ensuring that more animals will survive to adulthood. So it's not just tree-hugging hippies, but all people who are, through the miracle of evolution, compelled to protect life, even when it's not our own or even our own species'.
But on that note, what is wrong with Germans? Yes, that's a phrase I've probably used often, but I'm sure you've heard of the German "environmentalists" who are demanding a baby polar bear in captivity be killed because it's mother rejected it. Their argument is that in the wild, without its mother caring for it, it would be dead, and so the natural thing to do is kill it. But really, once you're taking animals out of the wild and putting them in small cages where you feed them out of a bucket at regular intervals, haven't you thrown natural selection out the window. Yes, nature is cruel sometimes, but that doesn't mean we have to keep it going. This bear is most likely never going back out into the wild, and if it does, sure it may not be able to take care of itself, but that's no reason we have to end its life now. You know what, if a human baby was rejected by its mother and left in the wild, it would die too, but we still have orphanages. We don't leave them to fend for themselves. It's one thing to allow nature to happen and not want to interfere in natural occurences, but it's quite another to idolize nature as though anything that happens naturally should be encouraged or idolized. There's a reason people built societies, because nature has a lot of flaws.
So, to some up: Nature can be stupid, but let's try to keep a lot of it just in case. Also, feel free to kill anything with tentacles, cause those things freak the hell out of me.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Why You Gotta Pick on the Fat Kid?
Everyone gets a label. At some point everyone latches on to a particular aspect of a person and that becomes their defining feature, even if that feature changes or completely dissappears. It's simplistic and often mean-spirited, but there's no doubt that it's the way it is.
And so it goes that Al Gore can't be mentioned in any sentence without an adjacent sentence mentioning his weight gain. I feel like the news media, in their attempts to be viewed as balanced assume that if they are going to mention something positive about Al Gore that it has to be tempered with something negative...like "Al Gore starred in an Academy Award winning documentary, but hasn't he let himself go."
That's right, fatty. I know we're supposed to be talking about global warming or whatever, but let's talk about your weight first. Every news report, every article, every mention of Al Gore now comes with a requisite mention of his Oscar win (which is always wrong because even though it was undoubtably his achievement, he himself did not win the Oscar since he didn't direct the film) and a mention of his weight gain. It's not like he's suddenly morbidly obese and can't fit through his front door, which might at least be newsworthy psychologically speaking. What does his weight or appearance have to do with anything he's saying or anything that's being reported about him?
That's especially true when you consider that this is a country where the majority of the people are overweight. Al Gore, a man who was voted for by a majority of the people, has simply become a little more like them...physically. You might also remember that this was the same treatment Bill Clinton got when he entered office. There were no scandals yet, and he was trying to talk about National Health Care and ending discrimination in the armed forces...but all people could mention was his love of fast food.
We've had Presidents who were dangerously obese, and any number of people in the Senate, the Judiciary, and every facet of average american life who are not merely overweight, but rotundly fat...but Al Gore gains a couple of pounds and suddenly that overshadows his message. I suppose we only take our threats of global destruction from people with six-pack abs. Well, maybe he's been too busy crisscrossing the country trying to warn people about the ongoing destruction of our natural environment to stay in shape. Really, if most people can't find time between their 9-5 and watching American Idol to work out, why should we expect more of Al Gore who actually has something important to say? Why do people take such joy in mocking the appearance of others? And why should it be mentioned anywhere in a discussion of news? Well, that's when journalism becomes merely gossip with a few facts thrown in.
And so it goes that Al Gore can't be mentioned in any sentence without an adjacent sentence mentioning his weight gain. I feel like the news media, in their attempts to be viewed as balanced assume that if they are going to mention something positive about Al Gore that it has to be tempered with something negative...like "Al Gore starred in an Academy Award winning documentary, but hasn't he let himself go."
That's right, fatty. I know we're supposed to be talking about global warming or whatever, but let's talk about your weight first. Every news report, every article, every mention of Al Gore now comes with a requisite mention of his Oscar win (which is always wrong because even though it was undoubtably his achievement, he himself did not win the Oscar since he didn't direct the film) and a mention of his weight gain. It's not like he's suddenly morbidly obese and can't fit through his front door, which might at least be newsworthy psychologically speaking. What does his weight or appearance have to do with anything he's saying or anything that's being reported about him?
That's especially true when you consider that this is a country where the majority of the people are overweight. Al Gore, a man who was voted for by a majority of the people, has simply become a little more like them...physically. You might also remember that this was the same treatment Bill Clinton got when he entered office. There were no scandals yet, and he was trying to talk about National Health Care and ending discrimination in the armed forces...but all people could mention was his love of fast food.
We've had Presidents who were dangerously obese, and any number of people in the Senate, the Judiciary, and every facet of average american life who are not merely overweight, but rotundly fat...but Al Gore gains a couple of pounds and suddenly that overshadows his message. I suppose we only take our threats of global destruction from people with six-pack abs. Well, maybe he's been too busy crisscrossing the country trying to warn people about the ongoing destruction of our natural environment to stay in shape. Really, if most people can't find time between their 9-5 and watching American Idol to work out, why should we expect more of Al Gore who actually has something important to say? Why do people take such joy in mocking the appearance of others? And why should it be mentioned anywhere in a discussion of news? Well, that's when journalism becomes merely gossip with a few facts thrown in.
If Only It Were So
Andrew Sullivan, the oft-wrong but always well-informed, had a link on his site to a recent Pew study detailing how, in a mere decade and change, the neo-con revolution has crashed and burned. Of course, someone like me would take tremendous joy in such a revelation, if only I could believe that this was some permenant sea change. On a person by person basis, you like to think that people are intelligent, thoughtful, good...and you tend to see that people aren't easily swayed. However, when you look at the public at large, through research, polls, or reality television, the opposite seems to be true. People, collectively, are under-informed, misguided, selfish, and change their opinions about as often as they change their clothes. For example, recent surveys find that over 60 percent of people say that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and a bad idea..which is easier to do in hindsight I suppose, but you'll notice that a mere 5 years ago roughly that many people thought the war was a great idea (I not being one of them).
Sure, this Pew research study finds that since 1994, fewer people have faith in the Republican party, more people support social welfare programs and proposals to alleviate poverty no matter the cost, and more people are accepting of minorities/alternate lifestyles/alternate religious beliefs. The same study found that the number of admitted atheists, though still a discriminated minority, is increasing with each generation which would seem to contradict all of the social evidence as of late. The fact is, amid the Republican scandals recently - and boy have their been a lot - people are frustrated and willing to say just about anything. But that can all change quickly. Prior to September, 2001, lots of people thought George W. was a bumbling idiot and partisan hack, but suddenly people realized that, no, he wasn't. What that terrorist attack on his watch taught most Americans was that he was a visionary and hero. None of that was true, obviously, but it became the common perception that no one was eager to question. If there were another terrorist attack tomorrow, perhaps all of the successes of the Democrats would be forgotten in favor of once again calling them weak and unpatriotic, and all of the scandals of the Republicans would be forgotten because, hey, there's no time for ethics in war.
I'd like to get my hopes up and think that 2008 will bring a great change in our nation, where new ideas and new avenues of discussion will be opened - where the level of discourse will be raised and real solutions to pressing problems will be levied. But really, what are the odds. Nothing is permenant, and things can quickly change as we all have seen.
Sure, this Pew research study finds that since 1994, fewer people have faith in the Republican party, more people support social welfare programs and proposals to alleviate poverty no matter the cost, and more people are accepting of minorities/alternate lifestyles/alternate religious beliefs. The same study found that the number of admitted atheists, though still a discriminated minority, is increasing with each generation which would seem to contradict all of the social evidence as of late. The fact is, amid the Republican scandals recently - and boy have their been a lot - people are frustrated and willing to say just about anything. But that can all change quickly. Prior to September, 2001, lots of people thought George W. was a bumbling idiot and partisan hack, but suddenly people realized that, no, he wasn't. What that terrorist attack on his watch taught most Americans was that he was a visionary and hero. None of that was true, obviously, but it became the common perception that no one was eager to question. If there were another terrorist attack tomorrow, perhaps all of the successes of the Democrats would be forgotten in favor of once again calling them weak and unpatriotic, and all of the scandals of the Republicans would be forgotten because, hey, there's no time for ethics in war.
I'd like to get my hopes up and think that 2008 will bring a great change in our nation, where new ideas and new avenues of discussion will be opened - where the level of discourse will be raised and real solutions to pressing problems will be levied. But really, what are the odds. Nothing is permenant, and things can quickly change as we all have seen.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Glenn Beck Needs a Punch to the Throat
This is what happens when I'm away from my Tivo: I'm forced to actually see what's on television in between the shows I actually want to watch. I'm on a shoot in PA and though my hotel suite is...well, sweet...there's still only so much to do when I have to be up early, so this is what I've seen tonight.
MTV has really documented exactly the kind of kids that are now raised on MTV and how it's destroying out society. They have one show where spoiled, rich girls try to top one another with overly expensive Sweet 16 parties which their parents pay for while all the while the girls are yelling at and ordering their parents around and then crying about how their lives are horrible because the dress they really really really wanted didn't fit so they could only get the one really expensive one that they only really liked. Oh, and then the parents buy them a car that costs more than most people's houses (and which the girl most certainly will wreck before she's 18), and her classmates worship her like being a spoiled, shallow shell of a girl is a good thing.
Luckily I only saw the last 3 minutes of that, which then allowed me to see the first 3 minutes of a show about teenagers who get married. Seriously. 16 years old girls who get knocked up by their 22 year old boyfriends and then decide to get married, or 17 year olds who decide they have to get married right now because they are going to spend the rest of their lives together...but it has to be RIGHT NOW! The part I saw was where the girl was having her bridal shower and playing a game where they asked her questions about her fiance who she's totally in love with, and she got all of them wrong. But really, knowing her soon-to-be husband's life aspirations and or what his first job were are probably just trivial things. I mean, my grandparents were married for 50 years, and then never even got around to finding out each other's last names or birthdates.
But worst of all was Glenn Beck. It's shocking how someone can be so condescending and act so superior and yet be so completely ignorant and, to put it in the common parlance, a d-bag. He defended Roger Ailes' attempts to once again relate Osama bin Laden to Barrack Obama in the public's mind, as though his network hasn't done that 50 times a day already. He simultaneously complained about how the the conservative Democrats have sold out and are voting in lock-step with their party while at the same time saying that all the Democrats are in-fighting and in disagreement. Oh, and the war in Iraq shouldn't be politicized. A war...started by a thoroughly partisan administration...involving billions of dollars of our nation's resources...killing thousands of our soldiers...stretching our army so thin that we are in constant danger...increasing our foreign debts to be passed on to our children...the war that has served as the Republican party's entire political strategy against the Democrats...THAT shouldn't be politicized. If politics is the process by which we have a national discussion of issues, by which we elect our leaders, and by which our government is created, maintained, and made to do the will of the people, then is he saying that this War shouldn't be talked about or acted on by our government? Is this war supposed to fight itself, entirely out of our control?
Much like Glenn Beck, the war in Iraq is misguided, devastating, and brings nothing but suffering. People who say "The war in Iraq shouldn't be political" do that because they are on the losing side of that argument, and it's too late. You started this conversation, and now that people are turning on you, you should be made to answer.
I'm going to go enjoy some free toiletries and amenities, and then maybe jump on the bed for a while. Hilton knows how to make a springy bed...which is then enjoyed by the heirs to the fortune in amateur porn. Our popular culture makes me a little bit ill.
MTV has really documented exactly the kind of kids that are now raised on MTV and how it's destroying out society. They have one show where spoiled, rich girls try to top one another with overly expensive Sweet 16 parties which their parents pay for while all the while the girls are yelling at and ordering their parents around and then crying about how their lives are horrible because the dress they really really really wanted didn't fit so they could only get the one really expensive one that they only really liked. Oh, and then the parents buy them a car that costs more than most people's houses (and which the girl most certainly will wreck before she's 18), and her classmates worship her like being a spoiled, shallow shell of a girl is a good thing.
Luckily I only saw the last 3 minutes of that, which then allowed me to see the first 3 minutes of a show about teenagers who get married. Seriously. 16 years old girls who get knocked up by their 22 year old boyfriends and then decide to get married, or 17 year olds who decide they have to get married right now because they are going to spend the rest of their lives together...but it has to be RIGHT NOW! The part I saw was where the girl was having her bridal shower and playing a game where they asked her questions about her fiance who she's totally in love with, and she got all of them wrong. But really, knowing her soon-to-be husband's life aspirations and or what his first job were are probably just trivial things. I mean, my grandparents were married for 50 years, and then never even got around to finding out each other's last names or birthdates.
But worst of all was Glenn Beck. It's shocking how someone can be so condescending and act so superior and yet be so completely ignorant and, to put it in the common parlance, a d-bag. He defended Roger Ailes' attempts to once again relate Osama bin Laden to Barrack Obama in the public's mind, as though his network hasn't done that 50 times a day already. He simultaneously complained about how the the conservative Democrats have sold out and are voting in lock-step with their party while at the same time saying that all the Democrats are in-fighting and in disagreement. Oh, and the war in Iraq shouldn't be politicized. A war...started by a thoroughly partisan administration...involving billions of dollars of our nation's resources...killing thousands of our soldiers...stretching our army so thin that we are in constant danger...increasing our foreign debts to be passed on to our children...the war that has served as the Republican party's entire political strategy against the Democrats...THAT shouldn't be politicized. If politics is the process by which we have a national discussion of issues, by which we elect our leaders, and by which our government is created, maintained, and made to do the will of the people, then is he saying that this War shouldn't be talked about or acted on by our government? Is this war supposed to fight itself, entirely out of our control?
Much like Glenn Beck, the war in Iraq is misguided, devastating, and brings nothing but suffering. People who say "The war in Iraq shouldn't be political" do that because they are on the losing side of that argument, and it's too late. You started this conversation, and now that people are turning on you, you should be made to answer.
I'm going to go enjoy some free toiletries and amenities, and then maybe jump on the bed for a while. Hilton knows how to make a springy bed...which is then enjoyed by the heirs to the fortune in amateur porn. Our popular culture makes me a little bit ill.
Friday, February 2, 2007
At Long Last, Have You No Shame
As I mentioned yesterday, a study was released by a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change today which stated that global warming was indeed occuring and that it was "very likely" due to human actions...which in scientific terms translates to a "90% probability", which when you consider that many of the countries involved would like to continue polluting and not acknowledge global warming means that the evidence must be so overwhelming that even they can't prevent such strong assertions.
Never to be outdone, corporate evildoers are already on the offensive to prevent anything from being done about this. A think tank, funded by Exxon Mobil (true friends of the environment) have offered $10,000 plus travel and other expenses to any scientist who will critique or debunk this report. Now, obviously, peer review and analysis is part of the scientific process, and obviously people should always be checking each other's work to make sure it's accurate, but in this case, the conclusion is already decided. They aren't looking for the truth, they are looking for a specific answer and are willing to pay anyone who can give them that answer. Far from being scientific exploration, this is a P.R. move to debunk the notion of global warming in the minds of the public.
I honestly don't know how anyone can actually think that this was a good idea. Even if you want to keep polluting and this report spells trouble for you, they have to know how shady this is, and exactly how shady it will look when it gets out, which of course it does. It amounts to them saying "Yes, we know our products are to blame, but we want to keep selling them at all costs". What type of scientist would agree to what is essentially academic prostitution?
Although, a sign that our society is not completely without merit; in Detroit, Michigan, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a man's use of the word "goddamn" during a town meeting is not criminal. Why would that even come up? Well, because during this town meeting, when this man uttered such a foul, terrifying word (please note sarcasm), he was arrested on the spot. Yes, arrested, but luckily our courts are still sane enough to recognize a violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights when they see it. An interesting question: I wonder if this man would have been arrested if he had merely said "damn" instead of "goddamn"? I don't understand how you can say "damn" on television or the radio and it's perfectly acceptable, but if you add "god" in front of it, it becomes equal to saying "f*ck" or "sh*t". Only in a puritanical and backwords culture could that happen.
Never to be outdone, corporate evildoers are already on the offensive to prevent anything from being done about this. A think tank, funded by Exxon Mobil (true friends of the environment) have offered $10,000 plus travel and other expenses to any scientist who will critique or debunk this report. Now, obviously, peer review and analysis is part of the scientific process, and obviously people should always be checking each other's work to make sure it's accurate, but in this case, the conclusion is already decided. They aren't looking for the truth, they are looking for a specific answer and are willing to pay anyone who can give them that answer. Far from being scientific exploration, this is a P.R. move to debunk the notion of global warming in the minds of the public.
I honestly don't know how anyone can actually think that this was a good idea. Even if you want to keep polluting and this report spells trouble for you, they have to know how shady this is, and exactly how shady it will look when it gets out, which of course it does. It amounts to them saying "Yes, we know our products are to blame, but we want to keep selling them at all costs". What type of scientist would agree to what is essentially academic prostitution?
Although, a sign that our society is not completely without merit; in Detroit, Michigan, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a man's use of the word "goddamn" during a town meeting is not criminal. Why would that even come up? Well, because during this town meeting, when this man uttered such a foul, terrifying word (please note sarcasm), he was arrested on the spot. Yes, arrested, but luckily our courts are still sane enough to recognize a violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights when they see it. An interesting question: I wonder if this man would have been arrested if he had merely said "damn" instead of "goddamn"? I don't understand how you can say "damn" on television or the radio and it's perfectly acceptable, but if you add "god" in front of it, it becomes equal to saying "f*ck" or "sh*t". Only in a puritanical and backwords culture could that happen.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
president Bush is Right
And just in the nick of time. Tomorrow, a consortium of scientists from nations all over the globe, including the U.S. are releasing a report which states categorically that global warming is real, is caused by man-made pollution, and will have devastating effects for the next few hundred years, and those are their conservative estimates. After years of saying that the jury is still out on Global Warming, Mr. Bush has finally acknowledged that we are the cause of this global climate change. Wow, finally. Now we can start to do something about it.
Well, no, not so much. For you see, though he now acknowledges that it's our fault (and by our, I mean mankind...this is not all the United States' fault) he doesn't think that we should be limiting our greenhouse gas emissions. That would be incredibly inconvenient to industrial polluters pulling in record profits and those jackasses who don't care how much gas costs, they just want to drive their Hummers. But you know what, he's right. You see, the problem is not that we're polluting too much, but too little. At this rate, it'll take decades, maybe centuries, for all of the polar ice to melt. If we speed up that process, then sea levels will rise, salination will decrease, and oceanic currents will change thus sparking a new ice age. Believe me, no one will be complaining about summer heat death and tropical storms when the summer temperatures are below zero. Plus, frozen glaciers from here back to Asia will open new trade routes, as long as you've got a sled. China is an emerging market, and we should take advantage of that, especially since, with their growing energy needs, they have been even more insistent than the U.S. that there should be no greenhouse gas emmissions caps.
Good job, George. You are of the same mind as a communist dictatorship. So, let's get to work on swinging this climate pendulum the other way. Once we jump start a new ice age, you won't hear any hippie liberals complaining about global warming. In fact, they'll be begging for it.
Well, no, not so much. For you see, though he now acknowledges that it's our fault (and by our, I mean mankind...this is not all the United States' fault) he doesn't think that we should be limiting our greenhouse gas emissions. That would be incredibly inconvenient to industrial polluters pulling in record profits and those jackasses who don't care how much gas costs, they just want to drive their Hummers. But you know what, he's right. You see, the problem is not that we're polluting too much, but too little. At this rate, it'll take decades, maybe centuries, for all of the polar ice to melt. If we speed up that process, then sea levels will rise, salination will decrease, and oceanic currents will change thus sparking a new ice age. Believe me, no one will be complaining about summer heat death and tropical storms when the summer temperatures are below zero. Plus, frozen glaciers from here back to Asia will open new trade routes, as long as you've got a sled. China is an emerging market, and we should take advantage of that, especially since, with their growing energy needs, they have been even more insistent than the U.S. that there should be no greenhouse gas emmissions caps.
Good job, George. You are of the same mind as a communist dictatorship. So, let's get to work on swinging this climate pendulum the other way. Once we jump start a new ice age, you won't hear any hippie liberals complaining about global warming. In fact, they'll be begging for it.
File This Under Question Mark
While at work today, I read an interesting item from Reuters about a town in Quebec that has taken a proactive approach to integrating the 10% of their population made up of immigrants. Their iSolution (much like adding the number 2000 to products in the 20th century made them cutting edge, adding the lower-case "i" before words does the same in the 21st century) to this problem has been to post a set of guidelines on the town website informing immigrants of how Canadians roll. For instance, it says, literally, that women should not be stoned to death, set afire, or burned with acid. Now, some people might say it's racist to assume that a.) all Muslim and Hasidic immigrants are extremists who would be inclined to do these things unless we good Christians told them not to, and b.) that even if they did believe these things to be acceptable that they'd be so stupid to not understand that Canada has laws of it own that they have to follow. I disagree, because these are just good, common sense guidelines that should always be posted...all over town like "No Skateboarding" or "Employees Must Wash Hands" signs. Sometimes, when I'm walking through Central Park and I see a pretty woman with her face uncovered, I think to myself "you know, someone should really stone that women to death". Considering that the City of New York doesn't post that information explicity anywhere on their government site (I checked,) I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. Don't they know that the only thing stopping our society from turning to cannibalism and forced sodomy is a strongly worded set of rules posted on a never-checked website.
Here's the thing, if you want to give people a heads-up about the cultural differences between the country they left and the Canada they've come to, go right ahead. Educate them about the principles of an open society, so they won't be so shocked when they see women driving and dancing (those are two things they actually do list in their guidelines...along with the suggestion that the only time your face should be covered is on Halloween - word for word). When you start down the path to reiterating things that are clearly illegal under the assumption that these people are all barbarians who have traveled around the world to Canada of all places to break those laws...well, as the Canadians say, that's just un-neighborly, eh?
You really have to wonder about the people who have such a low opinion of other people that they have to write idiotic and insulting guides for them. Recently, when Northwest Airlines laid off hundreds of their employees, they distributed a pamphlet called "101 ways to save money". Included in the suggestions were "Make your own baby food" and "Make your own kitty litter" (believe me, you do not want to mix those two up). So, let's just say it's only mildly degrading for your former employer who was apparently paying you so little that you wouldn't have any savings and has just laid you off to imply that you won't be able to find another job or manage your finances without resorting to making your own clothes out of newspaper scraps...but where this goes from rich poppycock to fatcat editorial cartoon absurdity is when they suggest, and I kid you not, they suggest you try dumpster diving. "Don't be afraid to look in dumpsters and take anything you like."
That's right. "Dig in, poor people. You like table scraps and soiled clothes, right?" If that's something people at some point need to resort to in order to survive or as a personal choice, that's their business. But for the people who laid you off to suggest that you shouldn't be shy about enjoying the trash of people who can afford to discard things...man is that arrogant and insulting. It's like saying "Poor people don't have dignity, right? I mean, I would never dig through trash in million years, but I'm sure poor people just love it. That's like shopping at Tiffany's to them."
And people wonder why everyone hates white people.
Here's the thing, if you want to give people a heads-up about the cultural differences between the country they left and the Canada they've come to, go right ahead. Educate them about the principles of an open society, so they won't be so shocked when they see women driving and dancing (those are two things they actually do list in their guidelines...along with the suggestion that the only time your face should be covered is on Halloween - word for word). When you start down the path to reiterating things that are clearly illegal under the assumption that these people are all barbarians who have traveled around the world to Canada of all places to break those laws...well, as the Canadians say, that's just un-neighborly, eh?
You really have to wonder about the people who have such a low opinion of other people that they have to write idiotic and insulting guides for them. Recently, when Northwest Airlines laid off hundreds of their employees, they distributed a pamphlet called "101 ways to save money". Included in the suggestions were "Make your own baby food" and "Make your own kitty litter" (believe me, you do not want to mix those two up). So, let's just say it's only mildly degrading for your former employer who was apparently paying you so little that you wouldn't have any savings and has just laid you off to imply that you won't be able to find another job or manage your finances without resorting to making your own clothes out of newspaper scraps...but where this goes from rich poppycock to fatcat editorial cartoon absurdity is when they suggest, and I kid you not, they suggest you try dumpster diving. "Don't be afraid to look in dumpsters and take anything you like."
That's right. "Dig in, poor people. You like table scraps and soiled clothes, right?" If that's something people at some point need to resort to in order to survive or as a personal choice, that's their business. But for the people who laid you off to suggest that you shouldn't be shy about enjoying the trash of people who can afford to discard things...man is that arrogant and insulting. It's like saying "Poor people don't have dignity, right? I mean, I would never dig through trash in million years, but I'm sure poor people just love it. That's like shopping at Tiffany's to them."
And people wonder why everyone hates white people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
