Some people are just fucking nuts; an example would be Fred Phelps. Him and his radical group slither in the grass up to funeral-motorcade for disembodied patriots, picketing the sites with slogans, such as, "Thank God for 9/11" or, again, in thankfulness to Him, for improvised explosive devices (IED's). Obviously, the man is not the most popular person on the face of the Earth, considering his website is, literally, http://www.godhatesfags.com/.
To prejudice someone for their lifestyle is in no way my concern in life, just as it's not Fred Phelps or anyone else's job to do the same to other people. If a person chooses to be homosexual or Jewish or a Fundamentalist Muslim or an orange, they have the right to do so. They also have the right to say, "You're going to hell," to anyone else, but it's no ones right to put their ideals into faith and say, "God says you're going to hell." You might have a connection with God, and that's awesome! - you love our Lord! But no one speaks for God, granted that Joan of Arc claimed she did. Besides, God didn't enlist Joan of Arc to go around clocking homosexuals or opposition of his faith over the head with a club, then instructing Joan to beat them mercilessly - though, I suppose it would be hysterical to see Joan pummeling random people, looking to the clouds and asking, "Like this, Lord - hit them like this!?" I don't think, since Jesus, has there been someone in the history of mankind who has said, "Guess what!?! Just got off the phone with Jehovah. He says you've got two options - become Christian and worship, or melt!" Frankly, I think if God, or Jesus-in-his-place, were to come down now, some drastic changes would be in order. So I like to assume that God has not necessarily thrown in the towel, but has become more lenient in what he does. Just look at masturbation. Some people claim it's sinful, but you can get away with it without Him smitting you on the spot. Back in the day, or, at least what has been stated in the Bible, if someone did something against God, they would be killed or he might level an entire providence of sinners for their actions. Unless God now has a filing system, and if you do something sinful, you get a hash-mark slashed beside your name. And maybe Heaven is like Chuck E. Cheese, where, upon reaching a certain level of sin, you are instantly placed upon a "naughty list" (You're going to hell...)
Kind of the opposite of Chuck E. Cheese, really. Instead of winning a Nerf product for 500 gold coins, you have only 500 slash-marks - fill those suckers up, and enjoy the dystopian lava-flow of hell, and don't forget the rape!
Back to the subject at hand, there are some right-headed people, and then there are iffy-people in our sane, for the most part, world. One day you might be driving down the freeway and notice a beat-up junker of a car passing by you with a "Baby's 'R' Us" bib suction-cupped to their right passenger-side window, a "Baby on board" bumper sticker, and a baby doorway jumper assembly box resting in their backseat, and that woman doesn't even fucking have a baby and does not know anyone who has birthed a human being - that woman saw the baby doorway jumper at the mall, and had (HAD) to have it! She also stores about fifty bottles of baby formula in her refrigerator, sometimes even washing off with formula sprinkled in her bath water, so she can literally smell like baby. And then there are people like me who only assume that frazzled-looking woman is like that.
For the most part, the deep south of America, and I am talking the bayou or southern Mississippi and Alabama, not "Deliverance" Georgia, is a looming preservation of how life once was and still, remarkably, remains for those few who accept...that....oh who am I fucking kidding, the deep south is full of the "old school" honest, but sometimes shady-folk, who still wish the Yankee's would have lost the war, and, sometimes, even though a few things got abolished in the 1860's, they continue to keep the mind-set their predecessors did way-back-when. In parts of the country like that, you might find a few people who think any man who wears sandals or dislikes the rebel flag are faggots or un-American. While in the restroom at the Dixie Stampede in Missouri - which is a little too close to the north to be considered the south, though, they like to think their just that - a man walked in, and, for no reason at all, as he hummed the National Anthem, he exclaimed, "those are the only colors I support - land of the free, and of the white...," in that isolated, red neck-tone we love to death! It doesn't help that our president can stand before the press and say, "If you're not with us, you're against us," and in another speech state, if you don't support the troop-serge, or support me, you're unpatriotic; un-American. By the way, I did not quote that last statement because I was unaware of its context - whether that was one statement or two. There is a difference, though, in supporting or being against war (pacificism) and supporting or opposing the troops themselves. I don't know what us "liberals," who are mostly made up of Democrats seen as Liberal because of their common distrust of Conservatives, have to say instead of the already resounding statement of, "I dislike war." It seems like every time someone says those three words, some supporter of the Iraq Conflict turns into Politiko, preserver of the Republican point-of-view, out to thwart those evil-doers who want to think independently, and dislike the title of sheep...
What ever happened to having your own fucking opinion, or, our country being a bicameral system of legislature? Bush might be a Republican president, but that does not mean the United States is now all-of-a-sudden Republican; we still have two main political parties. What's the rationalization here - are people just that dumb!? Honestly, just my opinion here, but it kind of sounds like a tyrant is in office. And maybe all it takes is for someone to get on Fox News, express their opinion, and if it cannot be countered and is not full of contradictions, then it must be right in the wrong person's eye. So maybe if Bill O'Reilly calls you a liar, and can switch the subject on you enough to blur the realm of reality, calling you out on what he knows is truth, but he would rather argue for the sake of ratings, then you should agree with him whole-heartedly because the facts are in favor of him...yet you're right....but he has unlimited resources at his disposal.....but you're right......
So I'll do what naturally gets done when someone is right, and the immature of the group decides to throw a fit - "You're wrong! You're WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!!!" ...and change the subject...some people are just fucking nuts; an example would be Fred Phelps.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
A Couple Differences + Quick Decisions
A while back, I got into an argument with a Republican. Bunch of my friends and I meet every Friday for "game night," which means we don't have previous plans for the beginning of the weekend, so we all huddle up in my friend Steven's attic and play video games. Sounds pretty nerdy, doesn't it. It first began about two years ago when, while getting plastered at my friend Desi's, we managed to hook up an Xbox and we played the glorious "Fusion Frenzy." Then, we noticed our friend Steven was really good at video games, so we wanted to test our might against him, only this time sober. Tah Da! Game night.
Let me not get off topic ever again. My political foe brought up the subject of George W. Bush: Why you like/dislike him? Another of my friends, he's not as die-hard Republican as the person I have been talking about, said he liked G.W.B. because he told it like it is; he cared for the American people and did not care what other people thought of him - this trait was commendable. Let's get some names going, shall we! The Republicans name is Molly. The not-so Republicans name is Shaun. Molly asked how I felt about George W. Bush because she knew I was Democrat, though she called me Liberal. I guess to some people, there is no middle-ground. To quote our president, "You are either with us or against us," and that is how the argument felt right off the bat. I said to everyone and the room that I wasn't a very political person, and then corrected Molly by saying I'm Democrat, not Liberal. She said, "Same difference." I then tried to quickly change the subject by saying, "I wouldn't mind seeing Rudy win it simply because he is a politician who would want to unite both parties for one objective, and could narrow the gap between the left and right wings." That did not do anything. So, again, forced to say what I thought of our current president, I tried taking the high-road by saying, "Our foreign policy is fucked, due to circumstances in Iraq, and just the overall attitude of our current leader. He thinks he's being cute, but that also shows his lack of integrity, and it's downright childish." Of course, I get berated by Molly, and I'm not going to go into detail - I felt very uncomfortable up in the attic at that point since I was being told how-it-is by a debater.
You try and forget those awkward moments when a friend of yours tries to sway your thinking, and/or demonstrates how they can prove a point to a subject your reluctant to talk about in the first place. The last thing you need is someone who won't listen to opposing issues. I listened to Molly's, and, however ignorant or biased they might have sounded to me, I still gave her the benefit-of-the-doubt, and tried my best not to press the issue, though clearly, the issue was pressed like a new pair of pants.
I thought of this moment in my life after watching a documentary yesterday on IFC called, "The F-word". On the day of the Republican National Convention, radio show host Joe Pace joins the rallies, protests, delegates and citizens of New York City. Broadcasting his last show live, on-the-air, he goes on a one march for free speech - thanks http://www.imdb.com/ for that awesome synopsis. While covering this event no news station would touch, the character of Joe witnesses our country at a socially grim, but politically uplifting time. One part of the film, a group of Republicans with signs in-hand, who went solely to state their own opinions just like the rest of the people, were vacated from the grounds of the protest rally, for their own safety. The left wing began hitting these innocent people, calling them names, trying to start fights with them...the rallies got out of control. Police were called in, people were getting arrested, pinned to the pavement, beaten or shoved by cops, and even gassed. In the middle of the chaos were anarchists, who could be pointed out by wearing red bandannas over their faces, and their hair pinned back, fighting against cops and the left wing alike, starting fires, turning over cars, throwing projectiles - it was enough to make me sick. The last thing you need is for a peaceful rally, full of people shouting and expressing their own grievances and differential and similar opinions, and have it broken up because a group of whiny little toddlers weren't satisfied, and had to throw a fit. It all made me think of childhood really.
Remember at day care (if you were ever subjected to it) when the toys were brought out, you went to get the best toy, which was always a toy car, action figure, or doll, and someone beat you to it. Then, instead of sharing, they hogged that toy the whole play-period, and when you went to ask nicely to play with the toy because you were just learning the values of sharing, that son of a bitch had to say, "It's MY toy!" If you were like me, you just went and told the guardian about it, and sought their advice on the situation. Usually, they would go talk to the kid and try to express to them the value of sharing. But sometimes, the guardian would say, "Pick a different toy for now..." You have the option of getting upset over such a trivial thing or agreeing to the circumstances, and picking out a new toy. Debates between Republicans and Democrats are just like that. Usually the Republican takes the stance of the child who plugs his/her ears and dances around, chanting that worst of annoying phrases, "Lah, lah, lah, lah-lah," while the Democrat just raises his/her voice, shouting out random things like, "What's your plan to get us out of Iraq? We need out of that area - it is crucial to get our men and women out of Iraq - thousands upon ten-thousands of people have died, and it's obviously not about protecting the country because they are fed up with our presence there and you are endangering the lives of Americans - why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why? - listen here, I'm an official person! I'm important! Why aren't you listening to me!? Stop plugging your ears, damn'it!!!" Then, the Liberal comes up behind the Republican and pulls his pants down, the Republican turns around, lifting their pants, yelling in a shaky, embarrassed voice, "That's not nice!" at the uncaring Liberal. The Democrat, in return, kneels down behind the Republicans legs, the Liberal pushes him over, and the Republican gets up, with tears in his eyes and runs sobbing like a baby, "They double-teamed me, it's just not fair!!!" The Democrat and Liberal both laugh in unison, sharing in the moment the satisfaction of nailing the Republican, then, the Liberal, like always, sucker-punches the Democrat, and while the man is on the ground, the Liberal says, "Here's where you are wrong, along with the Republican," criticizing him about conspiracies, the truth, and contradictions in the Republican and Democrat's past statements. The Liberal then picks the Democrat up by the balls, and with a finale so grand, my testicles shrink a little, the Liberal says, "And here's how I help solve the problem," and he walks off. The Democrat ices down his inflamed nugget-pouch, while the guardian of the kids, the media, comes up to consolidate, then passes judgment more on the Republican then anyone else. Of course, the Republican plays the victim so well...
It's refreshing to know that some people still care about politics, though the averaging number of votes during the election process have dramatically gone down in the passed 10 years. People can truly make a difference only if others are willing to listen. I think one big disadvantage is when, in terms of arguing, people worry more about winning the small battles, then achieving a much larger victory. If you are going to object to every little thing said, it ends with both parties squawking, and not getting a single damn thing done. Going back to childhood, "He's a poopie-head!" "You're a poopie-head...and you eat bugs!" "I do not!" Next time you are at the polls, think the usual, 'I'm voting for a candidate with morals, who is a strong, passionate leader,' but also look for maturity.
Let me not get off topic ever again. My political foe brought up the subject of George W. Bush: Why you like/dislike him? Another of my friends, he's not as die-hard Republican as the person I have been talking about, said he liked G.W.B. because he told it like it is; he cared for the American people and did not care what other people thought of him - this trait was commendable. Let's get some names going, shall we! The Republicans name is Molly. The not-so Republicans name is Shaun. Molly asked how I felt about George W. Bush because she knew I was Democrat, though she called me Liberal. I guess to some people, there is no middle-ground. To quote our president, "You are either with us or against us," and that is how the argument felt right off the bat. I said to everyone and the room that I wasn't a very political person, and then corrected Molly by saying I'm Democrat, not Liberal. She said, "Same difference." I then tried to quickly change the subject by saying, "I wouldn't mind seeing Rudy win it simply because he is a politician who would want to unite both parties for one objective, and could narrow the gap between the left and right wings." That did not do anything. So, again, forced to say what I thought of our current president, I tried taking the high-road by saying, "Our foreign policy is fucked, due to circumstances in Iraq, and just the overall attitude of our current leader. He thinks he's being cute, but that also shows his lack of integrity, and it's downright childish." Of course, I get berated by Molly, and I'm not going to go into detail - I felt very uncomfortable up in the attic at that point since I was being told how-it-is by a debater.
You try and forget those awkward moments when a friend of yours tries to sway your thinking, and/or demonstrates how they can prove a point to a subject your reluctant to talk about in the first place. The last thing you need is someone who won't listen to opposing issues. I listened to Molly's, and, however ignorant or biased they might have sounded to me, I still gave her the benefit-of-the-doubt, and tried my best not to press the issue, though clearly, the issue was pressed like a new pair of pants.
I thought of this moment in my life after watching a documentary yesterday on IFC called, "The F-word". On the day of the Republican National Convention, radio show host Joe Pace joins the rallies, protests, delegates and citizens of New York City. Broadcasting his last show live, on-the-air, he goes on a one march for free speech - thanks http://www.imdb.com/ for that awesome synopsis. While covering this event no news station would touch, the character of Joe witnesses our country at a socially grim, but politically uplifting time. One part of the film, a group of Republicans with signs in-hand, who went solely to state their own opinions just like the rest of the people, were vacated from the grounds of the protest rally, for their own safety. The left wing began hitting these innocent people, calling them names, trying to start fights with them...the rallies got out of control. Police were called in, people were getting arrested, pinned to the pavement, beaten or shoved by cops, and even gassed. In the middle of the chaos were anarchists, who could be pointed out by wearing red bandannas over their faces, and their hair pinned back, fighting against cops and the left wing alike, starting fires, turning over cars, throwing projectiles - it was enough to make me sick. The last thing you need is for a peaceful rally, full of people shouting and expressing their own grievances and differential and similar opinions, and have it broken up because a group of whiny little toddlers weren't satisfied, and had to throw a fit. It all made me think of childhood really.
Remember at day care (if you were ever subjected to it) when the toys were brought out, you went to get the best toy, which was always a toy car, action figure, or doll, and someone beat you to it. Then, instead of sharing, they hogged that toy the whole play-period, and when you went to ask nicely to play with the toy because you were just learning the values of sharing, that son of a bitch had to say, "It's MY toy!" If you were like me, you just went and told the guardian about it, and sought their advice on the situation. Usually, they would go talk to the kid and try to express to them the value of sharing. But sometimes, the guardian would say, "Pick a different toy for now..." You have the option of getting upset over such a trivial thing or agreeing to the circumstances, and picking out a new toy. Debates between Republicans and Democrats are just like that. Usually the Republican takes the stance of the child who plugs his/her ears and dances around, chanting that worst of annoying phrases, "Lah, lah, lah, lah-lah," while the Democrat just raises his/her voice, shouting out random things like, "What's your plan to get us out of Iraq? We need out of that area - it is crucial to get our men and women out of Iraq - thousands upon ten-thousands of people have died, and it's obviously not about protecting the country because they are fed up with our presence there and you are endangering the lives of Americans - why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why? - listen here, I'm an official person! I'm important! Why aren't you listening to me!? Stop plugging your ears, damn'it!!!" Then, the Liberal comes up behind the Republican and pulls his pants down, the Republican turns around, lifting their pants, yelling in a shaky, embarrassed voice, "That's not nice!" at the uncaring Liberal. The Democrat, in return, kneels down behind the Republicans legs, the Liberal pushes him over, and the Republican gets up, with tears in his eyes and runs sobbing like a baby, "They double-teamed me, it's just not fair!!!" The Democrat and Liberal both laugh in unison, sharing in the moment the satisfaction of nailing the Republican, then, the Liberal, like always, sucker-punches the Democrat, and while the man is on the ground, the Liberal says, "Here's where you are wrong, along with the Republican," criticizing him about conspiracies, the truth, and contradictions in the Republican and Democrat's past statements. The Liberal then picks the Democrat up by the balls, and with a finale so grand, my testicles shrink a little, the Liberal says, "And here's how I help solve the problem," and he walks off. The Democrat ices down his inflamed nugget-pouch, while the guardian of the kids, the media, comes up to consolidate, then passes judgment more on the Republican then anyone else. Of course, the Republican plays the victim so well...
It's refreshing to know that some people still care about politics, though the averaging number of votes during the election process have dramatically gone down in the passed 10 years. People can truly make a difference only if others are willing to listen. I think one big disadvantage is when, in terms of arguing, people worry more about winning the small battles, then achieving a much larger victory. If you are going to object to every little thing said, it ends with both parties squawking, and not getting a single damn thing done. Going back to childhood, "He's a poopie-head!" "You're a poopie-head...and you eat bugs!" "I do not!" Next time you are at the polls, think the usual, 'I'm voting for a candidate with morals, who is a strong, passionate leader,' but also look for maturity.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)