MTG Salvation

I found this long post over on FARK that I believe cuts to the heart of why the Rethuglicans are being total asshats with the debt ceiling debate:

Quote from hubiestubert on FARK »

The sad thing?

That folks have been talking about the debt crisis for some time. Back when Reagan thought it was a good idea to start writing a LOT of checks. And the folks who were the recipients of said checks LOVED the idea, and then demanded MOAR deficit spending. To the point where we talked about the deficit more than we talked about the actual debt. This sort of thing was commented on by Presidential hopeful George Bush, but his crack about Voodoo Economics fell on deaf ears, because people knew that the consequences were down the road. And the SAME folks who cheered it on then, are suddenly looking at a Democratic President having to deal with the fallout of these insane spending policies, and fearing that we will have a rehash of the Clintonian reductions in our spending habits, and actually address the debt itself.

This is the real fear. That we address the actual debt. We not only make payments on it, but reduce the principle. There is fear that a Democrat will do this again and undercut the verbage that folks have been spewing about "fiscally Conservative" policy.

I consider myself a fiscal Conservative. What we've seen with these spending binges ISN'T fiscal Conservatism. It isn't fiscally Conservative to sell off government property and then rent it--yes, I'm looking at YOU Arizona. It's not fiscally Conservative to keep buying weapon systems that have been proven to not work, and aren't even needed anymore, but prop up a jobs market in states that are seeing downturns because they keep shipping jobs out, but supporting tax breaks for companies that keep token work forces while contracting out labor far and away.

The real fear is that real fiscal Conservatism hasn't been seen for some time, and it is time for it to return. To see investment in our infrastructure as not just attractive, but necessary. To invest in our futures with education. To invest in our futures with technologies that will mature and develop. It undercuts the grasshopper approach that fiscal Conservatives have been warning us about for nearly three decades. And instead of listening to these warnings, folks have taken "fiscal Conservatism" and branded it for "tax cuts" and "cutting waste" in programs that don't fit their ideological model, not actually based in figures or need.

This is why I am nearing the end of my Republicanism. Not because the Democrats are suddenly attractive. Not because I have had a change of heart. Not because I've softened on the ideals that I was weaned upon, but because the party has no interest in those ideals, and no interest in actually doing the fiscally Conservative thing. Has no interest in actually defending the Constitution. Has no interest in leading for that matter--just wailing about any ideas that don't fit into a narrow ideological niche that KEEPS FAILING WHEN IT'S PUT INTO PRACTICE.

Continuing to bang your head against a wall isn't brave or true, it's just stupid, and I am getting really tired of the party betting on stupid. There are some brilliant folks still in the Republican party, but they are getting fewer and farer between, and if this is the sort of brilliant analysis that gets folks knickers in a twist, then maybe it's time I left and supported folks who have the long term interests of the nation to heart, as opposed to massaging a tiny interest group that is hoping for a continuation of policy that serves them, and damns the rest of the nation, and requires cheerleaders like this to try to make it palatable for the rubes.

I can't really support the DNC, not as a whole, and not with much of the leadership, but individual candidates are becoming preferable to the ideologically proper GOP candidates, who haven't thought their grasshopper mentality through, and won't because that would mean taking steps to stem the tide of stoopid that has gripped the party.

We need a third party at this point. Not the TEA Party, because that's just an Astroturf campaign to keep going MOAR STOOPID. Bring on the Modern Whigs. Bring on less crazy Libertarians. Bring on anyone but these folks who are obsessed with continued tax cuts and Jeebus, because y'all are breaking the nation, the caucus, and the party.

I find it telling that Republicans, the "conservative" party, are acting like being fiscally conservative is the last thing they want. It WOULD be fiscally conservative to close the loopholes that lets companies save $$$ by shipping jobs overseas. It WOULD be fiscally conservative to cut spending to defense (we could cut it by half and still have the biggest military in the world. We would be forced out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we want out of there anyway, right?) What is NOT fiscally conservative is to allow the country to default on debt, which would make inflation balloon even more than it already has. Driving down the value of the dollar is NOT fiscally conservative. We think that during the civil rights movement the two parties basically switched ideologies. Fiscally, they didn't.

I originally thought about scrapping this blog after the closure of the extendo-sigs caused an influx of inane things to be moved over here, which then caused my thoughts to be drowned out in a swarm of deck ideas and custom cards, but these three stories, ALL FROM THE LAST 48 HOURS, got me so livid that I had to share them. And I had to do so in audio format.

My reactions

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

I'm back to using sources!

So movies seem to be a huge way for state governments and municipalities to make money. The filming of them, anyway. So it's not unexpected for governments to offer tax breaks to filmmakers, whether those governments be states within the USA, or foreign governments abroad. Florida seems to have some strange way of "courting" the Hollywood types, though. Currently, Florida offers filmmakers a 2% tax break. But there's a bill barrelling through the legislature that would increase that to a 5% tax break, BUT that could be rescinded if the movie isn't "family-friendly" enough. What does this mean? Let's look at the language of the bill:

"...do not exhibit or imply any act of smoking, sex, nudity, nontraditional family values, gratuitous violence, or vulgar or profane language. Under the current incentive program, review of the final release version is not required and nontraditional family values, gratuitous violence, and implied acts do not exclude a film from receiving this additional credit."

What the ☺☺☺☺ are you smoking, Florida? Take a look at movies released this past year. The top three critically acclaimed movies all had at least the violence and language in them (I'm coming out and saying the top 3 are Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Basterds). If you want to keep out all movies that contain none of the above, all you're going to have are G-rated animated movies, and guess what? Travelling to Florida isn't required for that! You say you want to entice moviemakers to your state, but at the same time you fail to realize what goes into a movie these days. But you don't want to pay attention to the 21st century, do you? You want to:

“Think of it as like Mayberry,” Rep. Precourt said. “That’s when I grew up — the ’60s. That’s what life was like. I want Florida to be known for making those kinds of movies: Disney movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?”

Sure, the 60s. Back when blacks were second-class citizens, at best. When women were paid pennies compared to men. When we had riots everywhere. These ☺☺☺☺ing MORONS just can't stand that time is moving forward, and they are trying like hell to pull it back.

But you want to go back to "traditional values"? Like those espoused in the ☺☺☺☺ing Bible? Fine then. Incest is legal. Rape isn't only legal, it's encouraged. In fact, we can combine the two! Slavery is fine as well! We can stone for "coveting thy neighbor's goods", right? Oh, wait, if we were able to do that then we'd have to stone the ☺☺☺☺ out of everybody, because that commandment goes against capitalism! Finally, let's peruse just a sampling of the ☺☺☺☺ that goes on in your "Bible":

Lot ☺☺☺☺ed his daughters after getting drunk. He also allowed them to get gang-raped in order to save a couple of people he never even ☺☺☺☺ing met. Ham gets cast out because Porky saw him naked. Blacks are said to be descended from Cain, and we all know what Cain did.

I guess my point to all this is: Florida is just a large pile of moronic asshats. You know what? I should get down there ASAP so I can film Brokeback Mountain II: Scissoring Sand-Filled *****es.

No source for this one, because it's something that I had to deal with personally today! Nothing like having to battle insipid idiots personally, rather than reading about it from sites like FARK. Those get me slightly infuriated, but I can deal. But to literally walk around them? Dammit, it was all I could do to keep from opening their skulls and checking for the presence of a brain. Of course, I'm kinda glad I didn't because I'm convinced that it would have been just a wild goose chase. A little background: apparently the economy has gotten so bad that, in order to balance the budget as best as our state's government can, my college is being targeted for cuts in higher education funding. So I see lots and lots of protesters standing outside by the student union building. And these mouth-breathing entitlement whores think that, not only should the funding be continued, but we should increase funding so that college is free. All I'm seeing between your ears is a "For Sale or Lease" sign! Just a little reminder, I'm sure that your constant partying or studying or something that you might have forgotten, but WE'RE IN A ☺☺☺☺ING RECESSION! It's actually been called THE WORST SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! You're in college, how the hell can you be this stupid!?

You know what? I'm gonna play your little game. I am. So you want college to be free. All right. A noble goal. Just one question: HOW THE HELL DO YOU PROPOSE WE PAY FOR THAT? Again, RECESSION! The money for this has to come from somewhere. And I live in Colorado. So guess what? We have something called the TABOR amendment (stands for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights), which states that taxes CANNOT be raised, FOR ANY REASON, unless it's put to a popular vote. So, you know, it's funny; actually it would be if it weren't just so damn sad. You kinda screwed yourselves with that thinking there. You want higher education to be free, but that wouldn't be possible without a massive tax hike, which is certainly impossible in a RECESSION, but you probably wouldn't approve it anyway. Enjoying your catch-22 there, asswipes?

But enough ranting. With most of my rants, I like to put forth solutions. Sensible solutions, even though they have less chance than I have at scoring a threesome with Jessica Alba and Kristen Bell just because they're sensible. So here's my solution: stop using a college education as the end-all and be-all of basic requirements for getting a job. There are plenty of people, most likely unemployed, who have a wealth of practical experience in their field but for one reason or another don't have a college education. And they can't go back to college because they're unemployed due to the RECESSION! Start putting practical experience on par with a college degree in the relevant field. People are going to college nowadays because they pretty much have to in order to not be a burger flipper with 50 years experience by the time they die. And the time and/or energy requirements leads them to take out loans. Which can put them tens of thousands of dollars in the red. Which they can't climb out of because of the RECESSION! So treat autodidacts with the same respect as college graduates. Perhaps better. Let's look at some notable autodidacts, shall we?: Leonardo da Vinci, Terry Pratchett, Frank Zappa, Danny Elfman, Nobuo Uematsu, Stephen Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Stanley Kubrik, Orson Welles, Ernest Hemingway, Errol Flynn, Friedrich Nietzsche, Benjamin Franklin, Socrates, Descartes, and finally Thomas Edison. If they tried to break in to their fields today they'd probably get laughed out because they didn't get a college degree. I'm not saying that a college degree isn't useful. I'm just saying that, especially during a recession, we should value the people with the drive and determination and sheer balls (or ovaries, as the case may be) to go it on their own just as much.

RECESSION!

Lineup for Leno's first few weeks back on The Tonight Show revealed

Holy mother of ☺☺☺☺ing hell. The Tonight Show is officially dead. Seriously, look at that list. There is NOT A SINGLE RESPECTED CELEBRITY ON THAT LIST! NOT ONE! Seriously, let's examine that list:

March 1: Jamie Foxx and Lindsay Vonn.
March 2: Sarah Palin and Shaun White
March 3: Chelsea Handler, Apolo Anton Ohno
March 4: Matthew McConaughey and Jason Reitman
March 5: Morgan Freeman and Meredith Viera

Weaksauce. Looks like the fun people in Hollywood finally got the memo that Leno is a complete and total asshat and will be avoided like the plague. I can't wait until September. CoCo WILL have a show by then!

Just gonna leave this here.

...for probably managing to royally ☺☺☺☺ up yet another awards season. Let's lay out a Top 3 list of ☺☺☺☺ that either has already pissed me off or will piss me off.

1) The lack of "The Road" for Best Picture. Sure, it's probably not the absolute best movie released in 2009, but it sure as hell deserved at least a nomination. But of course, we can't nominate a movie that's a character study. We need action! We need things that go boom! Der, boom-boom gud! Seriously, the movies most likely to get the award (Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Basterds) all have scenes with lots of explosions and/or gunfire. Are we so devoid of intelligence that a Best Picture has to include fireballs!? ☺☺☺☺ you. ☺☺☺☺ you in the ass with a rusty coathanger. Sure, The Road had some gunfire, but it was VERY VERY MINUTE! The man and his son DID carry a gun, but it only had two bullets! Not very conducive to a "firefight" is it? Instead, we get actual character development, actual emotional connection to the people on screen, and a lasting impression beyond "Huh huh, nice booms!"

2) Avatar could easily win Best Picture There's not enough words in the English language to express my contempt for this film. Sure, it's gotten to the point where one cannot make a movie without lifting elements from various past films, but Avatar actually goes out and lifts each and every plot and subplot from previous movies. It's a blatant rip-off with purdy visual effects. Dances with Wolves, Alien, Ferngully, Atlantis: The Lost Empire...Avatar completely lacks any sort of original bone in its plastic-surgery-esque body. It's a Best Picture nominee just because vacuous mouth-breathers like you went to see it, and then went back again, and again, and again...plus, it's totally preachy and annoying. "You're human, so you're automatically a bad guy." ☺☺☺☺ that idea with a live grenade. A good movie would end up reaffirming that there are good people out there. A good movie would show that, through moral questions and harsh trials, humans can pull themselves up and become all the better for it. A good movie does NOT condemn their viewers, no matter how flashy the graphics look.

3) It took expanding the field to 10 to get an animated film onto the list This one is inexcusable. "Up" was really good, but obviously not on par with Inglorious Basterds, The Hurt Locker, The Road, or most of the field that made the list. I'm guessing they only expanded the Best Picture field for two reasons: in 2007 WALL-E was clearly the best film of the year, but wasn't nominated because of the clear "☺☺☺☺ you animation" stance the Academy has taken. Also, it was to rectify the fact that The Dark Knight should have gotten a nomination last year, but was booted in favor of The Reader (which blew donkey chunks. Both the situation, and The Reader as a movie.). ☺☺☺☺ this idea with a contaminated needle. Don't expand the field to 10 in a year where there were CLEARLY only 5 true candidates. The Academy, as well as the movie-going public at large, needs to be shot with a PATRIOT missile. You all suck.

Now, for no other reason than "Because it's my blog, dammit", my list of 5 best pictures of 2009:

1) Inglorious Basterds (WINNER)
2) The Hurt Locker
3) The Road
4) The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
5) Up in the Air

Source as usual

I'm gonna start this off with one of the most mind-bogglingly stupid and horrid excuses for arresting someone, taken verbatim from the linked article:

"The email, concerning a planning appeal by a gipsy, included the phrase: ‘It’s the 'do as you likey' attitude that I am against.’ Council staff believed the email was offensive because ‘likey’ rhymes with the derogatory term ‘pikey’."

Being arrested because you used a word that ☺☺☺☺ing rhymes with an offensive word? Are you all ☺☺☺☺ing HIGH!? So I guess I can get arrested if I'm writing a play and mention a "kite" since it sounds like "****". Or I could be sent to the slammer for using the word "digger" because it rhymes with "☺☺☺☺☺☺". These bureaucrats in England should be killed until they are dead. There's a reason it's called the "Nanny State". And Fark? They have a Florida tag, but what they really need is an England tag for all the pathetic, insane ☺☺☺☺ that comes out of that country.

Near the end of the article, it states: "Sussex Police said they had arrested the businessman over ‘suspicion of committing a racial or religious-aggravated offence.'" ☺☺☺☺ me with a forklift this is the stupidest reason to arrest somebody. Whenever you open your mouth, there WILL be somebody on this planet that can and will get offended by what comes out of it. There is no right to not be offended. If there was I'd have been arrested many times over for what I put in this blog. Hell, in my stand-up I've thrown around Bibles, told God to blow me, compared Jesus with Hitler, and made many more comments that are probably directly offensive to lots of people. Speech should not become an arrestable offense. Englishpeople: take back your country. It's rapidly turning into a facist state, and with the American government being best friends with England I'm worried about how soon it'll be until this kind of asshattery starts appearing in my country.

The NRA has a saying about guns: "From my cold, dead hands!" Well, you will only take my speech, no matter how offensive it might be, only after I've taken my last breath. Until then, SUCK IT!

We've all had to bear with the utter ☺☺☺☺ that is the Twilight Saga. It's ☺☺☺☺ing EVERYWHERE. And why is that, when the series is makes horse ☺☺☺☺ look like a 5-star meal? Well, I've been doing some looking into the series, and while the movies have pissed me off royally, there is one specific part of what I think is the fourth book that would get me to actually buy a ticket. Especially if David Cronenberg directs it, because from what I will relate following this sentence, this movie is just made for him:

Breaking Dawn opens with Bella Swan, the lacteal heroine of the series, finally getting married to Edward Cullen, the mopey vampire hero. They go off to honeymoon on Isle Esme, a Brazilian island the Cullen clan owns (this is already ridiculous beyond belief. Imagine a vampire going snorkeling; it basically happens in this book), and Edward is afraid to ☺☺☺☺ his new bride. The reason: he's super strong and she's just a human - Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex type of situation here. But Bella wears him down and Edward throws it in her - and knocks her the ☺☺☺☺ out, leaving her badly bruised.

Let's go over that again: Edward ☺☺☺☺s Bella into unconsciousness. This alone should have you running to Fandango to pre-order your tickets, but it only gets better.

Despite being knocked out cold by his sexual style (and having the headboard destroyed), Bella goes back to Edward for seconds. This time he knocks her up. Yes, an undead vampire apparently has enough viable sperm to impregnate a human woman while ☺☺☺☺ing her off the coast of Rio de Janero. Stephenie Meyer, you fabulous idiot!

The baby in Bella's belly starts growing incredibly fast. And it starts hurting Bella, as each kick it gives has the super strength of a vampire behind it. As it grows, Bella gets sicker, and then the good stuff starts. The baby kicks so hard it breaks Bella's ribs and then severs her spine. Are you imagining Kristen Stewart wearing a fake pregnancy belly and pretending to have been suddenly crippled by her own fetus? Because I am and it's making me laugh and laugh and laugh.

Oh wait, I missed something. Edward is completely freaked out about the baby, fearing it will kill Bella. He tries to convince her to get an abortion (but seriously, how could she? Vampires are tough to kill even in this ☺☺☺☺ty series), and goes so far as asking Native American wolfboy Jacob to impregnate his wife so that she can have the baby she desperately wants. I'm dizzy with how ridiculous this is, and we're just getting started.

Eventually the baby starts to get born and Bella is dying. The baby has telepathy, by the way, so everybody can read its thoughts while it's in the womb, and it turns out to have an essentially adult mind. Like Alia in Dune; I would accuse Stephenie Meyer of ripping this off, but anyone who thinks that Meyer might have read Frank Herbert has never been within spitting distance of Twilight. The woman is a moron.

In a moment that demands to be shown on the silver screen, Edward gives Bella an emergency C-section with his ☺☺☺☺ing teeth. It's like something out of XTro, for the love of God. It's so horrible it's brilliant, and this scene alone is why I remain firm in declaring that David Cronenberg must direct Breaking Dawn. This is surely his movie.

Once the baby is out, Bella gets vamped by Edward, as she's about to die at any moment. Then comes the most astonishing turn of events in 21st century literature, and possibly in the entire history of awful fiction aimed at tweens: Jacob the werewolf, who has been madly in love with Bella, sees the new baby girl and immediately imprints on her. What this means, in layman's terms, is that he falls in love with the baby.

I want to pull this out on its own: Jacob falls in love with a baby.

The book makes no bones about this; while Jacob doesn't want to ☺☺☺☺ the baby right off the bat, he can't stand to be away from it and visits everyday. His love has been transferred from Bella to the baby (who has the tongue shattering name Renesmee), and because of the science behind imprinting he'll love her forever. So one day he's going to stick his wolf dick in this girl that he see as a bloody newborn. Romance is not dead, it's just being abused by insane Mormon writers.

Now if I know anything about Hollywood, they'll either stop with a Twilight trilogy, or they'll edit Breaking Dawn to hell. But they shouldn't. Because then I'll miss out on seeing the ultimate in ☺☺☺☺ in movies. Worse than Plan 9. Worse than Manos: The Hands of Fate. Worse than anything that the grindhouse directors of the 70s could ever hope of coming up with. And it'd be awesome, just to see the look on the faces of the parents who allowed their daughters to grow up with this crap.

****ING TWILIGHT!!!:mad::swear::argh::banghead::mad1:

Once, there was a comic book movie. A sequel. And, unlike most comic book movies (to say nothing about sequels to comic book movies), it was GOOD. VERY GOOD. It dealt with complex emotions and consequences, had great character development, and most every actor gave what might be the performances of their lives. Despite (or maybe due to) the death of the actor who played the main villain, the movie broke records for money made at the box office. ****, the movie became the first comic book movie EVER to win an Academy Award in acting! Yes, I'm talking about The Dark Knight. The writing is some of the best I've seen in cinema. It's a masterful examination of what can happen to a person who's assumed responsibilities suddenly seem to spiral out of control. Now we've got New Moon. The sequel to Twilight. A movie with no plot, actors who would be more at home in a high school production (and even that's being incredibly nice), and characters with no personality whatsoever. Pretty much the anti-Dark Knight. And what the **** happens? It shatters the box office record for opening night income set by the aforementioned Dark Knight. As an aspiring actor/writer/director who cherishes all of the subtleties that go into a truly excellent performance, this pisses me off more than almost anything. Actually, it's probably become the #1 thing that pisses me off. Yes, it pisses me off more than helicopter parents, more than idiots who replace "Christmas" with "Winter Holiday" and "Halloween" with "Costume Day". More than anything. Because I want to make this industry my livlihood. And it saddens me that someone can crank out any sort of cheap ****, pad it out to 2 hours, and put it up on the big screen and earn hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. Because there seems to be a cheapening of actual effort made in making movies. Why have your characters develop personalities and have them make life-altering decisions when they can just stand in front of a camera for an hour or so looking pretty? Why have plot when you can just take a camera and follow the actors around for a month, make a couple quick edits, and call it a movie? Movies that look like they've been made with at least some effort are fast becoming few and far between, and that really depresses me. And pisses me off.

If New Moon breaks any more records, there's gonna be a bunch of dead tween bodies littering the streets. ****!!!!!

Source

Nice to finally see some action on this stuff. The one thing that pisses me off about the reform bill is that they had to promise that none of this money would pay for abortions. Say it with me now (you should know what's coming by now): ********!!! I know that the article glosses over this fact, so there's no way to know if: A) this means no money would go to abortion at all, ever; or B) this means that simply getting an abortion because of a failure to use protection or other mistake leading to a pregnancy would be prohibited, but using the money in order to save the life of the mother would be all right. For the sake of comedy, and my own sense of outrage, I'll go with choice A there. Because we all know that that's exactly what the pro-life *******s are shooting for. I want each and every pro-lifer out there to have to personally go through this catch-22: either the mother alone lives, or both die. Because there's still situations where a choice like this arises, but "HOLD EVERYTHING!" they say, it's against God's plan to kill a living thing. There was even a piece in the local free newspaper yesterday about the pro-lifers lifting their ballot strategy straight from the creationist/ID morons: they're moving forward with bills that would pretty much ban abortions outright by saying that a person's life starts at fertilization/"biological development". I'm not ******** you, that's the wording they're using. And it'll probably work, too, since the average American voter has cheese curds for brains. Of course, there's some idiotic statements on my side of the debate also. In the same article, the spokesperson for the local Planned Parenthood said, "the crushing defeat of Colorado's initiative last year by a 3-to-1 margin coupled with the fact that they're coming back, it begs the question: do they have the Colorado voters' best interests at heart, or is there a national agenda going on?" Gee, I don't know!? Do the pro-lifers have a national agenda? They're trying to get this bucket of ******** on the ballots of all 50 states (which would in theory make it a federal law in all but name). ****ING OF COURSE THEY HAVE A NATIONAL AGENDA! Why the **** does it bother you that a woman might need an abortion. How's about this for a solution: If we outlaw abortion, we FORCE these *******s to care for each and every one of the kids that THEY force life onto. You want to force mothers to have these kids? Then YOU care for 'em! Either that or we just institute a stupidity tax and an evil tax, and the money from these taxes all goes to the new mothers. But then that doesn't solve the issue of the new mothers maybe wanting to go to college, get a great job, and have a life that would allow them to care for a kid in about 10 years. So I'm more partial to forcing the unwanted kids on the pro-lifers. I guarantee you, after the 6th kid they're forced to raise, they'll be running SCREAMING for abortions again. And we should ALWAYS value the life of the mother over the little parasite growing within her. If the mother is in danger of dying if she continues with the pregnancy, instant abortion. Right there. **** you pro-lifers and your holier-than-thou attitude. You don't really care about these women who might need abortion. It's like the old saying goes: they care about you right before you're born and right before you die, but they tell you you can go get ****ed during all the years in between.

I also just caught this little gem from Michelle Bachmann: ""Generations unborn are crying out to us tonight to preserve their freedoms,". No, no they're not. They're not "crying out" for ANYTHING! Because they CAN'T ****ING TALK! And what about the freedoms of the mothers, huh you ****ing ****bag!? That's it! The first 20 unwanted children born all go to Bachmann. And before I forget, nannies and other help? OUTLAWED! Make these ****nuggets raise the kids THEMSELVES!

To end this rant, I'm gonna have to defer to the brilliant wisdom of the late, great, Bill Hicks.

Again, the source.

Now since I'm not writing for any sort of newspaper like the author of the source is, I get to go off on these paranoid *******s and tell them to go **** a blender. See? Man I love having a blog. Anyway, on to the issue. You may remember that my last issue about America's "War on Fun" was that Halloween was getting renamed because of our ******** "Do Not Offend" mantra. Now this one is more dire, and also has been going on for a lot longer. In fact, I might have to go ahead and write an obituary for Halloween with the rampant amounts of horse**** that's spewed in the name of "safety". It's the same mantra that I talked about when I raised my hatred about the people against vaccinations: the facts are that there's NOBODY (all right, well in the vaccinations cast it's more like 1:100,000 but here it's quite literally NOBODY) has gotten anything worse than a stomachache from eating candy on Halloween, and those are always from eating too much of the damn stuff. Parents are hovering around their kids while they go trick-or-treating for fear of a pedophile sneaking up and snatching their kids (I also have a STRONG HATRED for how that term vs. child molester is conflated. I might have to do a rant on that one of these days). Blades MUST be made of plastic so that kids don't injure themselves if they fall on their own ****ing knives! Schools are banning costumes for being "too scary". **** you all, helicopter parents. You know what I do on Halloween (after the parties are all over)? I spend the entire night doing one of two things (with headphones and with ALL the lights off): 1) I play Silent Hill 2 and/or Fatal Frame II (two of the scariest ****ing games in existence), or 2) I go through a freak movie marathon, with movies like The Exorcist or Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th. ****, I first saw Nightmare when I was 10! And I was always allowed to go wherever the **** I wanted to trick-or-treat, as long as I was back by a certain time. And the only way my parents controlled my candy access was to make sure I didn't eat too much! What the **** are we turning Halloween into? Like I said earlier, I'd write an obituary for Halloween, since like Christmas and common sense it's been killed to death, but I can't think of anything uplifting to say about it's demise. Next thing you know we're gonna ban ALL fireworks on the Fourth of July because someone five miles away might get hurt by a runaway spark! ****, we have as much evidence of this happening as we have of kids getting killed by Halloween, but that obviously doesn't stop us.

As always, the source

**** all of these people. America has become pussified. Majorly. First they took away "Merry Christmas". Now, even though I'm a huge atheist, I don't really care if someone wishes me "Merry Christmas". Now we're getting rid of "Halloween" in favor of "Costume Day"? BULL...****! These people need to be hanged by their balls and/or breasts. Much pain must be inflicted on these *******s. They're taking away our kids' childhoods just to make sure they don't offend anybody. It's become a mantra in our society nowadays: "We must not offend". **** you. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to not be offended. In fact, the First Amendment says I have a right to say whatever the **** I want, and even if it offends you, you can't do dick about it. That's what is called freedom of speech. And every month a tiny bit of that freedom is sacrificed to make sure everybody is all peachy-keen all the time. And the kids are suffering because of it. Mark my words, these kids are gonna be all kinds of ****ed up because of this "do not offend" mantra.

In closing, I'd like to say to this school here: HAPPY HALLOWEEN *****ES!

First, the source.

Now, my reaction. Parents, if you truly want to do some research on whether you should or should not vaccinate your children, please stop listening to these ignorant ****wits and go to places that have ACTUAL MEDICAL DATA!!! Let's take the points that these fearmongers are spreading about childhood vaccines one by one:

1) "The doctors are just in the pockets of Big Pharma!" - Of course they are, you morons! Conducting the research for new vaccines takes a ****load of time, effort, and money. How else are these scientists supposed to raise the capital for their experiments? Sure, you could say that they could go for grants, but that just adds a step that takes time away from actual experimentation and investigation. These are ****ING DOCTORS! Now, I'm no paranoid ****tard like you, but I'd think that doctors would earn less by giving your kids something that makes them really sick, and I'm gonna point to one simple fact for this: word-of-mouth. The same tactics that you *******s are using. If a doctor was really, truly causing kids to become autistic with bogus vaccines, word would get around really goddamned fast. Well, that and he'd lose his ability to practice medicine faster than the Flash can change his clothes.

2) "My kid got autism right after he was vaccinated, so the vaccination caused the autism!" - This is one of the most...nay, THE MOST MIND-NUMBINGLY IDIOTIC, STUPID, AND MORONIC THING I'VE HEARD IN MY LIFE!!! Stop thinking that vaccinations can cause autism. Like I said earlier, if this was really true, the *****torm would perhaps be bigger than 9/11. But it ISN'T. You know why? Do what I suggested earlier: look up the actual data. When does autism typically manifest? All right, now when do kids typically first get vaccinated? That's right, the same time. And kids were being diagnosed with autism long before these new vaccines were even thought up. There's a well-known saying (well, every rational human knows this one): Correlation does NOT imply causation. That's like saying that watching porn causes a decrease in violent sexual crimes because in areas where porn viewing was up rape was down and vice versa. Only that correlation at least makes a tiny bit of sense. Yours doesn't. At all. NEXT!

3) "There's a lot of better ways that help my kid get rid of autism." - Some of these include forgoing vaccinations for an increase in vitamin D. **** off right there. If that were true, we'd be able to cure autism just by having the kids spend all their free time outside; a lot of our vitamin D intake comes from the sun in a process a little bit like photosynthesis. Truth is, we DON'T have any hard cures for autism, and if we did you probably wouldn't give them to your kid because it would come from THE SAME ****ING PLACE THAT THESE VACCINES COME FROM!!! Now here's a correlation/causation thing that I feel is right on the money: cures beget vaccines. We find a disease. We see how it works. We find a way to stop it after it has started. Then we go even further and find out how to stop if before it starts.

4) "The medical community just doesn't care!" - I want to punch you in the mouth. I want to hang you with your own intestines. Because this is on the level of stupidity of #2. The medical community DOES care. It's just that you're too ****ing impatient and/or entitled and think that science should be able to cure autism 20 years ago. You know what? SCIENCE IS SLOW! It has to be. If science moved at the speed that you wanted it to, we'd have thousands of untested cures and vaccines stocking the store shelves, and millions would be getting all kinds of side effects that we would never know about because you just couldn't allow the scientists to test the damn things. Yes, I know it's heartbreaking to see your kid with "brain damage". I'm sure a cure will be coming. But you're not helping anything; you're actually making it take LONGER! Pestering scientists and doctors for a treatment that doesn't exist yet takes yet more time away from them. They need to spend time to tell you to Shut The **** Up, time they could be spending helping your kid!

5) "OMFG, This guy said you could safely give kids 10,000 vaccines! That's a lie!" - If you are even thinking this, you have as much brain power as an ant. The rates actually show that kids could safely be given 100,000 vaccines. This just goes to show that vaccines are safer than most people want us to think they are.

6) This isn't a quote, but more of a final generality. It comes when famous people champion a faulty cause, and said famous person's fame causes all sorts of bad choices. I'm pointing my finger squarely at Jenny McCarthy and that large empty space between her ears. You know what, you stupid ****? You're a "model". I put that in quotes because you're not even remotely hot. You work in Hollywood. You're goal is to "entertain". Again, in quotes because you suck at it. You are NOT a biologist. You are NOT a doctor. You have NO TRAINING WHATSOEVER TO MAKE THESE CLAIMS! Shut your mouth before I mow it off you with a pushmower! Then I'll glue your lips to my butt so you can forevermore be KISSING MY ASS!

Oh, and as for Bill Maher: I loved you, man, but cut this **** out. You say that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job because there would have to be just too many people in the loop for it to work? Well the same thing goes for this vaccine-doomsday-thinking. We would have to have all the biologists, doctors, chemists, government workers, and Big Pharma bigwigs to even get something like that started. **** you. I'll take that back and start liking you if you can learn to be consistent in your criticisms.

The moral of this rant: Go with the empyrical evidence, or I will carve you like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Just read this story.

Now, before I get to the rant, let me preface this that I've been EXTREMELY lucky to not have to deal with anything like this, from either end of the matter. Obviously no kids, so I don't have first-hand knowledge about how hard it might be to get a toddler under control. And I've never had to endure a screaming ****monger when I decide to have a nice evening out. But I feel that my feelings on the matter need to be stated, just in case I have the misfortune of having to deal with a whining maggot sometime in the future. If I decide to go to a nice restaurant (I qualify "nice" as one where one sits down at a table/booth, the food is prepared by an actual chef, and the entrees cost around $10), I'm doing so to have some time either by myself or with friends/family. And you know what ruins that experience like no other? Having a ****ING SCREAMING CRAP FACTORY at the next table! Look, I don't mind kids AT ALL, provided that they are quiet and curteous and, you know, actually behave. The thing that gets me about this story is that the parents are so out of it that they think that a restaurant that JUST OPENED is a good place to take a toddler. It was the place's opening weekend! And they say that "the cooking was slow". What the **** do you expect? It takes a while for new restaurants to get things rolling. And if the (understandable, though apparently not to these ****nuggets) wait is bothering you and your demon spawn to the point that the kid is whining, here's a tip for you: JUST. ****ING. LEAVE. Nobody's keeping you there. Let the employees know that the wait is unacceptable, pay for anything you might have already gotten, and LEAVE. Don't subject the employees and other patrons to the cries of your precious little snowflake. Sorry, the insane amounts of sneering and contempt that went into those last three words just can't come out in a blog post. Anyway, where was I? Right. What the world REALLY needs is for somebody to grow a pair of (figurative, saying that just to cover my ass) balls and open an adults-only establishment. Somewhere where adults can go and not have to worry about running into these ****ing diaper stains and their oblivious-to-noise parents.

I guess the whole point of this is that what Bill Hicks (and probably a whole bunch of other comedians) used to say: We've become a world of child worshipers. Everything needs to accomodate children. I say **** THAT! You know what child worship does? It fills the children with the thought that they're entitled to pretty much anything, and that their disruptive behavior has absolutely no consequences. If I ever have to endure a screaming child in a nice restaurant, I'm gonna take that little ****er, carry it into the kitchen, and stuff it into a blender. Then I'm gonna do the same to the parents. Either control your kid, or don't take it with you. Get a babysitter. If you can't afford a babysitter, then WHAT THE **** are you doing at a restaurant? ****ing entitlement pricks.

I realize that this is the last time of the year when the topic of Santa Claus would come up, but come up it did. And it got me thinking: Santa Claus is quite possibly the most evil being in fictional existence. How evil is he? Let's examine them on a point-by-point basis:

1) Santa is a pedophile. Really. He only keeps tabs on kids, and doesn't care what the hell adults do with their time. Sure, it's under the guise of making sure that kids behave, but what sort of person does that to kids? If a real-life person did this, he'd be locked up right away just based on this first point. And the fact that he's peeking in on kids all the time leads to...

2) Santa is a stalker. Every activity, every word out of a kid's mouth, is recorded by Santa. "He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake." Doesn't anyone see how needlessly creepy this is? Again, under the guise of keeping kids in line. These two points lead into...

3) Santa is completely corrupt. He has taken it upon himself to serve as judge, jury, and "executioner" for the behaviors of kids. Sure, the "sentence" of misbehaving means a lack of rewards, but since when did giving one man this much legal autonomy turn out to be anything other than a bad thing? There are many cases of people having this sort of power, some more notable than others. (yeah, I went there:p)

4) Santa is a slave master. He owns a gigantic toy factory and has his elves all work on putting each toy together from scratch, 24/7/365.25. We don't know that his elves actually get paid. Or if they get breaks. I'm assuming that they don't, because with all the toys that need to get delivered on Christmas, it would probably take close to a million elves to get it all done in time. And it's not easy to hide a million of anything.

5) Santa is a blatant copyright breaker. Sure, in the "good ole days" Santa was content to have his slave-elves make innocent things like toy trains or sleds. But now we see kids everywhere getting things like Nintendo Wiis and Guitar Hero and Lego sets, all of which are items that should have royalties going to the companies that make them. But Santa has no discernible source of income. So the companies are getting screwed out of reasonable income because of this jerk.

We need to put Santa into prison! NOW!