Things will be better when you’re gone.

September 14, 2011

First, I’d like to thank my friend for allowing me to post this on his blog since it doesn’t necessarily relate to the overall theme of my personal blog.

These thoughts have been brewing for a while now.  I’ve shared my dark philosophy with my close friends but never quite as out loud or publicly as this platform will offer.  It’s pretty depressing, but I feel that the truth behind the message might change the way that people think about certain issues that aren’t yet socially acceptable for whatever reason.

Tonight I read a post in a Facebook group about a high school student that was expressing how disappointed he was with a conversation that his parents had with one another.  His parents’ conversation was about another set of parents that were extremely upset that their child announced that he was a homosexual and how they would be devastated if their one child did the same.  It inspired me to open my laptop and type this post.

Over the past few years, I have developed a firm stance on gay rights.  Not because I am gay myself, but because I am open-minded.  If that last statement was insulting to you then you should probably read on and probably be even more insulted.  I realize that people might not share the same views as me but they are still entitled to their own views and lifestyles.  That’s my definition of open-minded.  If you feel otherwise based on your religion, political affiliation, or because “that’s the way you were raised” then you aren’t open-minded.  You are basing how everyone else should live on the set of standards that you set for yourself.  Just stop and think about it for a second.  No really, stop right now before reading the next paragraph and just pause to think about the things that you believe and how they affect the happiness of others.  (Pause and count to 30)

I didn’t always feel as passionate as I do now about equality.  It was only a few years ago that the words “faggot” and “nigger” were part of my regular vocabulary.  It’s not something that I am proud of by any means.  Now, I actually am quite offended when I hear people use these words even in a playful sense.  It’s really not funny to me any more.  Who the hell am I (and you) to tell other people how to live their life if it’s not directly affecting the way I live mine?  I might not agree with it but I support that very right.

I thought about how things changed of the course of history and how embarrassing it is to think that the rights that some people have today were denied not long ago in our past.  From slavery to women’s right to vote, it’s embarrassing.  It’s embarrassing to think of how big of a deal it is that we now have a black president because we never thought in our recent past that we would ever see this as possible and acceptable.  It’s milestones like these that expose how narrow-minded we actually are as a society.

Over time, things get better but it’s never fast enough.  I credit the changes in socially acceptable issues to more open-mindedness from generation to generation.  Our ancestors socially accepted rights that denied others of those very same rights and we are still doing the same thing today with gay marriage.  It will again be embarrassing to look back 20 years from now when gay marriage is passed (hopefully much much sooner) and wonder why we waited so long to pass a law that allows people to be happy.  Gays aren’t looking for anything else but equality and we as a society are denying them of that.  That’s embarrassing.

As generations continue they become more accepting to the beliefs of others.  My generation is more accepting of homosexuality than my parents’ generation and definitely more accepting than their parents’ generation.  What is awesome about this trend is that my children will live in a world that is more accepting than the very one in which I live.  It’s very offensive and insulting to accept the concept that things will be better when you’re (I’m) gone and that’s a beautiful thing for our children, their children and so on.

Advertisements

Katie runs the NBA on TNT

December 22, 2010

My good friend Katie had the opportunity to ask Charles Barkley a question the other day during halftime on the NBA on TNT. Click the link below her picture to see her question and Charles’s response.

She’s the chick on Game 2 on 12/16/10.

Flattery will get you everywhere, Ms. Katie. Especially with Charles. I’m surprised that you didn’t compliment his recent weight loss… but governor? Seriously?

The lovely Katie's national television debut.


Glenn Beck isn’t making a judgment. Apparently that’s because he’s unclear about what that means.

November 14, 2010

Glenn Beck is upset because George Soros doesn’t feel remorse for his actions as a 14 year old Holocaust survivor.  He claims that he doesn’t pass judgment on Soros, who grew up Jewish and, at 14 years old, posed as a young Christian boy to survive in Nazi occupied Hungary.  While under this guise, he had to accompany his guardian to an abandoned Jewish household and inventory the remaining artifacts.  Glenn had this to say about Soros’s experience:

“…his father asked a Christian in Hungary to adopt his son, or make him his godson.  And George Soros used to go around with this, ya know, Anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and ship them off.  And George Soros was part of it.  He would, he would help confiscate the stuff.  It’s frightening.  Here’s a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death.  And death camps.  And I am certainly not saying that George Soros enjoyed that, even had a choice.  I mean, he’s 14 years old.  He was surviving.  So I’m, I’m not making a judgment. That’s between him and God.  As a 14 year old boy I don’t know what you would do.  I don’t know what you would do.  But you think there would be some remorse as an 80 year old man, or a 40 year old man, or a 20 year old man.  When it was all over, you would do some soul searching and say, ‘What did I do?  What did I do?'”

I’ve highlighted So I’m, I’m not making a judgment so that we can compare that to what Glenn Beck actually says in the same diatribe that contradicts this statement.

Now before we go any further, let’s establish what judgment really means.  It’s the ability to objectively judge or form an opinion wisely.  So Glenn Beck literally states that he’s not forming an opinion, either way, about the terrible life experiences of George Soros.  Now, let’s highlight where Glenn Beck passes judgment on him.

1. It’s frightening. Considering that Beck thinks that George physically sent Jewish people to death camps, which is grossly inaccurate, it’s pretty clear that he’s passed judgment on Mr. Soros’s actions.  If that were the case.  If that were the case, maybe it would be more reasonable to expect a man in his shoes to feel more remorse.  But that’s not what actually happened.  So Glenn Beck has falsely accused a man of sending Jewish people to their deaths during one of the most horrific periods of time in the history of civilization.  And then he passed judgment on the man.

Nice work, jackass.

2. But you think there would be some remorse as an 80 year old man, or a 40 year old man, or a 20 year old man. I would think that a man who is 80 years old would finally be at peace with what happened and understand that at 14 years old, he had absolutely no control over any of it.  But that’s my opinion.  That would be how I judge George Soros.  That is not how Beck passes judgment.

It’s pretty obvious that Glenn Beck has no understanding of what it means to judge someone.

You can go listen to Glenn Beck and his incoherent mumbling here, to listen to his whole dickish opinion about another man’s terrible experiences growing up.  The sad part of this whole insanely ignorant comment is that people will continue to listen to Glenn Beck like he’s an authority on something.  That man isn’t qualified to run a Denny’s, let alone inform people of who should and shouldn’t feel guilt about events in their lives.

"I get so goddamn diuretic when I sit here and my mouth just never stops."


I know Glenn Beck is an idiot. He may not know that, however.

November 7, 2010

The following is a transcript from the November 4, 2010 airing of whatever Glenn Beck’s show is called.  I didn’t want to take the time to look it up.  Some people say it’s called ‘Crossfire’.  Is that true?  I don’t know.  I’ve highlighted all of my favorite parts in bold.  Some of my favorite parts are spelling/grammatical errors.  I don’t know who to blame for those: the chimpanzee speaking or the one editing the transcript before it’s posted.

I saw a story today where something is very, very wrong. And I don’t know what it is yet, and the media is completely missing the real story. I can’t tell you what the real story is yet, but there are too many unanswered questions.

The president’s upcoming trip to India, and other points from there. Report came out that has made rounds on the Internet about the high cost of this trip. Some people say that it is up to $2 billion for 10 days. Is that true? I don’t know!

The media is bickering back and forth about what the real cost is and how many ships will be there — 34 warships possibly. I don’t know.

Two hundred million dollars a day while in India. I don’t know.

The president has blocked off 800 hotel rooms. Do we still — do even know if he’s travelling [sic] with 3,000 people? Do we know if that’s true?

No one knows any of the details of this trip, the real cost of the trip. One thing we can say for certain is, it’s going to be quite expensive.

I want to make this extraordinarily clear. I have been against this trip since I’ve heard about it just a few weeks ago because I don’t believe the president — I don’t believe the president is listening to the Secret Service. I know enough Secret Service people to know that they take his safety and every president’s safety extraordinarily serious. And there are too many things wrong with this trip.

You protect the president at all costs. I don’t care if it costs them $10 trillion. Mumbai is a very dangerous place. Massive terror attack — only two years ago, 166 were killed. More 300 wounded during the three-day rampage. The president is staying at that hotel.

So, I don’t know what the cost is. What I do know, it’s going to be an expensive, expensive trip at a time that we’re struggling. But the payoff must be huge, right? No!

I want to know why he’s going on this trip in the first place. Why spend the money no matter what the number is on a trip that seems to have little or no upside and only risk?

They have canceled this trip two times previously. The first time he said because the health care thing was going on. The second time, he said the oil spill.

OK. Well, we are in a crisis now. Did he miss the food thing that I just did? It doesn’t make sense.

Here’s my concern: every time this gets put back on the calendar, the advance work has to be done all over again. Judging by the size of this operation, I can’t imagine how much advance work we have done and what that cost is.

My question is: the Secret Service, have they been allowed to change the president’s itinerary, his routes, his hotel for his agenda? Or is exactly the same route, itinerary and agenda that has been planned and checked over and over again in a country where you can bribe people?

If you give extremists enough time and an agenda that doesn’t change and you are putting the president of the United States in danger. Is someone in the media who will — who they’ll take a call from? They won’t. Is anyone asking this?

He is arriving in Mumbai just in time for the festival of lights. I don’t know if that’s why he is going, you know? I don’t know if that’s why we’re paying all of this money, for lights. I don’t know how many lights we can send over here. Yes.

Let’s take a detailed look at the itinerary and we see if we can find upside on why we’re putting the president possibly in danger and why we’re spending all of this money.

In India, he’ll be working on lowering tensions between India and Pakistan. How? What? What are we offering? How’s that?

He’ll also be talking to survivor [sic] of the Mumbai attacks. I personally think he could probably spend less money and talk to the 9/11, you know, family victims here. I mean, explain why Gitmo is still open and we haven’t had trials yet. They probably would like to know that.

Visit the Mumbai Gandhi Museum where — I’m not kidding you — they are now talking the coconuts out of the tree, because they don’t want one to fall out of the tree and hit him in the head. Is that a regular occurrence over there?

He’s going to have a roundtable with entrepreneurs. The man won’t meet with the Chamber of Commerce here. Sir, I’ll set that up for you free, here.

Obama will then visit a local school in Mumbai to mark Diwali, I guess the biggest annual religious holiday for Hindu [sic] and Sikhs.

Then he holds a town hall meeting to promote food security and democracy. Really? Food — you should watch the first segment, Mr. President. Food security.

Maybe you could have the Fed explain, you know, what they’re doing to the price of our food here. Look what General Mills has to do to the price of cereal.

That’s great. That’s the end of the first leg. It sound sounds fun. A ceremonial trip, but zero value so far.

Then it’s off to Delhi, to visit the tomb of 16th century emperor and then to Indonesia — Jakarta, where he spent part of his childhood. Oh, the memories.

Then he gets to have lunch with the president of China — where I can guarantee the president of China is probably going to talk a little bit about, what are you doing? Why are you spending so much money? What’s up with the dollar? You know, that kind of thing.

And then, finally, on the back end of his trip, there’s a G-20 gathering in South Korea. Then he wraps it up with lunch with the president of Russia.

Great. Call! You can pick up the phone and do a lot of that stuff! Is it worth the money and the trouble, the security risk? Can you imagine
can you imagine what would happen, God forbid, if something happened to the president of the United States? I am concerned about the president’s itinerary not being changed — has it been.

There are so many members of the media that will say I’m dangerous to even have on the air, to even say anything. I mean, this guy’s so dangerous! Will someone in the media who hasn’t been declared an enemy of the state please ask the Secret Service a question. Ask them, off record because they’re not going to tell you on record, off record. Are you comfortable with the president of the United States on this trip? Are you comfortable that everything’s buttoned up? They’ll tell you off the record, I’m sure.

Then you need to go on the record and do your president and your country a favor and ask what the meaning of this trip is. Why is he going? Protect him. Please. Protect him. Pray for our Secret Service.

Number of times Glenn Beck initially presents a statement as fact, but can’t back it up with actual evidence: 10

Number of things Glenn Beck doesn’t know/can’t prove: 16

My favorite thing that Glenn Beck doesn’t know anything about has to be Diwali.  Glenn Beck says, on air mind you, “…I guess the biggest annual religious holiday for Hindu [sic] and Sikhs.”  I guess.  Or something like that.  I mean, I suppose it’d be a lot to ask that Glenn Beck take the time to actually look up a fact about Diwali on Wikipedia before the show.  But I’m also guessing that since he didn’t take the the time to read something, Glenn Beck can’t read.  Is that true?  I don’t know.  Wikipedia, by the way, is a very reliable source for information.  Could Fox News get all of their information from Wikipedia?  I don’t know.

Is this where Fox News gets all their information? I don't know.

Number of really ironic statements about things Glenn Beck can’t prove: 1

“Pray for our Secret Service.”  Now there’s something Glenn Beck literally can’t prove does anything: prayer.  Yet he fails to let his viewers know that it actually doesn’t do anything.

The pointless drivel that Glenn Beck utters day-in and day-out amazes me.  What amazes me even more is that people still listen to that turd like he knows what he’s talking about, when he openly admits that he has no idea about anything that he’s talking about.

If you’d like to read the transcript in all its idiotic, pointless glory, you can check it out here.


Bill O’Reilly is an idiot.

October 15, 2010

Seriously.  A flaming idiot.

Around the 1:5o mark, Bill O’Reilly says on of the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.  While trying to explain why he feels the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’, as it’s now known, is inappropriate, O’Reilly and his mindless diarrhea of the mouth farted the following:

“Muslims killed us on 9/11!”

Holy shit.  That is one of the most bigoted, idiotic things I have ever heard someone utter, Fox News or otherwise.

Generalizing the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks as Muslims would be like generalizing the Southern lynch mobs in the late 1800’s as Christians.  Were the crazy rednecks who hung black people from trees Christians?  Absolutely.  I don’t hear Bill O’Reilly preaching that Christians senselessly murdered thousands of black people.  Because the ignorant hillbillies who did things like that were ‘Christians’.

It doesn’t seem fair to pass judgment on a whole group of people when you’re part of that group, does it, O’Reilly?  You horse’s ass.

Bill O'Reilly is a horse's ass. Literally.

 

Then O’Reilly tries some more failed logic and a terrible PR drop as he continues to ramble on pointlessly: “…a lot of the 9/11 families, who I know, say, ‘Look, we don’t want that.'”

Jesus.  Do you mean like how when white, Southern Christians enslaved, raped, and murdered black people in the South for over a century and then fought in a war to prevent their slaves from freedom in the name of the Confederate flag? I bet the descendants of those slaves don’t want the rebel flag flying around capital cities.  Jackass.  And, in a sadly predictable twist, every radio station that Bill O’Reilly’s on promotes the right to wave that Confederate flag.

Columbia, South Carolina: A century and a half behind the North.

It will never cease to amaze me that people like O’Reilly still have viewers, even after they say terribly bigoted, uneducated things like that.


The Pope’s vendetta against people with mustaches. And atheists.

September 21, 2010

Joseph Ratzinger (AKA – The Pope) had this to say about Hitler and the Nazis on his first day in Edinburgh:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a ‘reductive vision of the person and his destiny.’

One does have to wonder if Ratzinger has ever opened a book on history.  One would think it may not be necessary, since he actually lived through it and witnessed the atrocities of the Nazi party as a compulsory member of the Hitler Youth during World War II.  However, historical inaccuracies aside, I have a major problem with Ratzinger’s statement.

He singles out atheists as if all of them are hate mongering, murderous extremists.  Ratzinger whimsically profiles an entire demographic of our society with no basis whatsoever for doing so, which clearly demonstrates that he didn’t learn a valuable lesson about haphazardly profiling people during World War II.  The historically inaccurate statement that ‘Hitler and the Nazi party were all atheists’ simply isn’t true and is a crass, inflammatory statement intended to stir up fear and anger in people who are uneducated about the history of World War II and Hitler.  Sadly, people listen to that man as viable source of information.  But even more sadly, Ratzinger views himself as one.  And he clearly isn’t.

And even if Hitler hadn’t been a confirmed Catholic, (which he was) and hadn’t claimed that his attempted extermination of Jewish people was a war waged on behalf of God, (which he did) and was actually an atheist, blaming atheism for the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust would be no more logical than saying, “Hitler, Stalin, and Wario all have mustaches, therefore all people with mustaches are evil.”

Mustaches are not tools of hatred, oppression, and fear, as the Pope's logic would have you believe.

People are entitled to have faith in whatever they so choose.  But I just hope that when it comes to high ranking religious officials like the Pope, people exercise a little bit of judgment and critical thinking skills before they eat out of his hand.

And Joseph Ratzinger, of all people, should know better than attempting to stir up unfounded fears and unjust persecution towards specific members of our society.


On South Park on Netflix Live

July 19, 2010

South Park is one of the most relevant, funny, and unforgiving shows on television.  If you’re easily offended, it’s not going to be your kind of show.  They make fun or light of the handicapped, gay people, fat people, people with speech impediments, racism, and – gasp – yes, even Islam.  Apparently this is a hot-button topic now-a-days with some Muslim extremists threatening people who have the gall to show an image of their religious figure, Muhammad.  Whatever.

Now because of these religious fanatics, Netflix is trying to be ‘politically correct’ and not have the episode available from their streaming video selection.  The message that sends is that Netflix thinks it’s okay to make fun of the mentally retarded, physically disabled, impoverished, obese, discriminated, as well as anyone else that Trey Parker and Matt Stone place in their crosshairs.  But showing an image of Muhammad.  Whoah!  That crosses the imaginary moral line they’ve drawn in the sand.  You’re actually going to have to wait for Netflix to ship that disc to you in the mail if you want to look at Muhammad.  What a joke.

Netflix, you are officially on my douche list now.

This is where Netflix's social boundaries lie. 'Cripple Fight' is okay to watch online, but not 'The Super Best Friends'.

Thanks a lot, Bin Laden.