Last night and until about 7 a.m. or so (EST) today -- Monday, May 30, 2011 -- many web surfers, probably a wee bit liquored up in the states since today is a national holiday (Memorial Day ... aka we ain't gotta work Monday so we's gonna party Sunday!) found themselves extremely confused (or thrilled) at news on the front page of the website for Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) NewsHour.
According to the article, famed rapper Tupac Shakur (also known as 2Pac) didn't die in 1996 after suffering complications from a drive-by shooting. It was all a big conspiracy and Shakur has been living the high life at a resort in New Zealand with Christopher "Notorious B.I.G." Wallace, who apparently didn't die in 1997.
The widely reported murders of Shakur and Wallace have also been referred to as conspiracies, which is sarcasm for some and belief for others. Whatever the case may be, "Tupac Shakur still alive" has been widely Google searched for years and has been the butt of many jokes, as has the death of Notorious B.I.G., so it's not surprising this news on PBS NewsHour's website drew much attention.
It was later reported this hoax article wasn't simply a solo joke but a distraction as hacking group LulzSec, responsible for the attack, uploaded the article in addition to stealing passwords from PBS servers, PBS affiliates around the U.S. and press accounts, etc. Very serious and scary indeed and media outlets are digging deeper into the reasoning and what-have-you of the situation, especially if people are safe from identity fraud.
Not to downplay LulzSec's attack, the implications and the prevalence of hacking (i.e. the recent PlayStation hacking), but I can't stop thinking about the obsession with dead celebrities.
2Pac
Notorious B.I.G.
Elvis
Michael Jackson (even though he's looked dead-behind-the-eyes for years)
Jim Morrison
They're not really dead! They are still alive and fooled us all! It's the same for the recent death of most hated man ever Osama bin Laden. Almost immediately after the U.S. reported bin Laden was dead, news outlets were filled with equal amounts of American pride and conspiracy theories. Why didn't President Barack Obama release photos of bin Laden's lifeless body? What are they trying to hide? Why did they bury him so fast in the Arabian Sea? Was it to uphold his religious principles or because the U.S. didn't want to get caught in the lie? Oh you want to see the body? Well we buried it already in the sea. It's shark bait so ha, we win. It's not like the U.S. upheld bin Laden's religious principles when he was shot in the face. What is the U.S. covering up? How do we know he's really dead?
Maybe bin Laden has been dead for years and the U.S. used him as a scapegoat to scare Americans into submission. Terror alerts and bin Laden hate-videos to keep us scared and ready for war! Maybe Sept. 11 was all a hoax, orchestrated by the U.S. so there would be acceptable reasoning behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I could go on ...
Conspiracy theories, from aliens in Roswell, N.M. to the Kennedy assassination to the spread of AIDS in the black community to the Free Masons and other secret societies ... everyone has heard these tales. Everyone has an opinion.
In American culture people were, for the most part, sheep to the government, going along with wars and drafts, rises and falls in the economy with a smile on their face as they continued reaching for the American Dream, until the upheaval of the 1960s, especially politically. There were protests, finger-pointing, shouts and anger directed toward the government. Maybe people had always been angry and suspicious but the 1960s and on brought these concerns to the front line, more so today with technology. It became commonplace to share problems, to not believe in Uncle Sam anymore and what he can or can not do for you. Life wasn't so simple anymore.
Trust is gone from politics. We are fed information from news sources, develop our image of each situation and render an opinion accordingly. Some people don't even read the news since, honestly, there is too much shit going on in the world today. Much more than a human mind can grasp since the world population keeps soaring to ridiculous levels.
So, what's the answer? How will we ever know for sure? What's the point of conspiracy theories? Questioning everything will leave you with no answers, no sense of security. You will no longer trust anyone but at least you won't be duped ever again! It's like a woman who was cheated on by her boyfriend and then never trusts a man again. Mama didn't raise no fool!
What if you woke up tomorrow and found out it was all a lie. The world you've been fed through news outlets is fabricated. How easy that would be because it's not like you are getting first hand knowledge of world affairs! There isn't a war in Afghanistan. There is no Osama bin Laden, never was. No nuclear problems in Japan, heck there wasn't even a tsunami. Nothing going on in Egypt or Yemen or Libya. It's all been a distraction. The news has been fabricated to keep you on your toes, keep you nervous, keep you loyal, keep you busy. The gas prices went up to keep you feeling helpless. It's not like you give a damn anyway so why not fiddle with world affairs?
Why? It's easier that way. Controlling the news is easier. It started as simple control and turned into full-on fabrication. Why? Well it's just easier. Would you want to know? What would you do then? What's the point of your existence? It's not like you could do anything about it anyway.
What if Elvis is still alive and well, eating fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches in his bunker? America fell in love with him so much he decided he wanted to be even more popular and beloved, so why not die early. What if there were aliens in Roswell? What if there are aliens walking among us right now? What if you are an alien offspring? JFK's assassination was a conspiracy, Sept. 11 was staged, blah blah blah. You couldn't handle the truth. Too much mass hysteria would be very hard to control.
Do you really think if the government found alien life in the U.S. they would tell us? How would we handle this information? What would we do? How could we change our lives accordingly? Isn't the government there to control everything anyway since we obviously can't? There are huge issues of race still prevalent in the U.S. -- black vs. white vs. "Mexican" vs. Asian -- so how on Earth would we handle another race, an alien race?
What's the frequency Kenneth?
Monday, May 30, 2011
Too much hype! Ditch the hype man and be real!
My mind is playin' tricks on me ...
Most of you experienced this ... you have an event coming up. Maybe it's your birthday this coming weekend (your special day!) or you are getting together with some friends for a night out. Maybe you're going to the bar to booze your troubles away or going to the theater to see the newly released comedy, the one that's supposed to be the "funniest movie of (insert year here)!" Whatever this event may be, it is something to look forward to, something making the downsides of the week easier, i.e. long hours at your 9-5 (especially between 1:30-2ish and 3:30 p.m. when the workday seems endless and agonizing, when the clock looks to be ticking backwards), routines of working out and watching TiVo-ed shows, running errands, being an "adult" in a culture that celebrates the fun-loving wild, no responsibility jerk-faces in movies and on TV. Those assclowns who have no trouble spending money and doing whatever they want because in the movies you always end up on top!
You think about how much fun you will have, how much you need this night out. Yes, need! It becomes more than just your birthday or a night out with friends ... it's going to be the best time you've had in a long while! As the kids say, it's going to be epic.
You chat with friends about it, exchange some text messages, Facebook posts, maybe some phone calls or (shocking!) face-to-face contact.
But then, when the event finally arrives, it's not what you expected. It's not as fun as you thought and, although not necessarily the opposite of fun (as in shitsville, population 1), it's just not as great as you pictured.
This is when you think ... why am I disappointed? Well hopefully you think this or think anything at all ... at least being a tad bit introspective because otherwise you just keep doing the same shit over and over again and ... isn't that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.
Anywho, you thought about that night out at the bar all week long and now it's here and you remember ... you don't even like bars. The people are annoying, the music is loud, it smells weird, it's expensive and really not a great time unless you are completely s-faced. You work hard for your money and it gets wasted at a place you don't even like that much. You could have bought a bottle of hooch and drank it in the comfort of your home, doing what you like. This is a realization and is beyond a shadow of a doubt in your mind but if you are honest with yourself, you know in a week, maybe two or three, you will be back at the bar. You will have that week again where you motivate the monotony of work or exercising or whatever by reminding yourself how great your night out will be. Such a reward it will be! Then you find yourself at the same bar with the same realization ... this is pretty lame. But you are supposed to love going out to the bar or whatever it is everybody does! Join the crowd or you will be left out!
Of course not every situation is the same but overall ... what's the deal pickles? Does it have to do with the over abundance of hype? It reminds me of newly released movies ... you watch the trailers and hype on TV, maybe as a preview before another movie, maybe you read something in a newspaper, magazine or online? Maybe you see an interview with one of the actors. "Funniest movie of the year." "A must-see." You are fed the best clips, the funniest parts. Duh, marketing 101. But then when you go pay your enormous fee for tickets, soda and maybe some Sour Patch Kids or Snowcaps, maybe you are a Raisinettes type of dude, whatever, you sit your pretty ass down and watch the film ... and it really isn't that funny. It really isn't a must-see. What was up with all that damn hype? Was the movie lame or was it just hyped too much, so much you waltzed in to that theater with such high expectations that of course it sucks! With those expectations, nothing is going to win. You gotta lower your standards brotha!
Lowered expectations! Or you ignore the hype and just focus on what you enjoy, what you like and go with your gut!
Anyway ... why isn't it easier to learn from our downfalls? Downfall as in mistakes, downfall as in disappointments. You have "friends" (whatever that word means to you) and they disappoint you. Maybe it's your birthday and they expend enough energy to write "Happy birthday" on your Facebook wall after being reminded of your date of birth when signing on or the ones who can't even expend enough energy for this task. Oooo brotha, feel the burn! Maybe they promised you a night out on the town at your fav watering hole and leave early because they are bored. Because said watering hole is deserted and there's no one there to peak their interest and pay attention to them, especially not you! Of course they don't say this but it's obvious after reflection. They leave (or they leave you your technology age/time saver/staying-connected-while-not-having-to-go-through-human-contact-ever-again "Happy birthday") and your feelings are hurt. You aren't exactly surprised by their actions but you are hurt. You are upset. You bitch and moan. You complain. Boo hoo, woe is me. You know what ya gotta do! But then comes the moment of truth. Knowledge vs. action. What ya gonna do about it besides a dramatic inner monologue?
Are actions going to speak louder than words and you gonna change your ways? You have options, obviously, from confrontation all the way to denial. But why is it we typically don't do anything? Why do we except these friends for who they are, even if they are shitty friends? What's the point of the friendship?
Change is so difficult. It is easier (not necessarily on your stress level or overall well-being) but easier to just keep doing the same old shit. Keep watching those movie trailers and going, wow, that movie looks awesome! You know what I heard? I heard it's the funniest movie of 2011! Well I'm going to go pay my weeks wages to get a seat and some snacks at the local theater and check it out! It's OK if you sit in front of some annoying dude who won't shut up the entire film, I get to see the funniest movie of 2011! You keep going to the bar on the weekends. You keep hanging out with that shitty friend. It's just so much easier.
Aristotle wrote, "Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods." While I think interaction with others is important and healthy, I am a cynic. Why put so much time and energy into people when they are just going to let you down? When you are just going to die, a death that ends your personal journey and sends you on another (hopefully)? This isn't for the people who have amazing, attentive, thoughtful and caring friends, but honestly how many of you are even out there? This is for the others. The only friend you need is yourself.
So next time you see those movie trailers or think about your next event, whether it's your birthday or a bar trip or whatever, be honest with yourself. Is it something you are going to enjoy or is it just more hype, more bullshit to dull your senses?
Most of you experienced this ... you have an event coming up. Maybe it's your birthday this coming weekend (your special day!) or you are getting together with some friends for a night out. Maybe you're going to the bar to booze your troubles away or going to the theater to see the newly released comedy, the one that's supposed to be the "funniest movie of (insert year here)!" Whatever this event may be, it is something to look forward to, something making the downsides of the week easier, i.e. long hours at your 9-5 (especially between 1:30-2ish and 3:30 p.m. when the workday seems endless and agonizing, when the clock looks to be ticking backwards), routines of working out and watching TiVo-ed shows, running errands, being an "adult" in a culture that celebrates the fun-loving wild, no responsibility jerk-faces in movies and on TV. Those assclowns who have no trouble spending money and doing whatever they want because in the movies you always end up on top!
You think about how much fun you will have, how much you need this night out. Yes, need! It becomes more than just your birthday or a night out with friends ... it's going to be the best time you've had in a long while! As the kids say, it's going to be epic.
You chat with friends about it, exchange some text messages, Facebook posts, maybe some phone calls or (shocking!) face-to-face contact.
But then, when the event finally arrives, it's not what you expected. It's not as fun as you thought and, although not necessarily the opposite of fun (as in shitsville, population 1), it's just not as great as you pictured.
This is when you think ... why am I disappointed? Well hopefully you think this or think anything at all ... at least being a tad bit introspective because otherwise you just keep doing the same shit over and over again and ... isn't that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.
Anywho, you thought about that night out at the bar all week long and now it's here and you remember ... you don't even like bars. The people are annoying, the music is loud, it smells weird, it's expensive and really not a great time unless you are completely s-faced. You work hard for your money and it gets wasted at a place you don't even like that much. You could have bought a bottle of hooch and drank it in the comfort of your home, doing what you like. This is a realization and is beyond a shadow of a doubt in your mind but if you are honest with yourself, you know in a week, maybe two or three, you will be back at the bar. You will have that week again where you motivate the monotony of work or exercising or whatever by reminding yourself how great your night out will be. Such a reward it will be! Then you find yourself at the same bar with the same realization ... this is pretty lame. But you are supposed to love going out to the bar or whatever it is everybody does! Join the crowd or you will be left out!
Of course not every situation is the same but overall ... what's the deal pickles? Does it have to do with the over abundance of hype? It reminds me of newly released movies ... you watch the trailers and hype on TV, maybe as a preview before another movie, maybe you read something in a newspaper, magazine or online? Maybe you see an interview with one of the actors. "Funniest movie of the year." "A must-see." You are fed the best clips, the funniest parts. Duh, marketing 101. But then when you go pay your enormous fee for tickets, soda and maybe some Sour Patch Kids or Snowcaps, maybe you are a Raisinettes type of dude, whatever, you sit your pretty ass down and watch the film ... and it really isn't that funny. It really isn't a must-see. What was up with all that damn hype? Was the movie lame or was it just hyped too much, so much you waltzed in to that theater with such high expectations that of course it sucks! With those expectations, nothing is going to win. You gotta lower your standards brotha!
Lowered expectations! Or you ignore the hype and just focus on what you enjoy, what you like and go with your gut!
Anyway ... why isn't it easier to learn from our downfalls? Downfall as in mistakes, downfall as in disappointments. You have "friends" (whatever that word means to you) and they disappoint you. Maybe it's your birthday and they expend enough energy to write "Happy birthday" on your Facebook wall after being reminded of your date of birth when signing on or the ones who can't even expend enough energy for this task. Oooo brotha, feel the burn! Maybe they promised you a night out on the town at your fav watering hole and leave early because they are bored. Because said watering hole is deserted and there's no one there to peak their interest and pay attention to them, especially not you! Of course they don't say this but it's obvious after reflection. They leave (or they leave you your technology age/time saver/staying-connected-while-not-having-to-go-through-human-contact-ever-again "Happy birthday") and your feelings are hurt. You aren't exactly surprised by their actions but you are hurt. You are upset. You bitch and moan. You complain. Boo hoo, woe is me. You know what ya gotta do! But then comes the moment of truth. Knowledge vs. action. What ya gonna do about it besides a dramatic inner monologue?
Are actions going to speak louder than words and you gonna change your ways? You have options, obviously, from confrontation all the way to denial. But why is it we typically don't do anything? Why do we except these friends for who they are, even if they are shitty friends? What's the point of the friendship?
Change is so difficult. It is easier (not necessarily on your stress level or overall well-being) but easier to just keep doing the same old shit. Keep watching those movie trailers and going, wow, that movie looks awesome! You know what I heard? I heard it's the funniest movie of 2011! Well I'm going to go pay my weeks wages to get a seat and some snacks at the local theater and check it out! It's OK if you sit in front of some annoying dude who won't shut up the entire film, I get to see the funniest movie of 2011! You keep going to the bar on the weekends. You keep hanging out with that shitty friend. It's just so much easier.
Aristotle wrote, "Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods." While I think interaction with others is important and healthy, I am a cynic. Why put so much time and energy into people when they are just going to let you down? When you are just going to die, a death that ends your personal journey and sends you on another (hopefully)? This isn't for the people who have amazing, attentive, thoughtful and caring friends, but honestly how many of you are even out there? This is for the others. The only friend you need is yourself.
So next time you see those movie trailers or think about your next event, whether it's your birthday or a bar trip or whatever, be honest with yourself. Is it something you are going to enjoy or is it just more hype, more bullshit to dull your senses?
Friday, May 27, 2011
Why So Cynical? Harold Camping: Prophet Who Loves Profiting & Sheena Upton (Kerry Campbell) Botox Mom Loves Profiting Too!
Why so cynical? Hmm ... let me count the ways.
In regards to my May 21, 2011 blog post, "Waiting to be judged on May 21 Judgement Day ... tick tock tick tock Harold Camping," it turns out Camping's group made $100 million in donations during his rapture campaign, aka the world is ending May 21 so you should pony up your money now since you won't need it anymore. Yes. $100 million.
In regards to my May 13, 2011 blog post, "'Mom' gives 8-year-old daughter Botox ... ," it turns out Sheena Upton (who went by the name Kerry Campbell) didn't really give her daughter the juice. She made up the story in return for compensation from the U.K. paper The Sun. What a wonderful example she is setting for her daughter.
And people keep saying I'm too cynical for my own good!
In regards to my May 21, 2011 blog post, "Waiting to be judged on May 21 Judgement Day ... tick tock tick tock Harold Camping," it turns out Camping's group made $100 million in donations during his rapture campaign, aka the world is ending May 21 so you should pony up your money now since you won't need it anymore. Yes. $100 million.
In regards to my May 13, 2011 blog post, "'Mom' gives 8-year-old daughter Botox ... ," it turns out Sheena Upton (who went by the name Kerry Campbell) didn't really give her daughter the juice. She made up the story in return for compensation from the U.K. paper The Sun. What a wonderful example she is setting for her daughter.
And people keep saying I'm too cynical for my own good!
Thursday, May 26, 2011
To do list: Grocery Shopping, Drop Off Dry Cleaning, Deposit Check At Bank, Learn to Read Minds ...
I've had a wrinkle lurking in the back of my mind for the past week or so. At night before I succumb to slumber, when my limbo thoughts are given center stage, I often think about this notion, this wrinkle. Sometimes I scribble down a few notes on scrap pieces of paper, maybe even ponder the ins and outs, but that's about as far as I get ... that is, until today when I came across a quotation reminding me of this wrinkle, which only came out at night.
"In real life, however, you don't react to what someone did; you react only to what you think she did, and the gap between action and perception is bridged by the art of impression management. If life itself is but what you deem it, then why not focus your efforts on persuading others to believe that you are a virtuous and trustworthy cooperator?" -- social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom"
"In real life, however, you don't react to what someone did; you react only to what you think she did, and the gap between action and perception is bridged by the art of impression management. If life itself is but what you deem it, then why not focus your efforts on persuading others to believe that you are a virtuous and trustworthy cooperator?" -- social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom"
Obviously I think too much but whatever. So does this Haidt fellow, so ha!
Life would be easier if we could hear the thoughts of others (maybe we can and don't have enough control over our minds to access this ability ... another rant for another day). Words are taken out of context, gossip is spread like wildlife, people believe what they want, listen to who they want, they focus on words and body language mixed in with biases and long-held beliefs, when never knowing the full story. But, how could they? We can't read minds, at least I can't and, believe me, I've tried. I don't know about you!
It's difficult, damn near impossible, to view ourselves without a blurry lens, clouded by ego, bias, self-esteem, etc. (probably why people flock to therapists who don't know them and can give an impartial opinion, as in impartial because they don't personally know the characters involved in the drama, i.e. daddy issues, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, bad childhoods. But then again does their impartiality come in question when they take their client's word as gold without really knowing what happened and/or is happening ... or is that for them to discover ... ).
Any-who, how do you know what you are? Yeah, if I asked any Tom, Dick or Harry if they were a racist, what would they say? Most likely, "Of course not!" Not many people would say yes to this question even if they were. Also, not many people think they are. Some may unconsciously treat people of other ethnic backgrounds differently, for better or worse, without paying attention. Aren't we typically afraid and put off by what we don't understand? It would be easier to think all white people are bad and leave it at that.
Could be black vs. white or Christian vs. atheist or man vs. woman or heterosexual vs. homosexual vs. bisexual. There are countless scenarios. Or you are like me, an equal opportunity hater, and simply don't like people in general -- probably why I write long-winded blogs instead of interacting with human beings.
No one wants to admit they're a bad person and even if they do admit it (yeah, so I'm a racist. What ya gonna do about it, huh punk?), they make excuses for it like, "oh, I don't really feel that way" or "it's not just black men that scare me, I would be just as scared being on a dark street with a white man or anyone." Yeah right. Then there is that gap between knowledge of your faults and doing something to better yourself. That moment when you can either ignore the light-bulb microwave-ding ding ding! aha realization moment or take a step forward in to enlightenment. It's easier to ignore it, not as in easier for your well-being or overall state of mind (the knowledge is still there whether you pretend to ignore it or not), but just simpler. I am what I am so deal with it. Whateva! Familiarity is comforting.
Life would be easier if we could hear the thoughts of others (maybe we can and don't have enough control over our minds to access this ability ... another rant for another day). Words are taken out of context, gossip is spread like wildlife, people believe what they want, listen to who they want, they focus on words and body language mixed in with biases and long-held beliefs, when never knowing the full story. But, how could they? We can't read minds, at least I can't and, believe me, I've tried. I don't know about you!
It's difficult, damn near impossible, to view ourselves without a blurry lens, clouded by ego, bias, self-esteem, etc. (probably why people flock to therapists who don't know them and can give an impartial opinion, as in impartial because they don't personally know the characters involved in the drama, i.e. daddy issues, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, bad childhoods. But then again does their impartiality come in question when they take their client's word as gold without really knowing what happened and/or is happening ... or is that for them to discover ... ).
Any-who, how do you know what you are? Yeah, if I asked any Tom, Dick or Harry if they were a racist, what would they say? Most likely, "Of course not!" Not many people would say yes to this question even if they were. Also, not many people think they are. Some may unconsciously treat people of other ethnic backgrounds differently, for better or worse, without paying attention. Aren't we typically afraid and put off by what we don't understand? It would be easier to think all white people are bad and leave it at that.
Could be black vs. white or Christian vs. atheist or man vs. woman or heterosexual vs. homosexual vs. bisexual. There are countless scenarios. Or you are like me, an equal opportunity hater, and simply don't like people in general -- probably why I write long-winded blogs instead of interacting with human beings.
No one wants to admit they're a bad person and even if they do admit it (yeah, so I'm a racist. What ya gonna do about it, huh punk?), they make excuses for it like, "oh, I don't really feel that way" or "it's not just black men that scare me, I would be just as scared being on a dark street with a white man or anyone." Yeah right. Then there is that gap between knowledge of your faults and doing something to better yourself. That moment when you can either ignore the light-bulb microwave-ding ding ding! aha realization moment or take a step forward in to enlightenment. It's easier to ignore it, not as in easier for your well-being or overall state of mind (the knowledge is still there whether you pretend to ignore it or not), but just simpler. I am what I am so deal with it. Whateva! Familiarity is comforting.
You see a friend on the street and your encounter is brief. They seem preoccupied and in a pissy mood. What's your go-to? Obviously they don't want to talk to you. They were rude and that's not fair to you. Maybe you haven't been a good friend? Why were they rude? What did you do? Blah blah blah It couldn't possibly be they were in a hurry to grab lunch because they had a pile of work on their desk to get through before heading home for the day, hopefully not too late, so they can do it all over again tomorrow for a shitty paycheck and no sign of a slap on the back for their hard work. They're stressed out and have other things on their mind, maybe a pissed off lover or a sick parent they have to take care of who is not grateful. Who knows? But how would you know that? Why do we always look to ourselves first? Maybe because we can't read thoughts!
Also, if we kept this kind of mindset, thinking about others first, wouldn't we be one giant doormat? What about us? Shouldn't this pissed off person be nice to me since it's not my fault she/he has to work late?
I don't know about you but I have a headache brewing thinking about this crap. Seems like a no-win situation because what if this person didn't have anything to make them pissy. It wasn't about their job or scorned lover or sick parent. It turns out they don't like you. Game over, end of story.
What a headache life can be because if you are not reacting to what someone did, as Haidt explained, but reacting to what you think they did, doesn't the same hold true for them? Maybe at the chance encounter I detailed above, they think the same of you, as in you were in a pissy mood, you seemed preoccupied. The same thoughts ran through their mind or maybe different thoughts. Maybe they were already considering you being a royal jerk-face from previous encounters they took the wrong way and this is the last nail in the coffin raising you to full jerk status. Signed, sealed, delivered: you are a jerk. Congrats! This doesn't cross your mind so you have no idea they've gone along their way and told mutual friends how pissy you seemed and how annoying it was to them, blah blah blah
So, your reactions to others can be as difficult as persuading them to think what a grade-A person you are. Why should you focus on making other people like you? Shouldn't you simply surround yourself with people who know you are the good person you believe yourself to be? Do people like this exist?
Maybe you should go completely loony and become friends with television characters and never leave your house. Start watching NCIS and talk to Tony Dinozzo through your TV screen. You've been a loyal viewer for years so you know him so well ... well enough to be friends. Wouldn't it be cool if you were friends? If you were on NCIS as a special agent with Tony or maybe his best pal or girlfriend? Well ... maybe you are. Tony never seems to change. You would make great friends. Would that make you a lunatic or just someone sick and tired of not being able to read thoughts?
Also, if we kept this kind of mindset, thinking about others first, wouldn't we be one giant doormat? What about us? Shouldn't this pissed off person be nice to me since it's not my fault she/he has to work late?
I don't know about you but I have a headache brewing thinking about this crap. Seems like a no-win situation because what if this person didn't have anything to make them pissy. It wasn't about their job or scorned lover or sick parent. It turns out they don't like you. Game over, end of story.
What a headache life can be because if you are not reacting to what someone did, as Haidt explained, but reacting to what you think they did, doesn't the same hold true for them? Maybe at the chance encounter I detailed above, they think the same of you, as in you were in a pissy mood, you seemed preoccupied. The same thoughts ran through their mind or maybe different thoughts. Maybe they were already considering you being a royal jerk-face from previous encounters they took the wrong way and this is the last nail in the coffin raising you to full jerk status. Signed, sealed, delivered: you are a jerk. Congrats! This doesn't cross your mind so you have no idea they've gone along their way and told mutual friends how pissy you seemed and how annoying it was to them, blah blah blah
So, your reactions to others can be as difficult as persuading them to think what a grade-A person you are. Why should you focus on making other people like you? Shouldn't you simply surround yourself with people who know you are the good person you believe yourself to be? Do people like this exist?
Maybe you should go completely loony and become friends with television characters and never leave your house. Start watching NCIS and talk to Tony Dinozzo through your TV screen. You've been a loyal viewer for years so you know him so well ... well enough to be friends. Wouldn't it be cool if you were friends? If you were on NCIS as a special agent with Tony or maybe his best pal or girlfriend? Well ... maybe you are. Tony never seems to change. You would make great friends. Would that make you a lunatic or just someone sick and tired of not being able to read thoughts?
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Prison population too high? Well let a few of those jailbirds go ... ya know ... a few like more than 30,000 ... no biggie!
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ordered California to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates -- more specific numbers estimate a reduction of 38,000 to 46,000 inmates to bring the population to around 110,000. Although the prisons will still be filled over capacity, it will be a reduction needed in order to guarantee the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is no longer violated, which bans cruel and unusual punishment. The 2009 ruling has thus far been the driving force behind 9,000 prisoners being moved to county jails and was recently upheld in a 5-4 ruling in the case Brown vs. Plata.
Obviously this isn't as simple as overcrowding, where gangs and hierarchies are quick to develop and flourish. This is more about prisoners being put through needless suffering -- which in some cases has led to death -- according to Justice Anthony Kennedy in the opinion he wrote for the majority. This opinion included pictures of the overcrowding and examples of needless suffering and death, i.e. prisoners having to wait months for care in regards to physical and mental well-being. Maybe not every prisoner is going or has gone through this ordeal but maltreatment is a serious problem happening in prisons across the country. Some may argue these criminals are in prison and shouldn't be afforded luxuries. They did the crime and need to do the time in a place that isn't nice. It shouldn't be a vacation! Anyway aren't we in a recession? There are more important things state funding, which is already in the red, should go towards like educating our future, a future free of criminals! We already pay enough in taxes for each prisoner. Enough is enough. However, humane and adequate care isn't a luxury.
California officials have two years to comply with the order and are currently looking into transferring prisoners to other areas in addition to other methods of control, including electronic monitoring.
My question is, how do you choose who stays and who goes, whether the jailbird is shipped off to a county prison, strapped with an electronic monitoring device or whatever? And do you have enough room in county prisons to house these offenders or are most of them going to be on ankle monitoring? Will you make the county prisons overpopulated in turn and put too much strain on the system with thousands on monitoring? How much does ankle monitoring cost the tax payer?
At the beginning it might be easy ... looking at criminal records and seeing minor offenses (minor in comparison to some of the sickos in prison). It's not hard to see the difference between someone getting caught up in the "three strikes you're out laws" with some petty stuff -- which many people argue is the driving force behind the rise in California's prison population (oh yeah, we're gonna to be tough on crime so we can get voted in for another term! Maybe even use "tough on crime" as my slogan!) -- in comparison to individuals put away for more serious crimes, brutal, sickening crimes.
These people get through the first hundred inmates easy. But what about when they start hitting the thousands, tens of thousands? Gets harder to see much difference between who will stay and who will go, doesn't it? Also, if you start with the less serious, are you going to put them on ankle monitoring and then work your way up to the more serious, who you put in county prisons? And if you do it that way, you're just left with a shit load of serious offenders living together in the state prisons, which hopefully means these are lifers because there's not much hope being prepared to re-enter society if you spent your days and nights with serious criminals. But then again, nothing is ever absolute, is it? Not every criminal doing hard time will commit another crime, more heinous or not, when they re-enter society. Some may, some may not.
Not every criminal is guilty, what with DNA tests proving so time and time again. I read an article in Esquire a few months ago about a man, Ray Towler, who spent almost 29 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Although it helped that the drama was beautifully captured by journalist Mike Sager, Towler's story was extremely tragic and inexcusable on its own accord yet more so on a broader level because situations like his are becoming more common every year.
How can you tell if someone is going to commit a crime again? How can you tell who is more dangerous than someone else? Criminal records alone? Are these people going to research each and every crime on each and every criminal's rap sheet? Who are they to determine these things?
There is too much room for error. It's scary. After the first few thousand, things are going to get harder, more mistakes will be made.
Also, say California gets it done before the two years is up and moves prisoners to county jails and does what it needs to do. Is there a plan in place to guarantee this doesn't happen again? If so, what is that plan? Only putting serious offenders in jail? What's a serious offense? Killing someone? Dealing drugs? Rape? I know my criminal education comes chiefly from watching Law & Order: SVU reruns, but don't these hardcore offenders start out committing petty crimes and becoming more and more bold, slowly moving up the criminal hierarchy?
I'm not saying I have answers. I don't. However, this situation reminds me too much of the welfare system. Good for some people but not good for others who take advantage to the max and don't work to better themselves and their situation. Too open to error and problems. But then what is the best answer? A lot of answers to these probems sound good on paper but in reality are very difficult. What is best overall? Yeah, you are going to reduce the prison population but what then? What next?
Obviously this isn't as simple as overcrowding, where gangs and hierarchies are quick to develop and flourish. This is more about prisoners being put through needless suffering -- which in some cases has led to death -- according to Justice Anthony Kennedy in the opinion he wrote for the majority. This opinion included pictures of the overcrowding and examples of needless suffering and death, i.e. prisoners having to wait months for care in regards to physical and mental well-being. Maybe not every prisoner is going or has gone through this ordeal but maltreatment is a serious problem happening in prisons across the country. Some may argue these criminals are in prison and shouldn't be afforded luxuries. They did the crime and need to do the time in a place that isn't nice. It shouldn't be a vacation! Anyway aren't we in a recession? There are more important things state funding, which is already in the red, should go towards like educating our future, a future free of criminals! We already pay enough in taxes for each prisoner. Enough is enough. However, humane and adequate care isn't a luxury.
California officials have two years to comply with the order and are currently looking into transferring prisoners to other areas in addition to other methods of control, including electronic monitoring.
My question is, how do you choose who stays and who goes, whether the jailbird is shipped off to a county prison, strapped with an electronic monitoring device or whatever? And do you have enough room in county prisons to house these offenders or are most of them going to be on ankle monitoring? Will you make the county prisons overpopulated in turn and put too much strain on the system with thousands on monitoring? How much does ankle monitoring cost the tax payer?
At the beginning it might be easy ... looking at criminal records and seeing minor offenses (minor in comparison to some of the sickos in prison). It's not hard to see the difference between someone getting caught up in the "three strikes you're out laws" with some petty stuff -- which many people argue is the driving force behind the rise in California's prison population (oh yeah, we're gonna to be tough on crime so we can get voted in for another term! Maybe even use "tough on crime" as my slogan!) -- in comparison to individuals put away for more serious crimes, brutal, sickening crimes.
These people get through the first hundred inmates easy. But what about when they start hitting the thousands, tens of thousands? Gets harder to see much difference between who will stay and who will go, doesn't it? Also, if you start with the less serious, are you going to put them on ankle monitoring and then work your way up to the more serious, who you put in county prisons? And if you do it that way, you're just left with a shit load of serious offenders living together in the state prisons, which hopefully means these are lifers because there's not much hope being prepared to re-enter society if you spent your days and nights with serious criminals. But then again, nothing is ever absolute, is it? Not every criminal doing hard time will commit another crime, more heinous or not, when they re-enter society. Some may, some may not.
Not every criminal is guilty, what with DNA tests proving so time and time again. I read an article in Esquire a few months ago about a man, Ray Towler, who spent almost 29 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Although it helped that the drama was beautifully captured by journalist Mike Sager, Towler's story was extremely tragic and inexcusable on its own accord yet more so on a broader level because situations like his are becoming more common every year.
How can you tell if someone is going to commit a crime again? How can you tell who is more dangerous than someone else? Criminal records alone? Are these people going to research each and every crime on each and every criminal's rap sheet? Who are they to determine these things?
There is too much room for error. It's scary. After the first few thousand, things are going to get harder, more mistakes will be made.
Also, say California gets it done before the two years is up and moves prisoners to county jails and does what it needs to do. Is there a plan in place to guarantee this doesn't happen again? If so, what is that plan? Only putting serious offenders in jail? What's a serious offense? Killing someone? Dealing drugs? Rape? I know my criminal education comes chiefly from watching Law & Order: SVU reruns, but don't these hardcore offenders start out committing petty crimes and becoming more and more bold, slowly moving up the criminal hierarchy?
I'm not saying I have answers. I don't. However, this situation reminds me too much of the welfare system. Good for some people but not good for others who take advantage to the max and don't work to better themselves and their situation. Too open to error and problems. But then what is the best answer? A lot of answers to these probems sound good on paper but in reality are very difficult. What is best overall? Yeah, you are going to reduce the prison population but what then? What next?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Waiting to be judged on May 21 Judgement Day ... tick tock tick tock Harold Camping!
It was a sunny and pleasantly warm day in my town with a bright blue sky and an even brighter sun shining down ... not nearly as warm as it was supposed to be! So, as I type this blog in my home (not destroyed by hellfire and destruction ... yet) it is already Sunday, May 22 in New Zealand. The wrath of the Lord was supposed to start at 6 p.m. today (Saturday, May 21) in New Zealand and spread across the planet, so let's join together for a sigh of relief! Although, Iceland's most active volcano is erupting so ... maybe we should save the sigh for when we are truly safe. Stay vigilant!
Harold Camping -- the 89-year-old Oakland preacher who spent millions of dollars and a lot of time spreading the word that May 21, 2011 is Judgement Day -- must have done his math wrong. Luckily his craftiness is better than his math because he knows how to prey on people -- use fear of the unknown.
Why are we here? Are there other life forms? What happens after you die? Is the rapture going to happen and, if so, when?
I believe there are things we are not supposed to know because they are above and beyond us. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally lie awake at night with an uneasy feeling of doom but my overall attitude is I'm not supposed to understand this and won't ever. Obviously I like to ponder about these big questions but at the end of the day, I ain't got a clue. Not an easy thing to live with so when people like Mr. Camping come along, spreading the Word and sharing the Truth (which is his interpretation of a book that has been edited countless times over centuries) there are thousands of people wanting answers, whether they are true or not, because life would be a hell of a lot easier if we had answers to these questions. They want to believe in something in a world where there isn't much to believe in anymore.
Whatever the case may be, people packed their bags, quit their jobs and broke up with their lovers when Mr. Camping spread his Word. No more time left in this world so you better be ready to leave it all behind and prepare for judgement. Shame on Mr. Camping for taking advantage of these people but shame on these people for being sheep.
Who knows. Maybe after I press Publish Post on this rant the world will shake with cataclysmic earthquakes, hellfire will rain down upon my cynical head and I will be left on Earth to fend for myself until October 21 when the world will be destroyed by fire. For all God's elect people who will be taken into Heaven, good for you! For me, it's sure one hell of a way to go out! I guess I should have paid more attention in Sunday School.
Or maybe nothing will happen and I will wake up tomorrow intact. Cest la vie! You spend all your time planning for the future, growing and changing and becoming an adult, doing all this while never knowing if you are going to get hit by a car tomorrow or contract a horrible disease. You don't know and it's scary but you have to deal with the scariness, deal with the fear, and live your life. Don't believe the hype people because life is pain princess. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
Harold Camping -- the 89-year-old Oakland preacher who spent millions of dollars and a lot of time spreading the word that May 21, 2011 is Judgement Day -- must have done his math wrong. Luckily his craftiness is better than his math because he knows how to prey on people -- use fear of the unknown.
Why are we here? Are there other life forms? What happens after you die? Is the rapture going to happen and, if so, when?
I believe there are things we are not supposed to know because they are above and beyond us. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally lie awake at night with an uneasy feeling of doom but my overall attitude is I'm not supposed to understand this and won't ever. Obviously I like to ponder about these big questions but at the end of the day, I ain't got a clue. Not an easy thing to live with so when people like Mr. Camping come along, spreading the Word and sharing the Truth (which is his interpretation of a book that has been edited countless times over centuries) there are thousands of people wanting answers, whether they are true or not, because life would be a hell of a lot easier if we had answers to these questions. They want to believe in something in a world where there isn't much to believe in anymore.
Whatever the case may be, people packed their bags, quit their jobs and broke up with their lovers when Mr. Camping spread his Word. No more time left in this world so you better be ready to leave it all behind and prepare for judgement. Shame on Mr. Camping for taking advantage of these people but shame on these people for being sheep.
Who knows. Maybe after I press Publish Post on this rant the world will shake with cataclysmic earthquakes, hellfire will rain down upon my cynical head and I will be left on Earth to fend for myself until October 21 when the world will be destroyed by fire. For all God's elect people who will be taken into Heaven, good for you! For me, it's sure one hell of a way to go out! I guess I should have paid more attention in Sunday School.
Or maybe nothing will happen and I will wake up tomorrow intact. Cest la vie! You spend all your time planning for the future, growing and changing and becoming an adult, doing all this while never knowing if you are going to get hit by a car tomorrow or contract a horrible disease. You don't know and it's scary but you have to deal with the scariness, deal with the fear, and live your life. Don't believe the hype people because life is pain princess. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Un-shocking News: Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big fat slut ... just ask his love child's mammy, Mildred Baena
If you don't know, now you know ... Arnold (which should be pronounced "Awh-nuld") fathered a love child with a member of his household staff, Mildred Baena, more than 10 years ago (some reports state the child is 14), something he told his wife suspiciously right after his term as Governator as well as right after Mildred retired from her 20-year post as housekeeper/assistant. He's being called the former juice-head who went from "Terminator to Governator to Sperminator" by the press.
Since news of his split from Maria Shriver, his wife of 25 years, already had news organizations ablaze with dramatic headlines of scandal and sin, reports of his love child and this "other woman" simply added fuel to the fire to keep this martial discord hot hot hot! Read all about it!
News reporters are covering all angles and nitpicking on everything from his past -- from Gropegate (when the Los Angeles Times reported on allegations of sexual misconduct with many women, six of whom shared their stories) to his steroid use to his acting career to his Nazi father.
In addition, further developments are being added to the mix, from whether the birth of this love child split up Baena's marriage to if the Schwarzenegger-Shriver love can survive (um ... negative!) to whether Awh-nuld bought Baena a home for her and the "love child" ... to why the dumbass didn't use a condom.
Although I feel sorry for Shriver, as well as her four children with Awh-nuld -- especially because Baena was working in their home for 20 years, which = obviously Shriver and her children knew this woman on an intimate level (not as intimate as Awh-nuld) and knew the child. People are wondering why Shriver moved out of their home -- thinking he should be the one to pack his bags -- but would you want to live there knowing it's where all this went down? No way. This is going to haunt her for the rest of her life, she doesn't need to be reminded daily by looking around her home.
Their lives have been turned upside down. Everything Shriver and the children believed in was a lie. True lies.
However, is anyone surprised by this news? I'm not necessarily referring to being shocked ... just the smallest bit surprised. Awh-nuld is known for being a long-time womanizer! Decades! Although I am happy he is telling the media to stay away from his family and focus their cameras and questions on the one who deserves the heat -- him -- (better than Jesse James who blamed his infidelities on a bad childhood ... boo hoo you f-ing loser. I've loved Sandra Bullock since the days of "Speed," "Hope Floats" and "Practical Magic") -- he's still a big fat slut but, honestly, hasn't he always been a big fat slut? He's talked about attending orgies (1977, adult magazine Oui -- same year he met Shriver), he's grabbed breasts and butts, he said he's "behaved badly sometimes." His creep factor has always been pushing a healthy 10 so, really, is anyone surprised?
Since news of his split from Maria Shriver, his wife of 25 years, already had news organizations ablaze with dramatic headlines of scandal and sin, reports of his love child and this "other woman" simply added fuel to the fire to keep this martial discord hot hot hot! Read all about it!
News reporters are covering all angles and nitpicking on everything from his past -- from Gropegate (when the Los Angeles Times reported on allegations of sexual misconduct with many women, six of whom shared their stories) to his steroid use to his acting career to his Nazi father.
In addition, further developments are being added to the mix, from whether the birth of this love child split up Baena's marriage to if the Schwarzenegger-Shriver love can survive (um ... negative!) to whether Awh-nuld bought Baena a home for her and the "love child" ... to why the dumbass didn't use a condom.
Although I feel sorry for Shriver, as well as her four children with Awh-nuld -- especially because Baena was working in their home for 20 years, which = obviously Shriver and her children knew this woman on an intimate level (not as intimate as Awh-nuld) and knew the child. People are wondering why Shriver moved out of their home -- thinking he should be the one to pack his bags -- but would you want to live there knowing it's where all this went down? No way. This is going to haunt her for the rest of her life, she doesn't need to be reminded daily by looking around her home.
Their lives have been turned upside down. Everything Shriver and the children believed in was a lie. True lies.
However, is anyone surprised by this news? I'm not necessarily referring to being shocked ... just the smallest bit surprised. Awh-nuld is known for being a long-time womanizer! Decades! Although I am happy he is telling the media to stay away from his family and focus their cameras and questions on the one who deserves the heat -- him -- (better than Jesse James who blamed his infidelities on a bad childhood ... boo hoo you f-ing loser. I've loved Sandra Bullock since the days of "Speed," "Hope Floats" and "Practical Magic") -- he's still a big fat slut but, honestly, hasn't he always been a big fat slut? He's talked about attending orgies (1977, adult magazine Oui -- same year he met Shriver), he's grabbed breasts and butts, he said he's "behaved badly sometimes." His creep factor has always been pushing a healthy 10 so, really, is anyone surprised?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Two and a Half Men, Charlie Sheen, Ashton Kutcher?
Charlie Sheen has a highly checkered past and is often referred to as a bad boy. So much so when he took a break from "Two and a Half Men" to enter a rehab facility in February 2010 not many were shocked. His health, as well as his career on the hit show, only continued sliding downhill from there, including his cocaine and alcohol induced incident at the Plaza Hotel and being rushed to the hospital for severe abdominal pains.
I could go on but we all know how the story goes since it's been plastered on the news round the clock. The egomania drama, the winning attitude, the tiger blood, the strippers and Goddesses, the standup shows around the U.S. He's making money on madness and Americans are eating it up like the promise of a new fad diet ... or adult males are eating it up as if they could be millionaires, banging strippers and doing whatever they want. Ha, good luck! It's all shtick!
But whatever you want to say about the Sheenster, "Two and Half Men" was a wildly popular show, earning great ratings and Sheen with a fatass paycheck. Money in da bank!
Although he didn't have much acting to do -- he basically played himself, a pleasure-fueled alcoholic who favored booze and women instead of his personal devotion to cocaine and prostitutes -- it still was a winning ensemble for the man, earning him more than $1 million an episode. He played the part well and the show was obviously popular for him to earn that much moolah.
So ... we've all heard/read the news. He's been fired. Next step, does Warner Bros. end the show or do they try to continue the big earner? Duh. Cash rules everything around me, it's the C.R.E.A.M., dolla' dolla' bills ya'll. So, who do they get to replace the character of Charlie Harper?
Obviously I'm not a TV show producer. I don't know anything outside of the fact I've watched television shows before. I'm the ultimate Jane Doe sitting at home, flipping channels, DVRing what I like and ignoring what I don't. So, what do I know? All I can provide is a realistic recommendation. Charlie Harper is a self-indulgent playboy drunk who still manages to be lovable and humorous. Hmm ... so you need someone who can play the part and make it believable, as well as interact well with the other main characters, especially Charlie's brother, nephew and mother.
That's about as far as my thinking got when I totally forgot about the whole thing. That is until today when, lo and behold, someone already got the part. Who do you ask can fill the shoes?
Ashton Kutcher.
Wtf. The former model now serving as plastic surgery filled Demi Moore's beeatch (she even got her knees fixed! Her f-ing knees!)? The guy who perfected playing a horny dumbass on "That '70s Show" (which I enjoyed) and served as mastermind behind the annoyingly immature show "Punk'd" (which became stale quick)? Excuse me but I don't get it. Yeah, he was pretty decent in "The Butterfly Effect" but what about "Dude, Where's My Car?" He's good at playing a total jackass but what about Charlie Harper, the self-absorbed male cougar ready to have one night stands with hot women and pound some booze and poontang? Not so much.
When I think of Ashton Kutcher, I think of those stupid Nixon commercials he stars in as the ultimate sellout who is not good enough for TV shows or movies but only good enough for commercials -- and honestly, his commercials are pretty stupid.
So, why was he cast to play Charlie Harper? Why? I don't understand.
I could go on but we all know how the story goes since it's been plastered on the news round the clock. The egomania drama, the winning attitude, the tiger blood, the strippers and Goddesses, the standup shows around the U.S. He's making money on madness and Americans are eating it up like the promise of a new fad diet ... or adult males are eating it up as if they could be millionaires, banging strippers and doing whatever they want. Ha, good luck! It's all shtick!
But whatever you want to say about the Sheenster, "Two and Half Men" was a wildly popular show, earning great ratings and Sheen with a fatass paycheck. Money in da bank!
Although he didn't have much acting to do -- he basically played himself, a pleasure-fueled alcoholic who favored booze and women instead of his personal devotion to cocaine and prostitutes -- it still was a winning ensemble for the man, earning him more than $1 million an episode. He played the part well and the show was obviously popular for him to earn that much moolah.
So ... we've all heard/read the news. He's been fired. Next step, does Warner Bros. end the show or do they try to continue the big earner? Duh. Cash rules everything around me, it's the C.R.E.A.M., dolla' dolla' bills ya'll. So, who do they get to replace the character of Charlie Harper?
Obviously I'm not a TV show producer. I don't know anything outside of the fact I've watched television shows before. I'm the ultimate Jane Doe sitting at home, flipping channels, DVRing what I like and ignoring what I don't. So, what do I know? All I can provide is a realistic recommendation. Charlie Harper is a self-indulgent playboy drunk who still manages to be lovable and humorous. Hmm ... so you need someone who can play the part and make it believable, as well as interact well with the other main characters, especially Charlie's brother, nephew and mother.
That's about as far as my thinking got when I totally forgot about the whole thing. That is until today when, lo and behold, someone already got the part. Who do you ask can fill the shoes?
Ashton Kutcher.
Wtf. The former model now serving as plastic surgery filled Demi Moore's beeatch (she even got her knees fixed! Her f-ing knees!)? The guy who perfected playing a horny dumbass on "That '70s Show" (which I enjoyed) and served as mastermind behind the annoyingly immature show "Punk'd" (which became stale quick)? Excuse me but I don't get it. Yeah, he was pretty decent in "The Butterfly Effect" but what about "Dude, Where's My Car?" He's good at playing a total jackass but what about Charlie Harper, the self-absorbed male cougar ready to have one night stands with hot women and pound some booze and poontang? Not so much.
When I think of Ashton Kutcher, I think of those stupid Nixon commercials he stars in as the ultimate sellout who is not good enough for TV shows or movies but only good enough for commercials -- and honestly, his commercials are pretty stupid.
So, why was he cast to play Charlie Harper? Why? I don't understand.
Friday, May 13, 2011
"Mom" gives 8-year-old daughter Botox ...
When I clicked on my internet browser today and got to my homepage, aka Yahoo.com, what to my wondering eyes should appear but "8 year-old Botox" under the Trending News column. No thoughts came to my mind, no words came to my lips as I blindly clicked on the link and selected the first credible news story available.
Kerry Campbell, a beautician from San Francisco, was interviewed on "Inside Edition" and "Good Morning America" to defend her parenting skills and overall sanity in regards to giving 8-year-old daughter, Britney, Botox injections. Campbell's reasoning is her child complains about wrinkles on her face. Other reports claim Campbell has her child undergo injections so she can be a contender in beauty pageants.
Wow. In this day and age, with people running around immune to ostracizes, me included ... yeah, nudity, violence, sex, drugs, whatever. I've seen it all on Law & Order: SVU marathons ... this one threw me for a loop. Wtf.
First. Have you ever really listened to an 8-year-old? I have and while you can't file all of it under nonsense, a lot of it is totally ridiculous. So, if we are to take this woman seriously and believe her child complains about wrinkles (which is obviously a lie or something she learned from her idiot mother but whatever), so what? I know an 8-year-old who wants to be a ninja and/or Darkrai from Pokemon (he's not sure yet) and, after I ask him to do something like cleaning up after himself, his typical response is to yell, "I'm a man, not a mouse!" Totally ridiculous, yet humorous, behavior.
Second. When news of this woman surfaced, did anyone think to call Child Protective Services? Anyone? Or did every news organization in the U.S. think jackpot and every person think, nmp (not my problem)? What about people from CPS, do you read the news? Did you read this article? Wtf. There is a big difference between sensational news items and an 8-year-old impressionable child being abused.
The articles should read, "After being arrested for child abuse and ordered to undergo Botox injections directly into her eyeballs, San Francisco beautician Kerry Campbell attempts to defend herself. As for her child, Britney is safely living with other, non-blood related, family members ... "
Kerry Campbell, a beautician from San Francisco, was interviewed on "Inside Edition" and "Good Morning America" to defend her parenting skills and overall sanity in regards to giving 8-year-old daughter, Britney, Botox injections. Campbell's reasoning is her child complains about wrinkles on her face. Other reports claim Campbell has her child undergo injections so she can be a contender in beauty pageants.
Wow. In this day and age, with people running around immune to ostracizes, me included ... yeah, nudity, violence, sex, drugs, whatever. I've seen it all on Law & Order: SVU marathons ... this one threw me for a loop. Wtf.
First. Have you ever really listened to an 8-year-old? I have and while you can't file all of it under nonsense, a lot of it is totally ridiculous. So, if we are to take this woman seriously and believe her child complains about wrinkles (which is obviously a lie or something she learned from her idiot mother but whatever), so what? I know an 8-year-old who wants to be a ninja and/or Darkrai from Pokemon (he's not sure yet) and, after I ask him to do something like cleaning up after himself, his typical response is to yell, "I'm a man, not a mouse!" Totally ridiculous, yet humorous, behavior.
Second. When news of this woman surfaced, did anyone think to call Child Protective Services? Anyone? Or did every news organization in the U.S. think jackpot and every person think, nmp (not my problem)? What about people from CPS, do you read the news? Did you read this article? Wtf. There is a big difference between sensational news items and an 8-year-old impressionable child being abused.
The articles should read, "After being arrested for child abuse and ordered to undergo Botox injections directly into her eyeballs, San Francisco beautician Kerry Campbell attempts to defend herself. As for her child, Britney is safely living with other, non-blood related, family members ... "
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Hillary Clinton, Der Tzitung and Erasing History
Where in the world is Hillary Clinton? I'm not talking about her current location, as the 67th U.S. Secretary of State is known for trips around the world. I'm talking about trying to do a Where's Waldo on the iconic photo of Clinton sitting around a conference table in the White House Situation Room as she, President Barack Obama and the national security team watch CIA director Leon Panetta narrate the notorious raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. You could cut the tension in the air with a cheap plastic knife. Just read the body language: grim and nervous facial expressions, crossed arms, hunched shoulders.
In the photo, released on the official White House Flickr page (I love how they have a Flickr page), I spy with my little eye Clinton with her left hand resting on a pen, binder and notebook sitting in her lap and her right hand loosely covering her mouth. Her eyes are wide. Some report you can see 10 years of tension, heartache and anger in her face. Oh, the drama! Others report she was just covering a cough. Whatever the case, it's an iconic photo of an iconic event, 10 years in the making. A photo that will always be associated with the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.
The U.S. leaders are huddled in a small room, watching it all go down, and the photo captures the fly-on-the-wall view of their reactions. You can sense the drama, the nervousness and know that, when all was said and done and an eye for thousands of eyes was had, there was some damn celebration!
Now, try and check out this same photo on page 56 of the May 6, 2011 edition of Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic broadsheet Der Tzitung, published in Brooklyn, and this is one f-ing hard Where's Waldo. It's not hard, it's impossible because the paper photoshopped Clinton, as well as the only other woman in the photo, Audrey Tomason (shortie peeking from the back right corner), out of the frame and out of history. Also of note is the editors ignored or perhaps missed the guidelines on the official White House Flickr page, where the photo was released for use by news organizations. "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way."
So, what was Der Tzitung's reasoning, you ask? The paper apologized to the White House for their infraction, and released this comment, "In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status ... Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive."
In the photo, released on the official White House Flickr page (I love how they have a Flickr page), I spy with my little eye Clinton with her left hand resting on a pen, binder and notebook sitting in her lap and her right hand loosely covering her mouth. Her eyes are wide. Some report you can see 10 years of tension, heartache and anger in her face. Oh, the drama! Others report she was just covering a cough. Whatever the case, it's an iconic photo of an iconic event, 10 years in the making. A photo that will always be associated with the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.
The U.S. leaders are huddled in a small room, watching it all go down, and the photo captures the fly-on-the-wall view of their reactions. You can sense the drama, the nervousness and know that, when all was said and done and an eye for thousands of eyes was had, there was some damn celebration!
Now, try and check out this same photo on page 56 of the May 6, 2011 edition of Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic broadsheet Der Tzitung, published in Brooklyn, and this is one f-ing hard Where's Waldo. It's not hard, it's impossible because the paper photoshopped Clinton, as well as the only other woman in the photo, Audrey Tomason (shortie peeking from the back right corner), out of the frame and out of history. Also of note is the editors ignored or perhaps missed the guidelines on the official White House Flickr page, where the photo was released for use by news organizations. "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way."
So, what was Der Tzitung's reasoning, you ask? The paper apologized to the White House for their infraction, and released this comment, "In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status ... Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive."
OK. They are ultra conservation and, in turn, ultra modest. They are not allowed to publish pictures of women because it could be seen as "sexually suggestive" (wow Hillary Clinton and "sexually suggestive" in the same thought! Somewhere Slick Willie is laughing.). I understand their beliefs. Although I may not fully agree with it, or anything in this upside-down world for that matter, I understand people and groups are allowed to think and believe what they want. Who am I to judge? Go for it girl, if that's what helps you sleep at night and make your world go round.
However, that's where my understanding ends. As far as not publishing photos of women, that's not offensive to me or my womanly parts.
Manipulating news photos is completely offensive.
I find manipulating photos -- whether it be Cameron Diaz on the cover of the current issue of Cosmopolitan magazine (where she has gone from her real-life mannish meat gristle body and face in undoctored photos to looking like a total smooth faced, unbodybuilder-esque hottie -- cracker please, you ain't gots to lie. Please let impressionable youth [and impressionable older women] know she's fugly.) or simply photoshopping anything out of photos, whether it be Hillary Clinton's presence or the coffee cup sitting on the conference table -- manipulating photos is wrong when it comes to publishing. If you want to cut out a photo of Eric Bana and his wife, Rebecca Gleeson, and paste your big face over hers, go right ahead. Pin it up on your bedroom wall and daydream of your passionate life together down under until you pass out or throw up! I don't care. However, when you are publishing photos (news publishing is recording history), especially of historical events, don't fuck with history. Please don't do it. It is wrong and it is a dangerous road to go down. So, just turn around now. Danger Will Robinson, danger!
Manipulating news photos is completely offensive.
I find manipulating photos -- whether it be Cameron Diaz on the cover of the current issue of Cosmopolitan magazine (where she has gone from her real-life mannish meat gristle body and face in undoctored photos to looking like a total smooth faced, unbodybuilder-esque hottie -- cracker please, you ain't gots to lie. Please let impressionable youth [and impressionable older women] know she's fugly.) or simply photoshopping anything out of photos, whether it be Hillary Clinton's presence or the coffee cup sitting on the conference table -- manipulating photos is wrong when it comes to publishing. If you want to cut out a photo of Eric Bana and his wife, Rebecca Gleeson, and paste your big face over hers, go right ahead. Pin it up on your bedroom wall and daydream of your passionate life together down under until you pass out or throw up! I don't care. However, when you are publishing photos (news publishing is recording history), especially of historical events, don't fuck with history. Please don't do it. It is wrong and it is a dangerous road to go down. So, just turn around now. Danger Will Robinson, danger!
Pretend for a moment someone from the paper actually reads my ridiculous blog. Sigh.
Dear Der Tzitung,
I understand your paper does not print pictures with women. Fine, don't print them. End of story. No harm done to my XX chromosomes. But, don't change history by photoshopping people (especially U.S. leaders) out of pictures and printing those fake pictures as NEWS because that is lying and didn't your mama ever tell you lying is wrong? Guess not.
Hugs and kisses!
Yours truly,
Kate
When researching past events and times, one of the best tools is newspapers. It is one of the best ways for people who were not there to know what happened. Journalists are skewed enough in their slanted writing (another rant for another day) so please don't start messing with photos too. I'm scared enough for our future as it is.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Oh, something horrible happened? Well how does it affect me?
I was cruisin' down tha street in my six-fo', jockin' the bitches, slappin' tha hoes, went to tha park to get tha scoop, knuckleheads out there cold shootin' some hoops ...
Screeeeeeech! Sike.
I was cruising down the highway in my obvious cracker-ass white-woman sedan (sorry, no '64 Impala) under the radiant dome of a bright blue sky with an even brighter sun beaming rays (hopefully not gamma rays) from above. A cool, pre-summer wind was blowing through my open windows as my CD player pumped euphoric tunes, the kind of music that makes a long commute almost enjoyable and go by quickly. The kind of music that gets you moving in your seat and your horrible karaoke voice squaking at full capacity because no one can hear you, no one can judge. It's not like you could sing in front of people without three Mai Tai's anyway, but I digress.
I was driving away from a long and weary day and was ready to walk inside my home, breath a sigh of relief and relax but, wait, all of a sudden, what could it be? Before I turned off the highway on a side road that would be the last half of my trip, the road was blocked. There was a car accident. The people responding to the incident -- ambulance, fire engine -- covered the entire road and I was stuck there. I screeched to a halt as hundreds of cars and trucks behind me screeched and we all shared a drawn-out Napoleon Dynamite-quality sigh.
First thought: geez. What are the chances? I was held up earlier in the day on the way to something important by a car accident blocking the road. It made me late and miss out on the entire reason for my trip! Murphy's Law. What are the chances of being held up twice in one day? Geez. Wah! I just wanna go home. I had a long day. This isn't fair. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!
But wait. There's more.
I put my car in park and slid back in my seat. Might as well get comfortable. I saw cars creeping in the shoulder, trying to cut in front of everyone, and growled. Wait your turn asshats! I was starring off into space, lost in my own life, when my vision cleared as I watched a d-bag get out of the car in front of me, walk around and try to check out the scene in front of us. I thought ... someone could have died in this car accident. Maybe more than one. They could be dying right now. Someone is suffering. Not just the trauma of going through a car accident but also the idea they could be dying just feet in front of where I sat. Where I sat thinking, just seconds earlier, about how this is inconvenient for me.
I thought about their families. Do they know? I thought about the accident earlier in the day. Did someone die then? Were they seriously injured? I thought of all the tears shed, all the worry and stress, all the pain.
I watched as the drivers side door of the smashed vehicle was wrenched open, tossed aside, and someone was gently carried out and put on a stretcher and wheeled into an ambulance. Sirens wailed, lights flashed and before long the ambulance took off down the highway.
I sat in my car, numb. I saw the traffic moving and mechanically drove forward and followed the directions of the emergency services personnel who waved me forward and on my way.
Why is it that what took 45 minutes and involved pain and suffering got me so angry? So "woe is me" and annoyed? What if I left five minutes earlier and was in that accident? What then? Wasted energy, wasted hate for what? To get home earlier? I'm glad I finally came to the conclusion that it ain't all about me but what about the other hundreds of people behind me.
It makes me think about people who always make it all about them. It's not just that someone died in a car accident but that they knew them and they can't believe they died and this is so sad and I am so upset and me, me, me, me. How exhausting and ... well ... sad. I don't want to be that way. I don't want to only care about myself and only care about how things will affect me and my life when other people hurt too, other people suffer.
You never know when being nice to someone can make their whole day or week or month. You never know when shutting your mouth for five minutes and listening, really listening to someone can change everything. You never know. When is the last time you listened to someone and heard their words, not just waited for a pause so you could speak? Do you know your friends and family? Do you know anyone?
Be honest with yourself. Do you even care beyond the "how does this affect me" mentality?
Screeeeeeech! Sike.
I was cruising down the highway in my obvious cracker-ass white-woman sedan (sorry, no '64 Impala) under the radiant dome of a bright blue sky with an even brighter sun beaming rays (hopefully not gamma rays) from above. A cool, pre-summer wind was blowing through my open windows as my CD player pumped euphoric tunes, the kind of music that makes a long commute almost enjoyable and go by quickly. The kind of music that gets you moving in your seat and your horrible karaoke voice squaking at full capacity because no one can hear you, no one can judge. It's not like you could sing in front of people without three Mai Tai's anyway, but I digress.
I was driving away from a long and weary day and was ready to walk inside my home, breath a sigh of relief and relax but, wait, all of a sudden, what could it be? Before I turned off the highway on a side road that would be the last half of my trip, the road was blocked. There was a car accident. The people responding to the incident -- ambulance, fire engine -- covered the entire road and I was stuck there. I screeched to a halt as hundreds of cars and trucks behind me screeched and we all shared a drawn-out Napoleon Dynamite-quality sigh.
First thought: geez. What are the chances? I was held up earlier in the day on the way to something important by a car accident blocking the road. It made me late and miss out on the entire reason for my trip! Murphy's Law. What are the chances of being held up twice in one day? Geez. Wah! I just wanna go home. I had a long day. This isn't fair. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!
But wait. There's more.
I put my car in park and slid back in my seat. Might as well get comfortable. I saw cars creeping in the shoulder, trying to cut in front of everyone, and growled. Wait your turn asshats! I was starring off into space, lost in my own life, when my vision cleared as I watched a d-bag get out of the car in front of me, walk around and try to check out the scene in front of us. I thought ... someone could have died in this car accident. Maybe more than one. They could be dying right now. Someone is suffering. Not just the trauma of going through a car accident but also the idea they could be dying just feet in front of where I sat. Where I sat thinking, just seconds earlier, about how this is inconvenient for me.
I thought about their families. Do they know? I thought about the accident earlier in the day. Did someone die then? Were they seriously injured? I thought of all the tears shed, all the worry and stress, all the pain.
I watched as the drivers side door of the smashed vehicle was wrenched open, tossed aside, and someone was gently carried out and put on a stretcher and wheeled into an ambulance. Sirens wailed, lights flashed and before long the ambulance took off down the highway.
I sat in my car, numb. I saw the traffic moving and mechanically drove forward and followed the directions of the emergency services personnel who waved me forward and on my way.
Why is it that what took 45 minutes and involved pain and suffering got me so angry? So "woe is me" and annoyed? What if I left five minutes earlier and was in that accident? What then? Wasted energy, wasted hate for what? To get home earlier? I'm glad I finally came to the conclusion that it ain't all about me but what about the other hundreds of people behind me.
It makes me think about people who always make it all about them. It's not just that someone died in a car accident but that they knew them and they can't believe they died and this is so sad and I am so upset and me, me, me, me. How exhausting and ... well ... sad. I don't want to be that way. I don't want to only care about myself and only care about how things will affect me and my life when other people hurt too, other people suffer.
You never know when being nice to someone can make their whole day or week or month. You never know when shutting your mouth for five minutes and listening, really listening to someone can change everything. You never know. When is the last time you listened to someone and heard their words, not just waited for a pause so you could speak? Do you know your friends and family? Do you know anyone?
Be honest with yourself. Do you even care beyond the "how does this affect me" mentality?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama bin Laden found, killed
The ultimate hide-and-seek champion was finally found in Abbottabad, a town in Pakistan -- ready or not, here I come! That's right, more than 9-and-a-half years after the September 11th attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden was found and, in turn, killed after a night-time helicopter raid on his million-dollar compound, where he lived with his youngest wife and other family members, including brothers and a trusted courier.
There are many details to this situation, obviously, including how U.S. forces found the compound and how he was killed. However, I find it most interesting bin Laden wasn't living in a mountain cave on the rugged Afghan-Pakistan border like we've been led to believe for years by U.S. officials, especially former President George W. Bush. I always pictured bin Laden as an unwashed rebel standing with his hands on his hips and his shoulders back, chest out in the middle of a cave surrounded by darkness and his followers, shouting orders and living life on the lam. How dramatic! We don't need no stinkin' soap!
So, with that in mind, I can't say I was surprised to learn bin Laden was living in a million-dollar compound with his youngest wife (yes, youngest as in the youngest of the others -- damn, dirty polygamist) instead of roughing it in the Middle East wilderness. Frankly, with all the power and control over his followers, he had to know he didn't need to live like a rat in a cage like they do. Just send a few over to do some suicide bombings while I sit in my palace with my young bride -- which is funny for being so American-esque even though he hated our guts (hypocrite!), except it was reported he didn't have Internet service or phones in the compound which is as basic for Americans as food and water. Sneaky sneaky. Yes, death to America, blah blah blah, now leave me!
Also, I enjoyed the mishandling of the situation. Like Sohaib Athar, a Pakistani IT technician who unknowingly live-tweeted the U.S. helicopter raid of bin Laden's compound -- @ReallyVirtual. Or Fox News making the inevitable typo only they would make when reporting the death of Osama bin Laden with "Obama bin Laden" written below (Yuck, yuck very funny a-holes) or the other newscaster who mistakenly reported President Barack Obama died. Let me get some of what you're smoking
With the news still fresh among Americans, are you surprised director and screenwriter of the "Hurt Locker," Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal, are already working on their bin Laden film since it now completes the circle with such a dramatic ending? Perhaps Call of Duty Black Ops can release this mission. Wouldn't you love to sit in the comfort of your living room and blow Osama bin Laden's head off?! Duh. Yes sir!
... Not to sound totally moronic and maybe it's a bit too soon after his death, but it would be kinda cool if Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright (writers of "Shaun of the Dead") wrote a screenplay about bin Laden. Stay with me on this ... perhaps his body (which was buried at sea within 24 hours of his death, a time constriction mandated by Islamic law -- was blowing his brains out mandated by Islamic law too?) is buried near some nuclear testing facility and the ooze slowly creeps into his brain and he becomes this monstrous zombie beast who, instead of hiding in a mansion, infects his followers and travels to America to lead a crazed flesh-eating overtaking.
I could go on but my biggest question is: now that America boldly dashed in and killed their target (9-and-a-half years or not, the face of terror is finally dead), is this going to change anything? I'm not gonna lie, last night when turning on the boob tube and hearing of bin Laden's death, I was shocked. I was happy. I felt a sense of pride. I gave a typical American response. Mild compared to the thousands flocking to Ground Zero to cheer for joy, but typical nonetheless. For years we've been hearing about this guy and how he was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and how much he hates us and all this and that. His figurehead provided a sense of fear for us, as in maybe he could pull off another attack. For example, say I'm going to visit D.C. this weekend, will I be safe in a city that is a great target for a terror attack? It wasn't my be-all end-all thought but I definitely consider it when taking trips to big cities, all because of September 11th.
So, obviously bin Laden's death elicited a positive response, even a sense of relief. However, before my relief set in I got a weird thought. I don't want this to come across as I think bin Laden was a good guy, he wasn't. However, this almost decade-long man-hunt gave Americans a person to hate, a scapegoat for our fear, hatred and the war in Afghanistan. We may disagree on Republican vs. Democrat, Christianity vs. every other religion, but we can all hate Osama bin Laden. With this hate, came a desire for his death. As in, if we can get bin Laden then we will be victorious and the troops can come home, end of story.
It ain't that easy (nothing is ever that easy). Here we sit Monday morning in America, filled with pride and victory but even with bin Laden dead we still have big problems. Yeah, we have a moral boost for the troops as well as the American public (Take that royal wedding! America got the most evil man in the world and all you did was put on some namby pamby wedding! Ha! We win per usual.). We got our man! But is this going to end the war?
It's like organized crime (the Mob), you wack the head guy but that doesn't mean the whole organization goes away. They get another "head guy" and the corruption continues. al Qaeda is a network of cells, not some group relying solely on one man.
Osama bin Laden, most hated man in the world, is dead. Will the troops come home? Are we done now? No. The terror will continue and now these people have more fuel for their hatred. There are other Osama bin Laden's lurking in the shadows, waiting to take center stage. Not to diminish the unmeasurable pain suffered (and still being suffered) by those who had loved ones die in the September 11th attacks, as well as the countless others who had loved ones die from bin Laden's various terror campaigns, but this isn't as simple as a murderer being put on death row and getting executed -- which, in itself, isn't simple either because even when they are executed, you probably won't have the closure you were expecting, if any closure at all. Your loved one was still taken from you. bin Laden's followers are organized and determined, with or without some old man barking orders from a million-dollar three-story mansion.
So, hooray, ding dong the witch is dead but it ain't over.
There are many details to this situation, obviously, including how U.S. forces found the compound and how he was killed. However, I find it most interesting bin Laden wasn't living in a mountain cave on the rugged Afghan-Pakistan border like we've been led to believe for years by U.S. officials, especially former President George W. Bush. I always pictured bin Laden as an unwashed rebel standing with his hands on his hips and his shoulders back, chest out in the middle of a cave surrounded by darkness and his followers, shouting orders and living life on the lam. How dramatic! We don't need no stinkin' soap!
So, with that in mind, I can't say I was surprised to learn bin Laden was living in a million-dollar compound with his youngest wife (yes, youngest as in the youngest of the others -- damn, dirty polygamist) instead of roughing it in the Middle East wilderness. Frankly, with all the power and control over his followers, he had to know he didn't need to live like a rat in a cage like they do. Just send a few over to do some suicide bombings while I sit in my palace with my young bride -- which is funny for being so American-esque even though he hated our guts (hypocrite!), except it was reported he didn't have Internet service or phones in the compound which is as basic for Americans as food and water. Sneaky sneaky. Yes, death to America, blah blah blah, now leave me!
Also, I enjoyed the mishandling of the situation. Like Sohaib Athar, a Pakistani IT technician who unknowingly live-tweeted the U.S. helicopter raid of bin Laden's compound -- @ReallyVirtual. Or Fox News making the inevitable typo only they would make when reporting the death of Osama bin Laden with "Obama bin Laden" written below (Yuck, yuck very funny a-holes) or the other newscaster who mistakenly reported President Barack Obama died. Let me get some of what you're smoking
With the news still fresh among Americans, are you surprised director and screenwriter of the "Hurt Locker," Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal, are already working on their bin Laden film since it now completes the circle with such a dramatic ending? Perhaps Call of Duty Black Ops can release this mission. Wouldn't you love to sit in the comfort of your living room and blow Osama bin Laden's head off?! Duh. Yes sir!
... Not to sound totally moronic and maybe it's a bit too soon after his death, but it would be kinda cool if Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright (writers of "Shaun of the Dead") wrote a screenplay about bin Laden. Stay with me on this ... perhaps his body (which was buried at sea within 24 hours of his death, a time constriction mandated by Islamic law -- was blowing his brains out mandated by Islamic law too?) is buried near some nuclear testing facility and the ooze slowly creeps into his brain and he becomes this monstrous zombie beast who, instead of hiding in a mansion, infects his followers and travels to America to lead a crazed flesh-eating overtaking.
I could go on but my biggest question is: now that America boldly dashed in and killed their target (9-and-a-half years or not, the face of terror is finally dead), is this going to change anything? I'm not gonna lie, last night when turning on the boob tube and hearing of bin Laden's death, I was shocked. I was happy. I felt a sense of pride. I gave a typical American response. Mild compared to the thousands flocking to Ground Zero to cheer for joy, but typical nonetheless. For years we've been hearing about this guy and how he was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and how much he hates us and all this and that. His figurehead provided a sense of fear for us, as in maybe he could pull off another attack. For example, say I'm going to visit D.C. this weekend, will I be safe in a city that is a great target for a terror attack? It wasn't my be-all end-all thought but I definitely consider it when taking trips to big cities, all because of September 11th.
So, obviously bin Laden's death elicited a positive response, even a sense of relief. However, before my relief set in I got a weird thought. I don't want this to come across as I think bin Laden was a good guy, he wasn't. However, this almost decade-long man-hunt gave Americans a person to hate, a scapegoat for our fear, hatred and the war in Afghanistan. We may disagree on Republican vs. Democrat, Christianity vs. every other religion, but we can all hate Osama bin Laden. With this hate, came a desire for his death. As in, if we can get bin Laden then we will be victorious and the troops can come home, end of story.
It ain't that easy (nothing is ever that easy). Here we sit Monday morning in America, filled with pride and victory but even with bin Laden dead we still have big problems. Yeah, we have a moral boost for the troops as well as the American public (Take that royal wedding! America got the most evil man in the world and all you did was put on some namby pamby wedding! Ha! We win per usual.). We got our man! But is this going to end the war?
It's like organized crime (the Mob), you wack the head guy but that doesn't mean the whole organization goes away. They get another "head guy" and the corruption continues. al Qaeda is a network of cells, not some group relying solely on one man.
Osama bin Laden, most hated man in the world, is dead. Will the troops come home? Are we done now? No. The terror will continue and now these people have more fuel for their hatred. There are other Osama bin Laden's lurking in the shadows, waiting to take center stage. Not to diminish the unmeasurable pain suffered (and still being suffered) by those who had loved ones die in the September 11th attacks, as well as the countless others who had loved ones die from bin Laden's various terror campaigns, but this isn't as simple as a murderer being put on death row and getting executed -- which, in itself, isn't simple either because even when they are executed, you probably won't have the closure you were expecting, if any closure at all. Your loved one was still taken from you. bin Laden's followers are organized and determined, with or without some old man barking orders from a million-dollar three-story mansion.
So, hooray, ding dong the witch is dead but it ain't over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)