Things Not to Bring up at the Dinner Table

Guitar Hero 5

2009-09-11T14:08:00.001-07:00

Why do we still care whether or not Kurt Cobain is featured in a video game? I really do not understand this at all. The former members of Nirvana released a statement saying: "While we were aware of Kurt's image being used with two Nirvana songs, we didn't know players have the ability to unlock the character. This feature allows the character to be used with any kind of song the player wants. We urge Activision to do the right thing in 're-locking' Kurt's character so that this won't continue in the future."

Is Kurt Cobain really that important? Did he add more to music than Johnny Cash, Santana or Van Halen (also in the game)? I mean in all honesty the guy made some decent tunes, but Nirvana was not that great...(Am I going to be smited by the rock gods now?). Everything that Dave Grohl has done since Nirvana is 10x's better than anything he did while he was in it.

It just boggles my mind why some people get so obsessed with one Band (The Beatles, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, The Grateful Dead) and make them out to be far more important than they are! its confusing and frustrating to think that Courtney Love and the members of Nirvana feel that Kurt Cobain's flash in the pan career gives him exemption from a stupid video game...wise up and understand that He was no better and no worse than any other rock legend and...cliche en route...Let it Be...

I Pitty the Fool that doesn't take Communion

2009-09-10T13:37:00.000-07:00

Bolivian Crossing...

2009-07-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

I've traveled pretty extensively in South America and by far one of the most shocking experiences happened in the three hour span of leaving Argentina and crossing into Bolivia. Just for some context, when traveling in Argentina in one's youth the most common mode of transportation is Bus. These buses however are not like their hillbilly cousins in the United States, the greyhound, instead they are plush with some full reclining seats (cama, media cama), stewardesses and booze. It is more like flying on an airplane without the whole flying and getting to your destination quicker mess. Moreover these buses don't have the normal stops on every corner, they only stop at stations more like trains in Europe and you have a chance to stretch your legs and maybe buy some candies or a sandwich. Comfort, convenience and price these buses in Argentina seemed to have it all.

The one thing these buses did not have however, was the ability to cross the Argentine Bolivian border. As if the bus would somehow explode or turn into a pumpkin these titans of comfort dared not even creep towards the border. While traveling from Salta, Argentina to La Paz Bolivia I came to a border town in which I thought I would catch another plush bus for the rest of the trip. In Salta the travel company let me know that there was no direct bus to La Paz, but that it would be easy to find another bus once I was in Bolivia. Knowing nothing about Bolivia this seemed pretty much on par with the rest of my trip having crossed the Argentine border a few other times in Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay. So I got to the station in La Quiaca, Argentina strapped on my backpack and made my way to the border to cross. In hindsight, my first indication that something was amiss was when the bus would not take us over the border and when the taxi would only take me within about 100 yards of the actual line that I would later learn was important to keep the Bolivians out.

I made my way to the border and noticed that the closer I got the more desolate the Argentine side became and the more robust and full of people the Bolivian side was. It was like there was an invisible line just over the Argentine side that the Bolivians wanted to cross and the Argentines dared not to approach. It was confusing, I thought I just had to show my passport then jump over the border and hope on another plush bus for the next 10 hours to La Paz. Oh how wrong I would soon find out I was.

The border crossing was not an issue, in and out with a decorative Bolivian stamp in my passport and I was on my way to the crowded bus station. "Manzana Manzana Manzana!" a little old lady with very few teeth selling apples in front of the station shouted. Her voice was louder than anything else around, even the backfiring cars and stray dogs that seemed to be walking around everywhere. She was squaty, and dressed in full Incan regalia, multi-colored blanket on top of multi-colored blanket and topped off with a fedora. The most unappealing thing about her however had nothing to do with her leather exterior, rather it was her smell. Even at 10 paces, I could smell her and it was not a smell I can even begin to describe. Her stink made me want to spray cologne up my nose then roll around in a bed of roses. Don't mistake this, the smell was horrible and I later came to realize that it was pervasive amongst all the impoverished Bolivians, the smell of ancient, mixed with sweat and just a dash of never washed clothing.

I realized quickly I needed to get out of here and into some civilization so I bought a ticket for what I thought was the next bus (turned out to be two hours late) and waited. Expectations high, as the time for my trip neared I saw a clunker of a bus that looked just a little better than a yellow school bus but not quite as clean slowly drive up. "Dear god no" I though to myself as I came to the realization that this would be the way I would be getting to La Paz...in a shitbox. Having my "Premiere Ticket" which meant little else than I got to go on first and didn't have to sit in the isle, not the isle seat...the actual isle. Little did I know that in coming to Bolivia I was crossing from a progressive and rich country, to one of the poorest in the world. This bus as I sat would begin to fill, not just the seats, but every space available was either stuffed with a person, a dog or some kind of good in a large multicolored bag. The smell was incredible, I had to take some of the flavored chap stick I bought a few weeks earlier and smear it under my nose to keep from throwing up. But, I was sitting with close to 100 of my new friends and we were about to be on our way.

Of course this was the error in my way, I thought once we got going things would be better, oh how wrong could I possibly be. After about an hour the bus finally hit some town I didn't know the name of. It was night and pitch black accept for some shops on the mostly paved road and the bus driver announced that if we wanted we could get off, us the bathroom or buy something. Already squeezed into my seat I decided I better not as I watched a few people exit the bus before it stopped moving. This was where the confusing part happened, the bus kept moving leaving the passengers behind and picking up a few new ones. Their things were still on the bus, but they were going to stay where ever in the hell we were. It was at this point I said to myself "I will not for any reason be leaving this bus until I am where I want to be", and very soon after I came to regret that decision.

The road, or rather the dirt, became rocky and bumpy after about two hours of driving and our pace slowed to a crawl, I could literally have gotten out and walked faster than this damn bus was moving and the smell was intensified because the insane amount of dust made it impossible to open the windows. The vibrating and bumps were so severe that every time I leaned my seat the two inches it went back, the bus would shake so hard that it would vibrate me forward. It was as if someone somewhere was playing a sick and cruel joke on me, and I blamed god.

Sleep was not an option, reading was not an option instead I sat awake in the pitch black slowly and unsurely making my way to the heart of Bolivia wishing with every bit of my being that I never got off that bus in Argentina.

Thoughts on Clothes...

2009-07-14T09:25:00.000-07:00

Known or unknown to the wearer, these are the things that your clothes are saying about you...be warned!

The Bow tie: The Bow tie is the pierced eyebrow of the Republican Party. Nothing says I'm here to party but will slit your throat if you adversely affect my political career like a bow tie.

The Tommy Bahama Shirt says two things: 1. I make over 100k a year, take your long sleeved shirt/tie and kiss my expanding ass! 2. I'm impotent but comfortable.

Ed Hardy Shirt/Pants/Hat/Anything: I just pounded 4 red bull vodkas, watched some UFC and now I wanna hit the club and rub my cock against some girl with fake boobs...also I live with my parents until my club promotion gig takes off.

Push-up Bra: Yeah I like to show off my boobs, but I'll kick your ass if you look at them!...Unless you buy me a drink...

Speedo: I could wear another bathing suit, but I side more with the Europeans both in politics and dress so enjoy my package.

Sweatshirt tied around the waist: Ha! My ass is fat but you can't tell because of the sweatshirt that is blocking it! My deception has won and now I will find the man of my dreams!

Under Armor in a non-athletic setting: I workout, look I'm wearing Under Armor so it has to be true.

Under Armor in a Non-Professional Athletic Setting: I'm better at this than you. I have the gear and as soon as I step to the plate for our co-ed interoffice softball game, I'm bringing the thunder, learn it, know it.

2009-07-09T11:33:00.001-07:00

I read this off a blog that I frequent...I'm going to post it than give my own opinion:

IS MEGAN FOX BAD FOR WOMEN?

If you ask a guy what he thinks of Megan Fox, 9 times out of 10 he’ll start drooling all over himself as he tries to explain how her hotness defies the laws of the universe (and that one other time, he’s probably gay). It’s easy to see what her appeal is to members of the male species: she’s beautiful like a young Angelina Jolie and plays up her sex appeal in her movie roles.
But then you watch her on a late-night talk show or read an interview with her in a magazine, and you wonder how any guy can find her sexy. Not only is it unbecoming for a young woman to say the things she says, but her comments are also unprofessional for any actor to say while promoting a film. No self-respecting professional in their right mind would mention their poor hygiene habits on national television!
And yet, men everywhere are enamored with her. Either they are able to look past her idiotic remarks, or they embrace them. If the latter is the case with Megan Fox, then we women have a problem.
That this type of woman – who comes across as a crude simpleton and takes on movie roles nearly pornographically portraying her body – is the ultimate male ideal, should trouble all women. Intentionally or not, the global obsession with her sends a message to women that perfection means impossible beauty and a serious lack of social graces, if not a lack of intelligence.
It’s true that women often objectify male celebrities in a similar way, but we seldom see such pandemonium over one actor/actress, especially one who has only had two major movie roles in her career thus far. And this commotion has to mean something, since all the tabloids and blogs can’t seem to stop writing about Fox.
What it means for women is that we have another damaging prototype to contend with. She may not be setting us back sixty years quite yet, but she certainly isn’t helping women achieve the level of respect in the media and in society that they deserve. Men can claim she’s just a harmless fantasy, but even fantasies can be very telling of what people truly think.
What do you think? Is Megan Fox trouble for women, or just a male fantasy?

Marissa - Wesleyan University (http://collegecandy.com/2009/07/07/is-megan-fox-bad-for-women/)

My thoughts: First an foremost, to say that a woman is bad for women because of her beauty is simply preposterous. Since the dawn of time men and women are forced to contend with the fact that some people look a hell of alot better than them. This is why people go to gyms, diet and buy expensive clothes, they want to look like the people that the idolize. Just because some people take it to far (anorexics ect.) does not mean that idealizing a celebrity is a bad thing. I think that bettering oneself physically is just not a bad thing. Just get over yourself and the fact that you are not Megan Fox, and...never will be. Just because she is comfortable in her own skin that should not make you uncomfortable in yours. Megan Fox is hot, she knows it and she is using it, like anyone else would in her position. This is the very reason why you don't see many women of her hotness in the chemistry lab, but rather on the pole.

Secondly because she is in the public eye does that some how inherently force her to be a "lady"? I thought that each person, mind that each woman, in this post feminism ear is allowed their own way, their own idea of the good? Should Megan Fox be focused on starting a family, getting pregnant and getting in the kitchen? Doesn't her boldness to discuss her bodily functions and the like scream her feminism, or am I missing the mark? Does Feminism only mean your definition of what it means to be a woman, does feminism mean getting in the workforce and living up to someone Else's potential?

These are all questions that further explain...Megan Fox is hot.

Thoughts on MJ

2009-07-07T15:12:00.000-07:00

There is no reason not to join the crowd and put my two sense in on the recent death of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson...

Sitting in downtown LA this morning there is no avoiding the memorial and the ideas of the memorial that was put on in tribute to MJ. There wasn't the 750,000 people that the media expected. There wasn't the fanfare and circus that everyone was prepared for. The streets weren't packed, the riots never started, instead the somber occasion was...just that, somber. Today more than ever people resinstilled in my mind the fact that people can be respectful and can understand and truly exemplify empathy. It just further goes to show that the media of the US was ready to write everyone off and had the report in the chamber, wherein people rushed the Staples Center and who knows what. But that didn't happen, and that isn't the point of this.

What I want to say is that it is very rare that I have a 180 on what I think of a person. It is often very hard for me to change who I think a person is once I make a decision about them. Today, listening to the memorial service on the radio, I did. Michael Jackson was accused of some pretty heinous things, not only once but twice. With that I knew it had to be true, and that He just paid off who he needed to in order to not tarnish his name. But the more you hear about the man, the humanitarian and the father, the more the idea of this crime becomes more and more preposterous. It just seems like this once, the kid was lying (or the parents were) and someone wrongfully accused suffered the consequences.

The thing however that unites all people from all over the world and ties them to Michael is his music. It has been impossible to escape lately, but when you think about it, it is always hard to escape. In listening to the barrage of Michael Jackson's music these past 11 days the more I have realized that it is always that way. There isn't a club I've been to, a day I've gone through or anything like that where I haven't heard a song by or a version of one of Michael's songs. And the crazy thing is, I like it. The more I hear a song usually the more I hate it, but that doesn't happen with Michael Jackson, you can hear one of his songs once, twice of 70 times and it is just as good, just a fresh as the first time. I can't even imagine being around for the absolute mind melt that "Thriller" must have caused when people heard the first notes of that Album. His music is pure, its catchy and its amazing. The music is what makes people drawn to him and drawn to his ability to say what they want to say, but have never had the words to. Ballads, Dance hits whatever its all great stuff and it is all worth its weight in gold. Not even to touch the impact the man has had on dance. I mean the moonwalk is probably attempted 100 times more than the waltz.

Michael Jackson was not a role model. Michael Jackson was not perfect. Michael Jackson was a flawed as anyone one of us. Maybe that is his legacy, that despite our flaws...despite our short-comings greatness and vision can be achieved by all...

The Boomers are at it Again...

2009-06-10T13:18:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting article that I found from PC World regarding the influx of Baby Boomers into the Facebook and Twitter network. Watch out because your Mom might end up poking you...gross

Are Baby Boomers Killing Facebook and Twitter?

It may seem like Facebook and Twitter widen the gaps between boomers, Gen X-ers and members of Generation Y, but online social networks may bring us all closer.
The story is as old as the Web: A social network born among 20-something college kids and young wired professionals sprouts up, apparently out of nowhere, and grows into a cultural phenomenon. Eventually, it reaches critical mass and explodes, its mushroom cloud drawing the attention of millions of baby boomers, leading to a huge influx of new users, which in turn triggers complaints from the youngsters who started it all. The invasion of the boomers spurs some members of younger generations to flee the carnage (and the fallout) in search of fresher territory.
We've seen this scenario play out on MySpace and Facebook, and now it is starting to happen on Twitter. When the Baby Boomers -- traditionally defined as anyone born in the United States between 1946 and 1964 -- arrive, they tend to do so en masse. And when they set up camp, they invariably change the dynamic of the social network itself. Whether due to their distinctive social habits or the sheer vastness of their demographic, a mass migration of 50-and-over folk brings in its train everything from increased political activity to a proliferation of spam.
That boomers dramatically alter the social networks they adopt should come as no surprise, according to Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, a think tank that studies Americans' online habits. "Boomers are the mainstream of the country now," Rainie says. "When you attract a mainstream audience, you're going to attract a lot more commercial interests. Boomers validate that this is a big market, and that this is a place where commercial interests can make money."

End of innocence

The twin processes of mainstreaming and commercialization mark an end of innocence on a social network, as younger users lose what was once their private playground or -- even worse -- have to share it with their parents.
"Younger folks don't want their parents there," Rainie says. "But does that mean they'll all flock to different places?"
Not yet, according to data collected by Rainie and his colleagues at the Pew Research Center. Though a few early adopters may jump ship as a social network that was once on the electronic frontier gets swallowed up by digital suburbs, most stick around -- at least until a major new network arrives to supplant the old one, as Facebook has done with MySpace.
Still, there's no shortage of anecdotal evidence that sharing the online world can be a source of intergenerational strife. Take Will Smith (no, not the actor), for example. When this 33-year-old tech professional received a Facebook friend request from his father in March, he was floored. Not because he didn't want to connect with his dad, but because doing so on the same network that he shared with so many peers and colleagues raised a host of complex concerns.
"My father, who I dearly love, has a tendency to forward e-mails that are pretty off-color," Smith says. "It's probably nothing that would get me fired, but stuff that could earn me a trip to HR, if I ever opened them [at work]. My concern was that he would post that type of message on my wall or in another public venue on Facebook without realizing it was a public venue. Since everyone from my immediate supervisor to the president of my company is in my friend list, there's potential for bad things to happen. I don't think anything actually would, but there was strong potential for embarrassment."
To reduce the likelihood of a career-damaging dust-up, Smith sent his dad an e-mail in which he laid out what he considered reasonable limits for their online father-son bonding. Off-limits: "Politics, sex, jokes, things you find funny but offend me, comments about family members, any combination of the aforementioned items and pretty much every e-mail you've ever sent me."
Ultimately, Smith's worst-case scenario never came to pass and -- perhaps because of that e-mail -- his father never logged back into Facebook. But according to data from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, people of the same age as Smith's father are logging onto Facebook in droves, and baby boomers are now the fastest growing population on the social network.

Share and share alike?

To get a more personal take on the way family politics play out on Facebook, I called up a baby boomer I know pretty well: my Aunt Linda. She is on my Facebook friend list, as are her three children, ages 20, 23 and 25. In contrast to the Smiths, for whom an online connection proved troubling, my aunt came to Facebook in the first place because her college-age daughter invited her. For Aunt Linda, it's mainly a fun way to keep up with her kids while they're away from home.
"I try not to meddle," she says. "I typically go on there, look at their latest pictures and log off."
But like many of her generation, she is deeply concerned about the amount of personal information that her kids -- particularly her 20-year-old daughter, who is still in school -- share online.
"It really worries me. Not just possibility of stalkers, but also because of the way it represents her online. I know that [her older brother] had employers checking out his MySpace page when he was interviewing for jobs right out of school."
Pew's Rainie confirms that my aunt's concerns are hardly unusual for a member of her generation. "Older Americans are worried about the way younger users behave -- how much they disclose, how they present themselves. They wonder, 'Aren't they concerned about the future?' They're aware that [kids] are creating a permanent record on the Internet."
It's the Smith family dynamic in reverse: The voice of age and experience seeks to caution the young against potentially harmful exuberance in the online world.
Different strokes
In addition to basic differences in attitude that seem to arise with differences in age, each generation tends to use social technologies in different ways. To get a broader sense of these differences, I asked 1,200 of my closest friends on Facebook and Twitter what they thought of the online generation gap. Surprisingly, the answers I got -- from people as young as 19 and as old as 60+ -- were fairly consistent.
The gap is most evident in the way people use the networks, not in whom they connect with. The networks of nearly everyone who responded to my questions span multiple generations of users. But the observations my correspondents made about the kinds of posts that other participants submit were telling.
One representative response came from a Twitter user who had this to say: "Gen Dvide=Usage Dvide <25>25 tend 2 use 4 customized networking/info/culture/research"
Translation: It's all in how they use it. Common gripes about the inanity of Twitter updates -- stereotypically oversharing every moment of daily life from breakfast to dinner, including all rest stops -- may be largely due to the tendency of 20-somethings to broadcast their personal lives in their status updates. (The Twitter criticisms can be rebutted, of course.) Nearly every respondent acknowledged that members of Generation Y--often defined as those born in the 1980s and 1990s -- seem bent on publicizing every detail of their daily life over the Internet.
By contrast, members of Generation X -- tagged as those born between 1964 and 1984, who now make up much of the mainstream workforce -- tend to post more information about their professional lives, conferences they're attending and projects they're working on. To some older observers, it looks like self-absorbed bragging, though many 30-somethings claim to have reaped career-boosting benefits from this type of crowdsourcing. (There is much argument over when the different generations start and stop: Sometimes the Cultural Generation definition is more important than the actual birth year.)
Toward the upper end of the age spectrum, baby boomers tend to use social networks for connecting with old friends, sharing political news, discussing religion and exploring hobbies. Due to the rocky economy, they're fast getting used to networking for jobs via the Internet, as well.
A Facebook contact wrote: "All the 20-somethings I know have hundreds of friends; it seems like they connect with everyone they've ever met. I think 40-somethings like me are more selective -- I don't accept requests from people I don't know, and tend to think of Facebook more in terms of networking and connecting with old friends."
Another Twitter denizen had this perspective: "There is a divide. As services become more organized, they attract older users. Once it becomes more organized, the kids leave."
Rainie agrees. "There's probably some generational divide," he says. "Because people hang out with their friends, there's bound to be some clustering." But he sees no evidence of a serious online generation gap and says that his own friend list spans multiple generations.
Though the cross-chatter between members of the various age groups can get a little noisy, none of the people I talked to saw it as a bad thing. Instead, most seemed glad for the diversity of their friend lists.
In the future, Rainie envisions a day when social networks will more closely reflect the way real-world social networks function, allowing users to discriminate better between close ties and loose ties. When that happens, much of the cross-chatter may be lost. But when that happens, we may also lose a great opportunity to share ideas across the generations.

Robert Strohmeyer

Childrens movies for Adults

2009-06-08T15:08:00.000-07:00

Up is an amazing film. I really really loved it. What I didn't love however were the two 3 year old girls behind me who were scared out of their minds TIME AFTER TIME DURING THE MOVIE! I just don't get where people think a PG film is suddenly ok for little kids? I mean what the hell are little kids doing in a movie theatre anyway?!?

A. It's dark
B. It's loud
C. It's full of strangers

What about these three things make it ok for people to bring their little little kids into?!? Dad has a fucking 65 inch Plasma at home with surround sound and real popcorn machine but these people still feel the need to strap in their little kids and let them cry at the top of their lungs, WHEN I"M TRYING TO ENJOY A FILM!!!! AHHH!!!

Short Story

2009-06-03T09:09:00.000-07:00

The idea that every morning at 6:30 my alarm goes off makes me angry. Angry enough to moan, groan and cus. Why the hell am I doing this? Why the hell am I forcing myself to observe this lifelong ritual of rousing myself from a perfectly comfortable sleep and splashing water on my face and putting a goo on my teeth. Looking in the mirror and muttering "this is bullshit" seems to be the common response to what I see.

Coffee, that will do it, that will take all this evil and force it out of me with hot delicious liquid. The caffeine will take all this self loathing and morning hate and replace it with little brown beeds of joy. Fuck that didn't work. Oh well. I turn on the today show and hope that the hot weather girl with the huge jugs is wearing something low cut today, that should help. Of course she never disappoints, she steps out in front of the 5-day forecast in a tight white shirt with a short black skirt. I really don't care if she knows anything about the weather, she makes it OK to wake up with the delightful things she wears. Her presence is a short reprieve, and its back to Meredith Viera talking about some bullshit.

I can't wait though the clock is hitting zero hour, and I need to get out the door and on my way. I take the subway now, I'm trying to be green and save some cash, but if all were equal I would rather sit in traffic in my own car. I like to listen to my own radio, I don't really enjoy the smell of the bum next to me and a car is more comfortable, it's a fact. But, I do what I must and park my car at the subway stop, walk the 300 yards to the tube and make my way down.

There is constantly a wind down there. CONSTANTLY. I always wonder why but never follow up on it, I'm tired and when it comes down to it, I don't give a shit. As the train pulls up I make my way to the front to ensure that I get a seat. I used to not care about the seat, or i used to give it up for some woman who got on, but not anymore. If I get a seat, I bury my face in a book and enjoy the ride. It's not that I'm rude, I just realize that if the tables were turned not a soul would give up a seat for me. It may be selfish, it is selfish but fuck it I want to read my book and be left alone. I have never spoken to anyone on the subway, never, and I resent those that do. Why are they talking so loud? It is either a couple of kids or some old cackling yentas, don't they know that the subway is a quiet place, a place for reflection?

Finally, 10 pages later i arrive at my stop. Of course mine is the busiest of all the stops, so i have to fight crowds up the stairs, and instead of their being a turn style their is a swarm of cops checking tickets. Shouldn't these people be protecting and serving instead of checking to ensure people are paying $ 1.25 for a one way ticket? It just seems dumb and a waste, but its par for the course in California. Par for the course...

All this to get to my office, unlock the door, turn on the computer and being a day of pushing paper from one place to another. All to earn a buck. It's the trip, the day and the idea that i push myself through all this just to get to a place to work for someone else. To sit at the water cooler and talk about last nights Lost or how the Lakers are doing. It all reminds me I hate traveling, I hate small talk, and the the more I can avoid any of it I do. So I sit at my desk, doing my job, day in and day out...and it all happens again and again

In Defence of Radio...

2009-05-27T10:22:00.000-07:00

Radio, many say, is a dying art. People don't get why you would sit and listen to something when you can sit and watch and listen to something. Television it would seem blows radio out of the water. Television takes everything that radio tries to get the listener to imagine and makes them not have to imagine, it gives them an image, a moving picture. Now with modern technology and CGI, there is almost nothing left up to the imagination; we can see whatever we want, whenever someone else dreams up they can show to us.

There is still however something important, something undeniable about radio. There is something to sitting and listening quietly, being a perfect receptacle but still having the ability to move and imagine as the story or stories fill your ears. Radio unlike TV or Film has the power to put the listener inside the story, inside the action and allows them to experience it for themselves. Unlike watching an actor on a screen radio makes each person listening the actor, each person is allowed their imagination.

Radio is also piercing, its comforting and its emotional. Somehow, in the genre of "talk" radio the radio personality has the ability to connect with the people they are speaking to, the ability to see what and who they are, and respond to those emotions. As well the listener is able to connect with the personality, to see who they actually are, whether that be radio stick or not. Essentially radio is the medium where a real and palpable connection can be made between the host and listener, a connection that is absent from many other mediums.

With the inclusion of the podcast as a new way to listen to radio hopefully a new generation will see that there is real truth and real connections in radio. I want people to understand that when something is good, it is good and for me radio is good...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Default.aspx

http://www.frostyheidiandfrank.com/

http://www.carollaradio.com/

The Barrel of a Gun...

2009-05-26T11:51:00.000-07:00

Everyday we exist, we take one step closer to death. We are literally looking down the barrel of a gun hoping that for one day more someone might stay our execution, and not pull the trigger. The questions flow through the mind:

Have I lived and authentic life?

What do I believe?

Who do I love? Will they remember me when I'm gone?

What does it mean to be gone?

Have I done the things required of a good life?

What the hell is a "good life"?

Why me? I mean WHY ME?!?

Am I afraid of death, or afraid of the lack of life?

and so on and so on. When looking at the barrel of a gun, it is really easy to ask the tough questions, and it is even harder to answer them. If you never thought about these things in life, what does thinking about them on the verge of death even mean. The barrel of a gun is where each person has to look at themselves, and face the truth whatever that truth may be. What's ironic is not that we think about the questions, but that we don't realize that we are looking at that gun everyday....

Caribbean Obama/Simple Math

2009-05-20T14:39:00.000-07:00

This is something that seems quite clear to me. If you make a great deal of money, doesn't it make sense then that you should pay a great deal more than your average person in taxes? For Multi-Billion dollar corporations this is not the case.

Chew on this, we have bought citibank and Bank of America. The tax payers, with their bailout for the large banks essentially bought these banks in the idea that it would benefit the public good; in citi's case, with 25 billion in bailout money we bought them twice. However both of these banks have holdings in the Cayman Islands where the funnel most of their money so that it can sit, untaxed by Uncle Sam. We own these damn banks and they have the audacity to hide money from us?

In lies the essential problem that permeates the banking world, GREED. Even after we save their asses from utter destruction they still are to greedy to finally open their books and be honest and upfront with the people who helped them out. And now even after the bailout, banks are raising credit rates, foreclosing on homes and generally giving the ol' middle finger to the American people.

In the title I wrote "simple math" and the reason for this ties in to the idea of the greed of these banks. With this home ownership crisis there are two options for a bank either foreclose or modify these loans that they knew were destined to fail. Option one, foreclosure, essentially means the bank will for sure take a loss after closing costs, auction costs and legal fees to complete the foreclosure. There is however another option, loan modification. For example if a bank would simply renegotiate the payment plan of a loan, they could get not only the full amount owed plus interest, but their could get much more than the house is actually worth, at no loss to their institution. This could be done in so many different ways, like simply knocking 50k off a 400k loan which more often than not would still garner the bank, wait get this, A GAIN!!!

This however is where it all breaks down. Greed it seems has trumped the idea of an American Spirit or a shared destiny. No longer are we in the days of helping ones neighbor, instead we seek to covet where he poses. Excuse me for being a little preachy here, but damn where will it end...?

One in the same, but different?

2009-05-19T09:28:00.000-07:00

These two works have many things in common. They chronicle two men, taken captive during WWII. Both suffer horrendous treatment from their captors. Both men loose their identity and possibly most shocking, both these stories are true.

However I am not in third grade, and this is not a book report. What I hope to delve into is the conclusions of both of these tales. Because one describes the horrors of a Jew in a German concentration camp and the other the brutality suffered by a Scottish officer in a Japanese POW camp, building the "Rail of Death" but both end on very different notes.

In "To End All Wars" Ernest Gordon tells his story of being captured and tortured by the Japanese military, and being forced to work while his brothers in arms died around him. Surviving on little more than rice and hope, Gordon has a spiritual revelation through a friend and begins to see the change in his fellow captives. It is hope in themselves and God that saves them from the brink of destruction and allows them to carry on. Gordon credits his spiritual conversion with his survival, and his eventual freedom. For Gordon, Jesus is found through his suffering, and is also credited with his road to redemption.

Similarly in "Man's Search For Meaning" Viktor Frankl is imprisoned in a Nazi death camp where he is starved, worked and beaten to the edge of death. Frankl is forced to deal with his own mortality as those around him are systematically exterminated simply for their being of Jewish decent. Upon being liberated, Frankl sees the disullionsment that permeates the world, and the potential of man to create complete despair and suffering in his fellow man. Thus the hope that defined Gordon's experience Frankl sees as just something to get the prisoner through, a coping mechanism. For Frankl man's search for meaning ends when he realizes that hope is nothing more than that, a hope...never realized.

Both of these men start at similar points but end at very different ones. Gordon sees death and sees hopelessness but comes to find that from that or maybe within that there is actually hope, that is where he feels God resides. Frankl though looks into the same eyes of death, and come out knowing that the hope that others had, was nothing more, nothing was realized and the death and suffering still remain. For Frankl he never really left the concentration camp, though he did, because the memories and the basis of their sheer existence still remain. Whether Gordon found solace in God or religion the fact still remains that man outside of God is able to perpetrate some true evil.

This brings me to one of my points, whether or not god is their, evil happens and if that is the case than isn't it also true that whether or not god is there good happens as well. In the Christian tradition it is easy to say God is there in the good, but a little harder to say he is there in the evil as well. Is it not possible that a being created by god with the capacity to do evil might be just doing God's will? Can't it be assumed that if the Christian God is good that perhaps the opposite is true as well? Evil here is the main point. If the catalyst for evil is not God, but man, than isn't it safe to say that hope in the face of evil is the product of man as well?

Often times people want to attribute the bad or evil in the world to mans free will, which is fair, but in doing this you also have to conclude that the good must be his own free will as well, then where exactly does God fit in? For Frankl He didn't, and that is why Frankl saw the anger, hope, pain and love as all products of the human condition; products of this idea that man is this elevated animal because of his ability to reason, and kill, and love...

So why wouldn't we bring this up at the dinner table? Because it invokes the idea that man is 100% in control of his own destiny, it is in no ones hands but his own. Therefore the time we are given is all that we have, use it wisely.

The Atom Bomb...

2009-05-13T09:08:00.000-07:00

What justifies a final act of war that will ensure complete and utter destruction? How can one person decide whether or not to use a weapon that will not only ensure success but guarantee an apocalyptic ending to ones opponent.

I've been reading a book called To End All Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_End_All_Wars), which is the story of Ernest Gordon and his attempt to survive in a Japanese POW camp (more to follow on the book.). The book, though not specifically meant to describe the horrors of the Japanese treatment, chronicles inhuman treatment, outright torture and murder throughout the Japanese taking of prisoners. This book got me interested in something I really know little about, WWII in Asia. I was almost completely unaware of the sheer magnitude of the death and horror caused by the Japanese during the war. Just a few details from wikipedia:

R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. "This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture." According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and 10.2 millions in the course of the war.
The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanking Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred as many as 200,000 civilians and prisoners of war, although the accepted figure is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands. A similar crime was the Changjiao massacre. In Southeast Asia, the Manila massacre, resulted in the deaths of 100,000 civilians in the Philippines and in the Sook Ching massacre, between 25,000 and 50,000 ethnic Chinese in Singapore were taken to beaches and massacred. There were numerous other massacres of civilians e.g. the Kalagon massacre.A Japanese soldier with a "hunt trophy", taken presumably in 1942 during operation sankō, the "Three Alls Policy", as it was nicknamed by Chinese. Historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta reports that a "Three Alls Policy" (Sankō Sakusen) was implemented in China from 1942 to 1945 and was in itself responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians. This scorched earth strategy, sanctioned by Hirohito himself, directed Japanese forces to "Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All."
Additionally, captured allied service personnel were massacred in various incidents, including:

Laha massacre
Banka Island massacre
Parit Sulong
Palawan massacre
SS Tjisalak massacre perpetrated by Japanese submarine I-8
Wake Island massacre-see Battle of Wake Island
Note: this is not a complete list of massacres. There were many others.

The staggering facts drawn from this information is not the scale but, the fact that these were innocents, woman and children. The Japanese in WWII were not concerned with anything accept complete and total domination of Asia, and making sure that the rest of the people in the region knew the Japanese were in charge. They wanted people to suffer, they wanted people to die in order to bring about a Japanese Empire. This is a crazy idea that somehow had a mirror in Europe at the same time. The mentality of these two countries, at the exact same time is a shocking idea. The thought that these two cultures of hate developed simultaneously is very very strange (another point entirely).

Now to my point, I can put myself in the shoes of Truman and see that if I had the chance to stop the war in Japan with one foul swoop, would I choose to do it? Could I justify in my own mind killing 220,000 people in order to possibly save millions more? This is one of the hardest decisions that anyone could possibly make and in order to make that decision you would have to take into account both Just War Theory and thinking of the lives of ones own people. Within the idea of a War, countries have to think of their people first, and through just war theory it is the defense of their people.

When the Japanese first invaded China and put the first newborn on a bayonet their leaders sacrificed their right to a just war. When they starved, overworked and killing POWs they sacrificed their right to a just war. In my opinion those who refuse to adhere to an idea of a just war should not be afforded the protection that it exudes. Therefore the bomb and the use thereof comes into a grayer picture, possibly this may have been a necessary action...

This is going to be a growing discussion (I hope) of just war, the a-bomb and the like...please help me sort this out...

Three Sheets...

2009-05-07T12:01:00.000-07:00

For those of you who haven't seen it, this is my new favorite TV show and my new dream job for when I grow up:

http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/threesheets/

http://www.zanelamprey.com/

Early Reitrement...

2009-05-05T09:20:00.000-07:00

It's quite likely that the idea of this post comes more than anything from my youth. The entire idea of working for a company for a number of years then hoping that your investments panned out enough that at the ripe old age of 65 you can finally stopping working and leave the dream of hobbling around to foreign countries or sitting day after day in Florida seems well, shitty. Does someone really want to spend the years of their life, of which they are the healthiest and most virile, couped up in an office all day plugged numbers into a machine, in the hopes that one day they will have worked hard enough and long enough to never have to do it again? I'm not into it.

Instead what if the early part of your life was the part you could enjoy, the part where you could do whatever the hell you wanted: Travel the globe, Drink the world, Eat the Earth its all fair game when you are young. After many graduations people like to tell you that the world is your oyster, so whose idea of a pearl is sitting behind a desk? Personally not mine.

"The times they are a changing" People live so much longer these days, and are healthy for longer, so the idea of having to knock out a solid job for the early part of your life, than live off the fruits of your investment for a few years after retirement just doesn't add up. The numbers don't work for the people living to 90+ (luckily I won't have to worry about that with my motto of in vino veritas) so they are stuck hoping for help from the government or worrying about using their kids as a backup.

All this is to say, enjoy your youth while you have it because it will not last forever, and when it ends, there is no going back. You can work till you're 80 but you sure as hell can't hike Machu Pichu or surf in Australia...

Am I Arlen?

2009-05-04T11:48:00.000-07:00

I feel that more and more as of late I have become quite disenfranchised with the Republican Party, or rather what the Party has become. While during the Regan years, and the Clinton years as well, the Party was one of Financial scrutiny, National Defense and Moral High-ground, today they stumble around as the "Moral Majority" attempting to hate gays, bitch about spending and attempt to hold on to a past that may have not even been there.

For me the issue is the future. It seems that the Democrats are ready and willing to embrace and look toward the future, a push towards technology and a change from the "business as usual". However the Republicans seems stuck hoping and wishing for a return to the past: a White, Male Driven, Heterosexual, Christian and Family first past. To me this is the scourge of the party, their idea that forward movement is not necessary for progress. This idea stems from the fact that the party, is a party of old people. They have the right ideas about the economy and about a freer, smaller government but on almost everything else their ideas are so antiquated, synonymous with the actual age of the party members.

For the Party to become relevant again they need to get young people excited about putting the government in their hands, about taking part in the work that needs to be done. The party cannot continue on the path that the Bush administration put them on of exclusion, War and secrecy. Its not that the party isn't exciting its that the ideas that are tantamount to the current party leaders are just...old.

Buzzed Driving?

2009-04-30T08:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVJ0CNVnMM

Buzzed driving is Drunk driving is the ad counsel's new attempt to stem the scourge of impaired driving. Now, I don't know if this is just in California or throughout the country but, it literaly, figurativly, spiritually and emotionally makes zero sense!

I want to start this however by saying that Drunk driving is not ok. If you are over the legal limit: get a cab, call a friend or meet someone to go home with. DON'T DRIVE DRUNK. It is dangerous and has been the cause of unimaginable tragedy.

Now point of clarification: Buzzed driving is not drunk driving. Buzzed driving is buzzed driving and drunk driving is drunk driving. Am I the only one that sees the utter lunacy that is involved in thsi campaign? When someone is above the legal limit and driving, they are driving drunk period. When someone is not above that legal limit and is "buzzed" they are not drunk driving pure and simple. This ad is nothing more than a continuance of the fear principal, that is to say they want you to be afraid that maybe, even if you have had just one, than you are to buzzed to drive. They want you to be afraid of seeing those flashing lights in your rearview even if you aren't drunk!! This idea seems to come down to a couple of principals:

First: This ad seems to give cops the further power to decide whether or not someone is buzzed or drunk and should be taken in for prosecution. As if Cops don't have enough power to instill fear in the people they are susposed to protect, now they can say "well you aren't drunk driving, but you are buzzed driving so we'll have to ruin your life with a DUI". Even further with a DUI Cops have the ability to literally RUIN your life. Driving a mile and a half after a night at your favorite bar is almost on par with commiting a robbery or rape. Some how our society has managed to put people who drive drunk in the same area as hardened criminals. Am I the only one that finds this insane? It's clear that innocent people do suffer from someones decision to drive drunk, but the intent is never on purpose right? A Drunk dude does not get in his car with the intent to run someone down does he? From what I know I would say its an accident...

Second: Let me make this clear saying buzzed driving is drunk drving is completely illogical. One of the eaisist proofs in logic if A is not B then B is not A or (~A --> ~B) and (~B-->~A). If we plug our words in it reads if being drunk is not being buzzed than being buzzed is not being drunk. Therefore Drunk is not Buzzed and Buzzed is not Drunk. and Buzzed driving is not drunk driving. This ad attempts to take one thing and say it is another. That is just not true! You cannot claim that a cat is a dog or a dog is a cat, they just are not the same thing. Logic, for some reason, is simply beyond the ad counsel and they could care less whether what they say makes sense as long as they illicit an emotional reaction.

I guess that is where I have the problem, the fact that instead of trying to inform and state truth, they try to instill fear and emotional responses. Let's just try and terrify people into doing what we want...

The Atheist Next Door...

2009-04-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

Adam steps up to his seat at the head of his table, covered with food, wine and cocktails. He can't help but be happy knowing that his friends have all come just to enjoy this meal together. They rarely get together anymore and almost never like this, this he thinks really is the good life. "Lets all join hands and give thanks for this bounty we are about to receive." as one guy at the end of the table and casually declines the outstretched hand of the woman next to him. "John? Not joining us in saying grace?" Adam says as John's hands begin to sweat. He knows the conversation is about to start where he is questioned, probed and proded regarding his abstaining from the evenings grace. "Uh, I ah, just don't really feel comfortable saying grace with you guys. It's honestly just not really my thing, but go ahead please." Adam gets ready to move on, besides the glass of petite syrah in front of him is far to appetizing to worry about a broken link in the chain.

Adam's girlfriend, Sarah, is taking a different stance, she is far to inquisitive to let John off the hook that easy. "Wait wait, you're not going to pray with us? We're not going to make it like really christian or anything just a normal prayer ya know." Sarah tells John. "It's not that," great now it begins John thinks as he begins the monologue that he has rehearsed a thousand times, " I'm just not religious anymore, well I guess I never was, I just don't want to pray with you guys when I know there is nothing behind it on my part". Almost in unison the rest of the group takes a big gulp out of their glasses, and all seem to chuckle about it a bit. Sarah being far to intrigued to stop the conversation there continues the questioning: "Wait, John are you saying that you aren't a christian? Are you Buddhist or Muslim or something now?" "No, I'm saying I don't believe in...well...anything I'm an atheist."

An audible gasp comes over the group. None of them are uptight, they all went to the same Christian College, but to hear the word "atheist" is just kind of shocking, especially from John. "John, come on dude. You went to church with me before, don't act like now all of a sudden you just don't believe in anything above." John takes a beat sips his own glass and begins "That's just it, the above thing, the higher power. I've read and reflected, and reflected and read and the more I think about it the idea of something, high in the sky working as a judge and a father, as a master and a friend is just kind of ridiculous to me. I just think that... In my own mind, I can't justify the whole idea of religion so the next logical step is to deny it." Sarah responds "Thad's quite the leap of faith!" Adam, now puring his second glass (besides the bottle he drank cooking the meal) interjects "Or lack thereof, Hey-O!". Laughing John continues "Exactly! Think about the idea of faith in the Christian world, Faith was defined as belief in something that cannot be seen. How in the hell does that make any sense at all? In the modern world if I told you that the fairy's flew around us all the time but you couldn't see them, and you never would be able to, you just had to believe in them people would call me crazy right?"

Sarah pushes forward "Yeah but that is totally different, if we are talking Christianity, Jesus really lived, we walked the earth, died and rose three days later. how can you refute that? How can you refute the facts that point to God?" John jumps on the point: "Sarah, that's the thing, how do we know these are facts? There isn't a word in the Bible that is a first hand account of actually seeing the events you're talking about, they are all retold and retold almost two generations later. We have no idea what actually happened just as we don't when the Egyptians claimed that Horus rose from the dead as well." "Furthermore what is actually considered to be 'Christian' has changed drastically from the original followers of Christ or say the idea of being Christ like. the changes are so drastic that most would be hard pressed to find similarities in say the catholic religion and the teachings of Jesus."

Thinking on his point Sarah takes a different approach "OK sure Christianity or Catholicism is fucked up, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing, I mean where do we go when we die? What does it mean to exist then?" John speaks "That's the point, that is where this all comes from: Man's Narcissism and perpetual fear of death. Man is terrified at the idea of not being able to think anymore, not being able to 'exist' so through that they created a way to never die but to live on forever and in doing so created a social construct that also benefits society, IE don't kill don't rape ect. ect. But the point still remains that if man has created it, than man is his own god and that negates the entire idea of a god as it is..." John realizing after his rant that everyone is seated and drinking and eating he to sits down.

Besides the sound of forks and glasses the silence is haunting. Adam, aided by his syrah or whatever he poured at this point, breaks the tension "So how bout them Lakers?" John laughs with the group and they table the idea for another day...

Thoughts?

The Vegan/Hippie/Dirty/Bloated Ego/Liberal/Post College Traveler

2009-04-27T10:35:00.000-07:00

Has anyone heard of this?

This is the person that has graduated college, or taken a year off, and has decided to spend that time traveling around Europe, Africa or South/Central America. They think they know to much, they think they have found a better way to live and the want to show the world just exactly how enlightened they are.

Now, I can't start this topic without calling myself out first. I did this, I finished school and fled the country to live/work/travel in Argentina. One thing I didn't do though was develop this insane sense of personal importance, and the idea that people living in abject poverty are somehow happier than the average Joe in the States with a mortgage and a job.

Imagine Bolivia...Bolivia is landlocked, war torn, indigenous and one of the poorest countries in the world. The American Dollar is 8 to 1 down there and young people from the States and Europe flock here to use their wealth to buy drugs, drink and live the life of the rich. Of course this isn't where the issue is, the issue is that these very same people are the ones who in many late night conversations will praise the Bolivian people, and praise how they live an abstract indigenous life. they will praise how much better things are in Bolivia then the US (for example) and how the people must be so much happier.

This is BULLSHIT. These people, who use the wealth they have accumulated, simply by living in a rich country, to take advantage of a weaker currency than praise the people living in that country for living a simple, happier life? These Travelers take it upon themselves to decide the measure of happiness and apply that to an entire group of people. I use Bolivia as an example because looking in the faces of the people living there is absolutely heart retching. These people suffer, day in and day out. The most shocking thing is the smell. Everything in that country smells, and smells bad. Whether it be bad hygiene, poor diet, lack of infrastructure or sanitation everything smells. No one is to blame, but why in the fuck do we feel the need to praise this instead of attempting to help these people find a better way?

I refuse to be hypocritical, I love South America I love the people there, I love the attitude and I love to party there. It is simply amazing. I hope to make Buenos Aires my home someday, but I don't check my ideals at the door and act as though my luck in living in the US doesn't afford me great opportunities, like travel and fun. People living impoverished in these countries would do anything to live where we do, so don't assume that their "simple" life makes them happy. Most of them I would assume would give up shitting in the street and selling potatoes in a second to live where we do.

So I say take your Vegan/Hippie/Dirty/Bloated Ego/Liberal/Post College self and get a hold of yourself, realize your luck and fuck off...

Work:

2009-04-23T08:55:00.000-07:00

Work is such a fucking crazy idea...

In the past people worked to live, and by that I mean that people would actually toil so that they could produce food for themselves in order to be alive. Sure some people we blacksmiths or warriors ect. but that work was specific enough to produce something tangible in order to live. Throughout history the point of working was producing a good or service either for yourself or the community at large in order to keep your family alive. The tangability of this kind of work, for me makes sense, however today it seems like this is no longer the case.

Today people work at a desk (the vast majority of people) and work to produce a good that they themselves will never see. This is a shocking and when thought about absolutely crazy idea. Thousands of people in downtowns everywhere are not out selling wares or attempting to provide a tangible service, instead they are selling unseen money, thoughts of prosperity, or ideas of how to expand. In the Internet age, people will work their entire lives without ever actually seeing anything they are selling, anything they deal with or even one of their paychecks (direct deposit). Absolutely Crazy (to me at least)

I just think that inherently in man is the idea that we need to see the fruits of our labor. This is of course half the reason that the Soviet Union never worked out. Man needs to feel that the work that HE does needs to be rewarded, and not in society, but in his own life. Possibly this is the reason why depression is at an all time high, and people constantly bitch about their jobs and their lives. People have always bitched but in the past it was about pain and low wages. Now people sit, and fuck around all day and still feel unsatisfied in the work that they do. This just goes to further to perpetuate the idea that work, for man, needs a real result, a true conclusion, a final product that gives that sense of accomplishment...

Or maybe not...

Politics...

2009-04-16T10:03:00.000-07:00

This one will be short and quick:

Bush: The world hated us, the economy blew asshole and trust of the presidency was at an all time low.

Obama (thus Far...): The world opinion of our politics has started the sway in our favor, finally the dollar is coming back (at least not below the damn Canadian buck) and over 60% of Americans actually believe in the president...

Hmmm...

Clarity...

2009-04-14T10:19:00.000-07:00

It is always nice to wake up and finally see things clear, to have an understanding that you didn't when you put your head on the pillow. The strange thing about how this pertains to me however is that its a clarity I can't really articulate or explain.

Last night I went to bed, feeling terrible, mad at myself, angry at the world and ready to give up (maybe I already had given up who knows). But then when my alarm went off and I got up to brush my teeth, everything was ok. I felt somehow very clear, I didn't know why. Maybe at night somehow my mind made peace with myself and the things I needed to resolve in my own head were resolved.

Everything seemed better in the car when I was drving. things made sense, shit I heard on the radio was actually more funny. Fucking wierd I know...

Documentary Suggestions

2009-04-10T08:04:00.000-07:00

Ok whether it be Netflix telling me what to watch or sheer circumstance, in the past few weeks I have seen really some of the best Doc's I have seen in awhile. All of them deal with religion and I'm going to give a short summary with a link below here. Let me tell you, these are amazing, heady and uncomfortable but be ready to think about what you believe...

Jesus Camp: http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/
This follows a pastor whose sole mission it is to empower kids (little kids!) to be on fire for god.

Constantine's Sword: http://constantinessword.com/
This follows a former Catholic priest as he tries to discover the truth behind Catholic anti Semitism and violence that seems to engulf the faith.

Deliver us from Evil: http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php
This one may be the most uncomfortable as it details the life of a Catholic priest who systematically and habitually raped child after child in California.

The King of Kong: http://www.newline.com/properties/kingofkongtheafistfulofquarters.html
Not religious or heady, just a really good movie about two men competing for the best score in Donkey Kong...it really is great

enjoy?

The Start...

2009-04-09T08:55:00.000-07:00

Well I finally gave in and decided that maybe people actually give a shit about what I think. I'm probably dead wrong and this fucking thing will sit unedited, uncommented and all alone for months and months until I remember I still have it and delete it. I've always thought that blogs were hands down the most narcissistic thing and built solely for the purpose of people wanting to think that other people care at all what they think. I think I have them one uped though because I know people don't give a shit! Huzah I win right off the bat with straight self deprecation.

First let me get into the title. More and more in society I see people who are shocked and appalled by someone who says they don't believe in spirituality. Often phrases like "How can you believe that?", "Look at the world its so clear!", "What about (insert Biblical, Koranic, ect. Passage) doesn't that explain it?" spew from people as the try to convince the nonbeliever of the error in their ways, like something is inherently wrong with them for their desire to think outside of history and look a possibly a bigger picture. "I don't believe and I'm OK" means more than I hate religion or religion is antiquated or stupid, that's not the point, the point is that in world filled with science, reason, philosophy, discovery and truth, maybe just maybe it is ok for someone to believe whatever the fuck they want. Something that throughout, let me be clear, THROUGHOUT history has been fucking impossible. I'm going to get into all that later (hopefully).

Thoughts it seems are all I have these days, ways to articulate myself and explain what the fuck is going on in this head of mine. That's what I want to do, I want to speak and discuss whatever the topic may be. As long as everyone has the right to say what they want, what they feel, than this could be a really successful blogging (eh gross) experience.

Plus I have some fucking really smart friends

Best,

Kenny