Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Many of you will remember Jessica Hawn as the little girl who fell down a well and was rescued live on TV.
Babies falling down wells and church going secretaries fucking their bosses were among the main media generated events which defined Generation X.
Just like the "Who shot J.R.?" and "How do you merchandise this and put TV slogans on jeans?" defined the Yuppies of the Baby Boom Era.
Now while many of you who will actually remember Jessica that way, it's because most of you are brain damaged idiots.
Jessica Hawn was a white-trash slut/ho who banged Tammy Fae Baker's husband. Jessica's slipping over his tiny cock helped Satan bring down a multi-million dollar pyramid scheme that had been "fillin up the coffers good" for our boy Jesus H.
Baby Jessica was a little dipshit toddler that apparently couldn't tell her ass from a hole in the ground. Though she later went on to discover gravity.
Don't you go fucking judge me assholes, but I was watching Larry King the other night when I saw Jessica give him the greatest interview ever.
"Lo and behold" Larry tried to get Jessica -The White Trash Ho- to come clean about her affair with PTA leader Jim Baker. She didn't tell the truth or own up to any wrong doing, but she did manage to 'piss me the fuck off' with all her made up excuses.
I couldn't believe that Jessica had the nerve to call Jim Baker 'immoral.'
Don't get me wrong, Jim deserves to be executed along with every other money grubbin TV Evangelist who gets the near dead to Bow down to the Leper Messiah.
But I get pissed when a pussy showing Playboy model pretends to be a moralist. Jessica raped a middle aged man and forced him to cheat on his wife. Then she blames every one else for all the bad shit that's happened in her life. (Read: How else would I have made a million dollars and got famous?)
While I would usually be content with ending any post at my concerns, I think the only person out there with any real beef is Baby Jessica. Who apparently only looks good in a hoax.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Every time I watch Showtime Boxing I feel like I am eating off brand breakfast cereal. What's the fucking point of that? Name brand only cost a few bucks and it lasts for days. (Unless your Jerry Seinfeld.)
What other grocery store product can offer that much? Yet many of you insist on eating your Count Chocula as Princess Cocoa.
An aside, there is something a bit creepy with those boxing refs, "You must obey my commands at all times...
I will be sleeping with your wife after the fight, you will do nothing about this."
Nice gig. And Jedi Mind trick's to boot.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The president says it's because of our "freedoms", the left says it's because of poverty or American Imperialism. Has anyone stopped to ask "them" why?
In this essay I will attempt to answer 3 questions.
- What freedom does Islam hate?
- Has Islam become the new Marxism?
- Is the analogy of Marxism = Violence wrong?
According to the Stray Reflection Weblog
"Islam emphatically rejects the metaphysical conception of the individual as a self determining being (the conception of man as God.) Islam insists that human fulfillment lies in a voluntary surrender (the word Islam means surrender) of the capacity of self determination."
What the Muslim world rejects then is the Western conception of man's primacy or place in the authentication of ends. What is now generally accepted among the Western elite [Most certainly among the Marxists] is Feuerbach's assertion that the true object of infinite value is Man and what he worships in God or Pure Reason is his species own essential powers. [my emphasis] For Islam, Reason can identify the means for achieving given ends "but it cannot provide a basis for valuing ends" only God can do that.
The religious motivation for this "hatred of our Freedoms" can be found just as easily among the Christian right-wing. Their deep suspicion of Reason goes well beyond the Ancient Islamics who could at least nurture a profound respect for science and reason.
So the right must find allies in the secular community, they prey upon the fears of the non-religious by instigating Islam as the new "enemy of the West" ala Marxism which cannot be placated because they are bent on our absolute destruction.
The New York Times is on board with this agenda proclaiming:
"like [Marxism], it [ Islam ] represents for many of its born-again adherents a transnational ideology tilting toward an eventual utopian vision, "Islam has replaced Marxism as the ideology of constenation," says Olivier Roy, a French scholar of European Islam. "When the left collapsed, the Islamists stepped in."
Ben Franklin Would Be Proud of the Violence in Marxism
It's believed by the vast majority of the populace that Marxism is a violent revolutionary dogma hell bent on the overthrow of the ruling class by whatever means possible. Is this a truly the approach Marx and his followers take?
Or is this rhetoric the technique of it's enemies, so called defenders of the constitution, who cast a potential adversary out from the realm of mainstream thought?
It should be noted by the defenders of American Liberty, that Marx was no more pro-violence than our founding fathers. "The Founding Fathers?" You might ask incredulously. Yes.
In a period of time just before Marx, the Founding Fathers thought it necessary to use violence to gain their freedom. Despite their push for a violent push to resolve conflict with violence we Americas founding fathers are rarely taken to task. It's not like one could think of a counter example to America's Independence that did not require the use of terror.
Perhaps there was another vast wilderness that was exploited by Royalty. Taxation with no representation. A land that used a constructive dialog, consisting of a piecemeal democratic reform, and were still able to obtain their ends.--Oh yea, Canada.
We too often forget the historical nature of the claims Marx makes. In the days of the founding fathers and Karl Marx there were kings. And I am not talking Prince Charles, but real kings who had the power to raise armies, start wars, and have your head chopped off at a whim.
Democracy was in short supply in the early part of the 19th century, most of the masses could not vote: women, minorities, the poor and landless were pretty much on their own. This is also well before the time of Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Non-violence as an agent of change had never truly been seen on any vast scale like that. Marx was and has always been seen as a pragmatist, but did he insist that violence was the answer?
We know that in the case of England, Sweden and USA where he specifically addressed it, he thought Socialism could be won without a violent hand. (He thought Russia would likely turn violent because of the Tsars.) Marx also thought it was more likely that the ruling classes would be driven to start the fight if they felt provoked "and if we are not so crazy as to ourselves be driven to street fighting in order to please them, then in the end there is nothing left for them to do, but themselves break through this fatal legality."
The Right likes to paint Lenin as the rightful, standard bearer "the heir" to Marxism due to Lenin's insistence that his brand of state controlled command economies were based on Marx's principles.
But a case could be made that Kautsky is the true heir if self-proclamation is the standard. (The German and European Model of Reformists, New Dealers-Keynsians, the Welfare State proponents also shout their love of Marx.) Few among us would give up Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment benefits which sprang from the democratic impulses of these Marxists.
Of course few people have any constraint knowledge of Marx . If they are at all familiar with him, it is through reading the Communist Manifesto. The Manifesto though was a political programme that was commissioned by the Communist League and was not a theoretical text of Marx's. It should also be noted that nowhere in the Manifesto does Marx suggest that workers use terror, quite to the contrary, Marx proclaims that "the time for surprise attacks by small minorities is past."
It is difficult to conclude that Marx was hell bent on Violence and Terror, but was rather a man who lived and responded rationally in a time of crushing despotism. Marx himself was made victim countless times by tyrannical forces and championed democracy and the rights of the working people well before it was fashionable to the elites of his era.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Sunday, I was at the Fort's Texas Hold' em tourney.
I did ok with over 140 entrants I finished a respectable number 32. This was just my second "real" tournament, I finished 14th my first time.
I started off a little sloppy and lost 25 % of my stack before the first hour on little stupid calls with kq and such. It got a little better after I was raised 600 chips when I had pocket Jacks.
Truthfully I was a little concerned, I figured he musta had a high pocket pair as the table was very tight to start off. I called and when the flop came I was stoked: Jack , Duce, Nine. after seeing what he believed to be a good flop for him (no kings or aces) the prick to the right of me with pocket queens goes "all-in" , but before he is done pushing out his chips in I yell out "I call."
Someone near the bottom of my table chirped "Could you have called that any quicker?" I proceeded to kick his ass, even if he was some sorta "Rage in the Cage" coach. I figured I should mention it, since he did 26 different times.
I won a few more hands and by the third break, I had an above average chip count, but I just could not catch any cards and eventually I was ante and blinded down to 5000 chips. By that time I finally gota playable hand (pocket kings) the blinds became 3000. My "all in" drew four fucking callers, I just couldn't scare any one off with such a small bet and of course an Ace flops.
I learned a valuable lesson, I need to make a few more moves during middle rounds (like stealing blinds) if I am going to be able to make a final table. Well at least I did not call an all-in move against me with a pair of 5's like my buddy The Card Shark!
Friday, July 15, 2005
If your gonna stalk someone, the first rule is to make sure she is the kinda girl you could marry. Some one you can bring home to Mama. Maybe she could be a really good cook. Giada De Laurentiis is too damn perfect to not be my Stepford wife. In fact if Stepford had a brochure I would totally buy her! Did I mention I am half Italian, Giada?
It would be nice if I could pronounce her name though.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
[ go to http://jezebelsriot.blogspot.com/]
Yes, I know of that foul attitude, visions of a 1996 Volvo 850 running in my head. If I won the 75,000 bucks from Iwon.com's instant win game...oh how happy...joy..
I have far to many detailed daydreams about winning the lottery, and then starting my own foundation like "Mr. Bill" (oh no..Gates.)Though most of the dreams degenerate into vignettes about procedures needed for posting and ad on Craigslist for a cute 20 something "assistant" and what sorta cell phone plan I would buy.
"Money is no object, but I don't want to pay for roaming..that's a rip."
You pine to middle class status and you recognize you don't give a shit about it, but if you don't have a 6 cd changer (in dash) and cold AC waiting for you then your willing to be a terrorist eco-bomber for animal rights activists, when your not busy chowing down your next 99 cent cheeseburger. (Thank-you Jack-in-the-Crap your cheaply produced dead animal carcass is just what I crave at 2:40 in the morning, even if it's been sitting idly on a warmer for the last 26 minutes since the bar rush.)
Reading this blog, you might get the impression that nothing could offend me. I go after gods, apple pie, and the sanctity of market oriented economies. I use vulgarity and insult like I invented them. I speak of midgets, sex, even midget sex. Since I am so rude, how can I (without a bit of hypocrisy at least) be offended? Easily.
In 1982, Kelly Moore was part of a horrific air disaster when the Air Florida Flight 90 she was aboard crashed into the 14th Street Bridge over the Potomac River, then plunged into the ice-crusted river. In her own words:
While the others were eventually dragged through the water to safety, I was the only one who was completely lifted up out of the water, (exactly) as I'd prayed. God has saved me from this crash, I thought. I didn't know why, but I knew it was his strength that allowed me to grasp that rope with frozen hands when I had no strength.
In response to my eager interest, my nurse risked her job to tell me of Jesus' love for me. As she spoke of how he died for me, I responded by turning my life over to him. For the first time I felt real peace.
In other words god killed 74 people in order that one self-centered stewardess would see the light, have 3 home schooled kids, and regale atheists with god's compassion. Nice. What a fucking ego.
Monday, July 11, 2005
I read this little ditty yesterday:
"Two months before an all-important annual meeting with bottlers, Cadbury Schweppes has widened the call for creative ideas on its Dr Pepper soft drink within Y&R, its agency for nearly four decades."
I say it's about fucking time.
DP's advertising has always been about feeling good, fitting in, you know the total "feel good" baloney bullshit this blog can't stand. The bandwagon approach to advertising has completely missed the point. Why do you go see the doctor? Because your life is a shit hole of trailer trash drama. Pepper will continue to be an also ran soda so long as is tries to mimic the Coke's all-Americanness and Pepsi's generational thingy.
Here's what they don't understand, there would be no need of a "peppering up" if you weren't allready down in the dumps. That's the angle Y& R has been missing for years now. I see something edgy, Dr. Pepper ala film noir, only shot in an out house. What goes better with Meth than the Doc?
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Also, I don't really want to think of a plot. Can you try to pass 300 pages of stream-of-consciousness-as-book?
I would gladly steal anyones opening paragraphs they aren't using, any takers??