Intermission: Stretch the Ol' Legs and What Not

No ranting this week. I attended Tidewater Community College's (TCC) commencement ceremony on Thursday, December 20, 2012. All of the speakers were dull and uninspiring. My attention waxed and waned like porn star pubes. I managed to tune in to a few speeches and what follows are my thoughts on them.

Congressman Scott Rigell was booked as the Commencement Speaker but was unable to attend due to an "emergency Fiscal Cliff" vote (which never came to fruition). He was replaced at the last minute by a forgettable local sexagenarian businessman, TCC alumni, and obvious Caucasian whose name I escapes me because I didn't care. If white people had a James Brown - someone that exudes whiteness - it would be this guy. In spite of his appearance he repeatedly referred to himself as the "Last of the Mohicans", a metaphor to illustrate how both academics and business have changed since he attended TCC. I had never really thought about how much 18th century Indians* and 20th century businessmen had in common but I must say he was spot on. 

1. I believe it was Powhatan who said "People are definitely a company's greatest asset. It doesn't make any difference whether the product is cars or cosmetics. A company is only as good as the people it keeps."
2. The Narraganssett once intentionally misreported the amount pelts in supply and, as a result, several of its people froze to death during an early onset of winter. Fortunately, Chief Enron had an abundance of pelts to trade and thus made huge profits which he shared with no one. 
3. Lastly, who can forget the great merger of the Seneca, Mohawk, Cayuga, Oneida, and Onondaga tribes? It created a monopoly that the British had to break up shortly after the French and Indian War. In their few years of existence they revolutionized workers' rights by inventing casual Fridays and boosted morale by creating and instituting an annual office Christmas party. It was said that what happened at an Iroquois office Christmas party...was mostly a lot of crying over litter.

They made certain to mention this honky was TCC alumni. I assumed they failed to mention the 4-year degree he also likely attained from another school. It turned out he did have additional education, a "Mini-MBA". I didn't even know such a thing existed. It is less than 100 hours of of class time focusing on business fundamentals that yields no college credit or certification. Essentially, it is a 5 weekend business seminar and at the end you get a something official sounding for a resume. TCC didn't dwell on the mini-MBA and, of course, focused on tooting their own horn.

His alumni status and wealth were the only reasons he was asked to speak. How do I know he is wealthy? If they put the average TCC graduate up there to regale the audience with tales of middle management it would make the graduates feel like they wasted their money. They have to spring for the anomal rich alum. He is the TCC equivalent of a Horatio Alger story.

The only other speech that I caught was that of the student speaker. I'm not going to make light of her accomplishment. She was graduating with a 4.0 GPA and that is a hell of a feat in any institution. That being said, I would compare her speech to an episode of MTV's Teen Mom, dull, uninsightful, and poorly read. She first made it clear that she had "made some mistakes in her past" and later informed us of her intent to pursue a Bachelor's degree in Psychology with a focus on Drug Counseling so she could "help other addicts". Telling a Convocation Center full of strangers you are a recovering drug addict is a hell of an N.A. meeting. In truth it wasn't even anonymous because her full name was listed in the program. Although I could be reading too much into her words, I'm not the only one that drew that conclusion. It seems like someone with a 4.0 GPA would have removed the word "other" when editing their speech so as not to label/mislabel themselves. If she is a recovering addict I seriously doubt she wanted everyone to know.

That's all.

P.S. Did you know TCC has an alma mater? I have two degrees from the school and was unaware. The phrase "TCC" (not Tidewater Community College, but TCC) is sung dramatically in verse. It was so moving I began laughing in the middle of the song. 



* I call them Indians because, as I understand it, they prefer that to "Native American" which uses a name white   
   people gave their land after conquering them. 

Act III: In Which God Gets His Revenge On A Pagan

Recently, an Indian woman died in Ireland as a result of a miscarriage. What made this event unique is that she was 17 weeks pregnant and in great pain for 3 days before they did anything about it. She began asking for a "termination" immediately after learning of the miscarriage. She was denied that and several further requests for a an abortion because (A) there was still a fetal heartbeat and (B) "Ireland is a Catholic country." After thee days of pain and agony, the fetal heartbeat finally stopped. The baby was removed and she was rushed to ICU where she died of septicemia a few days later. Her husband, now a widower, is left trying to rationalize why he lost both his wife and child when it wasn't necessary and due to religious beliefs that likely aren't his own.

This happened largely because of an Irish law passed in 1861 that made abortions illegal - a law that has yet to be overturned. Don't fret. I'm not going to go into a rant about the morality of abortions. I'm just going to rant about pro-lifers and women's rights.

Men are involved in creating life only to the point of ejaculation. They are not held responsible for anything afterwards - up to and including raising children. Women, however, are equipped for the arduous physical and mental task of developing and carrying life inside of them. If that isn't bad enough it ends with childbirth which has been scientifically proven to be the 2nd most painful thing a human being can endure next to burning alive. Both pregnancy and childbirth can kill them. If that isn't bad enough, they are expected to primarily (or solely) raise the child whether the man is in the picture or not. 

To put it lightly, pregnancies are complicated and a variety of things can go wrong that can affect the mother's health. With that in mind, this is not an issue of religious morality or the love of children and life. It is a women's healthcare issue, end of discussion. Some say "women just should take care not to get pregnant" and those people are fucking stupid. (A) It isn't solely the female's responsibility, (B) sometimes, shit just happens (I'm an expert on shit happening), and (C) some women aren't lucky enough to live in a country where people treat them like human beings.

What makes this story particularly irritating is that the proponents of the kind of laws that resulted in this woman's death call themselves "pro-life". 

First of all, fuck that group for using the descriptor "pro-life" in the first place. Not only is it misleading given their stances, but it insinuates that anyone that doesn't agree with them is "anti-life". It's similar to saying "I'm anti-priests-raping-kids." WHO ISN'T!

Pro-life should mean that you are a proponent of life all the way through. If you support war or capital punishment, for example, you are not pro-life. If you value the life of a 17 week old fetus above that of its mother, you are not pro-life. If you would bomb an abortion clinic, you are not pro-life. I would argue that "pro-life" means anti-poverty, anti-starving, and anti-homeless whether man, woman, or child. Yet most pro-lifers detest welfare and government programs because...fuck poor people. (Am I right?) Most "pro-lifers" don't seem to actually care about life beyond the birth itself. Anti-choice is a better name for their agenda. 

Now, I realize this is a different country. We had Roe v. Wade and all that. In the last election the Republican party put their balls in their mouths a few times going for that "white male vote". Women and minorities responded at the polls and Republicans are now looking into getting a makeover. It seems their message didn't resonate well with many people. However, there is still support for these kinds of laws throughout the country and that faction of the Republican party isn't going anywhere any time soon. 

We like to brag about our freedom and act as if we are so progressive. In reality women were granted suffrage less than 100 years ago; to this day they are underpaid in comparison to men and they are still treated as inferiors and discriminated against across the country in a variety of areas. Sure we treat women better than many third world countries, but we also don't shit in the street because we have indoor plumbing. By that I mean, as a 1st world country we are not doling out clitoridectomies left and right but we aren't exactly treating women as equals. To put it in perspective, it's cute when a woman runs for president in the US but other countries actually elect them. Here is a list of countries that have elected female prime ministers in the 20th century. Please take note that Pakistan is one of them. Exactly what kind of freedom are we exporting again? 

The popular argument made by the pro-choice group is that if women are legally denied the right to get an abortion, they will obtain them illegally in an alleyway or somewhere else equally squalid, death-prone, and uncomfortable.* Poverty and a lack of health insurance already limit women's healthcare enough as it is. Truth be told, abortions can kill women under a doctor's care and making them illegal is just going to create a black market for it.

Lastly, a women's healthcare issue means if you have a penis, shut the fuck up.** The least we can do, as men, is ensure that women have access to the care they need to keep them, and their potential children, as healthy as possible while removing as many obstacles as possible. A woman's life should never be jeopardized because a third party believes "God wants it that way". If that's true, God is the biggest asshole in creation second only the doctor that chooses to let her die.

*Like the back of a Volkswagen?
**If you have a penis and a vagina, that's just gross and I'm not into it (not that there's anything wrong with it). 

Thanks to Greg Proops for the topic and much of his insight. 

(As always, don't comment. I don't care.)

Act II: In Which A Patriot Screws It Up For Everyone

Okay, so a current event has dealt my first topic. I'm writing this off the cuff so forgive me if my thoughts aren't too organized.

To start things off I will say that today's shooting in Connecticut is a tragedy. The fact that so many victims were children makes it makes it that much worse. Everyone wants to know why this happened. Unfortunately we will never truly understand why. That only makes sense to the cowardly asshole that shot 20 children. My heart goes out to the victims' families. I don't really know what can be said to comfort them. Those of us not personally affected by the tragedy - the voyeurs glued to the disgusting repetitive predatory media ratings frenzy - are left numb. This shooting comes 3 days after the Clackamas mall shooting and a few months after the Dark Knight massacre. Obviously, it seems we have a problem on our hands and many people feel insecure.

I've seen a couple of Facebook posts calling for mandatory police or national guard presence at all public schools. To that I ask: What about malls, political appearances, college campuses, movie theaters, banks, churches, office buildings, airports, and other venues where terror strikes? Can they be the neighborhood watch? Where does it end? Would being surrounded by armed officers while you are defenseless really make you feel safer? Does mere police presence stop crime?

This is the same type of panicked mentality that birthed the and fostered Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is what brought us a new level of invasive governmental powers. Trust me, if the personal emails of the head of the CIA are fair game, everybody's are fair game. Random acts of senseless violence are scary and, when scared, people beg for protection. This want for more security causes or enables (depending on your viewpoint) the government to centralize more power which usually ends up infringing on civil liberties. I believe if we start posting armed forces at the doors of schools, it's paving the way to a police state and, furthermore, it wouldn't solve anything.

Law enforcement by its nature is reactionary. Typically, law enforcement of any kind doesn't show up until after the crime has commenced, usually after it has ended.  Police aren't here to keep us safe. They aren't here to deter crime. They are here to control people and collect revenue. Their responses to crimes keep you safe, but it is a function of controlling people. For example, if they let people get away with a major crime, like bank robbery, there would be no order. The threat of punishment - prison terms, fines, and penalties - controls people. How many people would pay income tax if it wasn't enforced by a prison sentence? Laws are enforced by violence, ergo, the police control people through violence. Ask OWS protesters or any other group that has been pepper sprayed for trying to make a peaceful statement. However, in the eyes of a "criminal", the incentive of breaking the law outweighs the risk of getting caught and, therefore, a crime occurs. The only people that truly suffer in a police state are the ones that obey the law.

With that in mind, the brand of crazy that shoots up public places doesn't care about authority, police, or punishment in the first place. They usually plan to kill themselves. Theoretically, even with a police presence, they could still sneak a weapon into a public arena and do their worst. The police on site would only begin mobilize after it began. If there are metal detectors and searches, they can open up on the people waiting in line or outside of the venue. Even if they are completely deterred altogether, they'll simply figure out another way to kill a bunch of people.

I used the word weapon in the previous paragraph, not gun. I did this because our media hypes events in America that happen with guns. It is worth noting that in a country with a strong authoritarian government, that does not allow its citizens to own guns, this type of violence still occurs. I'll give you a hint. This country's name most likely appears on some poor quality shit you bought at Walmart that gave you lead poisoning.

Although our media really isn't reporting it, today, the same day as the Connecticut shootings, a man in China's Henan province stabbed 22 school children, ages from 6-11. In some ways, I find stabbing to be a bit more horrific and much more personalized assault than a shooting. Fortunately, none of these children were killed but the fact remains that this behavior is not exclusive to the U.S. nor is it related to guns.

Now, if you have some cake, you should probably hide it because this next fact will motherfucking take it. This is the third year in a row in which an adult has stabbed a bunch of Chinese school children...seriously. Don't believe me? Read this or this. Remember, this is a country whose government is so strong that it filters the nation's internet access and it still didn't prevent this from happening even with two preceding identical events. I realize that China may not have implemented any procedures to stop it so let's look at a completely different act of random violence and another shining moment in Chinese history. Earlier this year a man got on a subway and, after the doors closed and the train departed, began stabbing random women. How terrifying would that be? There's no means of escape.

I acknowledge that China doesn't have the best human rights record. For that reason it seems it would have prevented the publication of these stories to avoid bad PR. It certainly has the ability to do so. Seriously, do you think China wants its citizens to fear for their lives and the lives of their children every day? To some degree it is logically in the government's best interest to keep children and citizens safe from each other. Crime only strengthens the government as long as the people believe the government does its best to deter it. If that illusion vaporizes, revolution would shortly follow.

Now, we'll leave the Land of the Sleeping Giant and return to the Land of the Endless Buffet.

This shooting is surely going to turn into a gun control issue in America. It's expected and it should. If it makes everyone feel better, take away people's right to own guns. It will not correct the behavior. If Lanza had assaulted kids with a chainsaw would we want power tool legislation? To make it worse, you can't monitor people's mental status so you'll never know when a perfectly reasonable person reaches the end of their rope.

My whole point here is that more authority is not going to end this. Crazies will simply find new and inventive ways to kill large groups of innocent people. Whether they build a bomb Kaczynski-style; dump an ammonia and bleach concoction into movie theater and seal the exits; walk onto a subway with an ax; or simply start pushing bystanders into traffic, in front of subway trains, or into the Grand Canyon, they want to kill you if they want to do so. If that scares you, it should. It's fucking terrifying and you have no control over it. No amount of policing will change it. No amount of cameras will change it. Criminals and psychopaths exist and have always existed in every society. Rules do not apply to criminals because they ignore them at will. Rules never apply to crazy people...that's what makes them fucking crazy. The increased police presence will only serve to keep you, the law-abiding, punishment-fearing citizen, inconvenienced and in line...a very straight and narrow line.

(Please don't comment. I don't care.)

Act I: In Which A Man Relents To The Voices in His Head

I'm not an avid blog reader because I seriously don't care what Joe Schmo thinks about movies, politics, ice cream, or anything else. Everyone has an opinion and, most of the time, I don't share it. The reverse will be true here.

I have mixed feelings about this whole blog thing. It's something I've thought about doing for a while but never allowed myself to start it. The idea of writing a blog implies that I think my thoughts and opinions are so important they need to be on the internet forever. It seems arrogant and it couldn't be farther from the truth. I know I'm not worth a shit and my opinion is usually grumpy, anti-establishment, and just as stupid as anyone else's with a lot of cuss words and apathetically hateful rhetoric thrown in for shock value.

Lately my mind never rests. I've been unable to focus on books, movies, or any other activity for long periods of time. I'm not obsessing but my mind wanders off to other things.

"No, it's not A.D.D. I'm thinking! 'Well you're not listening to me.' It's because I'm thinking about something that's more interesting than you!" - Doug Stanhope

I'm doing the blog for two reasons:

1. To record my thoughts
2. Catharsis 

If, in the process, people enjoy reading what I have to say, great. If people learn something, super great. If I change someone's mind on something, I'll be surprised. The bottom line is I don't expect anyone to care what I have to say on any topic. In the end I am another face in a crowd - another person with a voice on the internet.

Do blogs have themes? This one won't. It will cover many of the various thoughts that run through my skull. There will be rants, dark humor, long drawn out bullshit, possibly works of fiction, likely a good deal of politics, and  an ass-ton of cynicism. If I know sources offhand, I will cite them. However, in my 30+ years I have read a lot, learned a lot, and to this day, if I have an interest, I read up on it. I don't tend to take anyone's word without looking up the information on my own. As a result, it's hard for me to keep sources straight and I don't plan on looking each one up before posting a blog. Therefore, if you don't believe something I said, look it up for yourself, you lazy prick.

Also, I don't care if you disagree with me and I definitely don't want to have discussion with you. Besides, if you are not open to new ideas, willing to concede points, or are just going to argue your worldview with me no matter what, it wouldn't be a discussion anyways. Instead it would just be another pointless conversation in both of our days. These are my thoughts and my opinions. You don't have to agree with me and I don't need to hear your side of it. Also, if you offend easily, please go rape a retard instead of reading my blog.

If you know me, you will not likely take too much of what I say seriously. However, if you don't know me, please read the next sentence carefully. Should you find yourself about to start talking shit from the safety of your computer, shit on your hands and lick them. Why? Because fuck you. That's why. If that sounds harsh it's because you read it correctly. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. I could not care less. I will not entertain you. Move onto that blog about someone's experience at the Cheesecake Factory or whatever and try to get a reaction out of them.

I guess this will suffice as my first blog entry - an explanation and some ground rules. This if the first blog I've done so I have no idea what I'm doing. I don't know how often it will be updated because I'm busy working and taking care of other responsibilities I don't always enjoy. Hopefully I'll have a real entry soon.