You are hereRANTS

RANTS


  • dog cartoon

    TUESDAY JULY 3, 2007

    UPDATE: Two years ago, I stopped writing about politics because it wasn't doing any good, and it depressed the hell out of me. Yet, since 2005, there have been a lot of positive signs that the "liberties" (pun-intended) the Bush Administration took with our Constitution are coming to light and finally being denounced by politicians and the media. I only hope that this dark period in American moral history will be correctly blamed on George W., the racist Religious Right, and the power-mad Neo-Cons who helped him steal the election in 2004. Fingers crossed.

  • Carpet bombing the Middle East is, not surprisingly, the popular response to the recent attack, but in my opinion, it's not the best. Military retaliation is far too juvenile and easy—not to mention—expected.

    No, we're bigger than that.

    We need to show those power-hungry bastards that the attack didn't have the desired effect of deflating our economy. That it didn't even phase us. That we're so obscenely rich and powerful the WTC attack was merely a mosquito bite to us.

    To vividly demonstrate that, we should blow up some of America's buildings ourselves!

    Yeah, let's demolish Sears Tower! Then take out the Chrysler building! We should send American wrecking crews all over the country to destroy a skyscraper in every major city.

    What better way to show those criminals that Capitalism really works? That, as a result, America is so filthy rich, we can afford to destroy our OWN stuff and STILL go on as if nothing had happened?

    (Naturally, we'd also track down the culprits responsible for the attack and execute them all for killing hundreds of innocent people.) But by not going off all John Waynesque with cruise missles a-blazin', we effectively eliminate the symbolic effect of the attack!

    We diminish it to the futile, desperate act of a pathetic group of extremist malcontents.

    We would humiliate them on a global scale.

    In addition, destroying our own buildings will probably cost us a lot less than a prolonged military operation in the long run (in both American lives and money).

    I won't even go into the obvious side-benefit of reducing unemployment figures by putting people to work rebuilding them bigger and better!

    Now, THAT'S the American way...

  • TUESDAY APRIL 20, 2004

    This question has been nagging me, and I'm sure others, for quite some time now. It seems inconceivable to me that someone with my obvious mass appeal goes about daily life wholly ignored by most of humanity—ordinary folk who, were it not for the small matter of not knowing me from Adam, would no doubt mob me to get a photo, autograph or lock of hair. Surely, there must be a reasonable explanation for this unwarranted obscurity. And I intend to find it.

    To my way of thinking, there are three basic routes to international notariety; attractiveness, talent and serial killing sprees. Clearly, only two of those methods are morally acceptable, and therefore, nowhere near as effective as the third.

  • You'd think that people would change over the course of 20 years. That 20 years would be long enough for people to see the light. To grow. To mature as human beings.

    You would think. And, evidently, you'd be wrong.

    At my recent 20th High School reunion, I ran into about 90 meatbags (+1) from school—a rather small showing considering the 300 or so in my graduating class—about whom nothing had changed, apart from their waist-size.

    Upon arrival, we registered with two obviously beloved, former school employees (whom I don’t recall in the slightest). From them, I obtained the requisite humiliating-high-school-photo name tag and wore my shameful past pinned to my best Armani suit. Like a dork.

    I felt extremely odd, at first, pushing feverishly past faces I vaguely recognized (but couldn’t put a name to if I had a gun to my genitals) on our way to the lobby's rolling bar. On instinct, I cozied up to the bartender and tipped her heavily for the first of what would become many, many mixed drinks that I quaffed that night. I pretended the first drink was a shot and requested my second before even leaving the bar. Two-fisting it back to Amy with her drink, I surveyed the room as the alcohol eased my blood pressure back to sub-100 levels.

    I was on edge like a quadriplegic cat at an Angry Dog Convention, anticipating unpleasant run-ins with some of the Neanderthals who'd harassed me during those bitterness-inducing developmental years known as adolescence. But pleasantly, none of them showed up (due to prior lifetime commitments at Attica, I’m guessing).

  • There's been a lot of boohooing over the Columbine, CO shooting lately, and much of it is warranted. After all, kids died. And I don't want to downplay the severity of the tragedy. It is awful, and my hearts go out to those innocents whose lives were needlessly cut short. I certainly wouldn't want any of my loved ones to be killed by some enraged high school student.

    The heinous actions of the shooters obviously point an accusing finger at the lack of parental supervision these kids received (How could you not know your kids were building bombs in the garage! What did they think they were doing? Tidying up?). But many other factors played into this as well. Saying the bad parents are solely at fault is too simplistic. Even taking into account the more violent-laden society we live in doesn't fully explain the slaughter.

    Outraged parents are looking to find a cause of this suburban anomaly. A writer at Salon Magazine astutely pointed out that if the shooting had occurred in the 'hood, it would've only been covered on page 12 in the local Denver paper because it wouldn't have surprised anyone. But since it happened in a white school, suddenly it's a morality crisis in America.

    Certain overzealous types blame the carnage on video games and want to ban them because a few unstable individuals couldn't distinguish between real life and fantasy life (one of the first signs of psychosis, if I'm not mistaken).

    As a former public high school student, I have another possible theory on what caused this angered outburst: Maybe, just maybe, the students that got shot—and I apologize to my parents for this unsavory choice of words—were assholes. WHAT? Am I suggesting that perhaps some of the VICTIMS of this shooting were in part responsible for, or even the cause of, their own demise? Well, like I said, maybe.

    The media has depicted the victims as perfect innocents minding their own business when some evil lunatic kids opened fire on them. C'mon, I went to public school and the only kids who were that innocent rode on the short bus and wore hockey gear year 'round. If those kids had been killed, then yeah, I'd buy the blameless kids bit. But the one thing anyone who's ever been through the gauntlet of public education knows is that Darwinism—whether it's taught in the school or not—rules supreme. It's survival of the fittest at its best. The good-looking guys get the good-looking girls. The stronger kids get to extort lunch money from the weaker ones.

    When I was a freshman in high school, I stood all of 5'4". And I was hardly what you'd call "stocky". I was just a skinny kid with the glasses. I was the archetypal school-bully victim (I had bullies from other schools lining up to harass me). The only thing I lacked was Einstein-like math skills. There were any number of Neanderthals at my school who, even though they didn't know what Neanderthal meant, knew they could beat me up with impunity and used that limited knowledge to make my life totally suck.

    I was the butt of mean-spirited practical jokes and general, all-around juvenile torment. I was in a fight or two, but after losing them, I learned quickly that fighting back only gave them license to really vent their "I'm not a homo" self-denial frustrations—a losing proposition in my opinion. Oh, sure I could've reported their actions to my parents or the school, but then I didn't want to feel what wearing a full-body cast was like. Therefore, conflict avoidance became the way to survive between 9am and 3pm.

    But, let's say these kids weren't any good at conflict avoidance. And maybe they thought taking the "Joe Weider" approach of going home, working out and coming back to kick some Bully butt wouldn't work against the entire football team. THEN what?

    Well, they'd be stuck. The frustration of the situation could easily make them desperate. Combine that out-of-control feeling with a few handy firearms and pipe-bombs and you've got the makings of a small scale invasion. Sure, killing others seems extreme, but kids have been known to go as far as kill themselves to escape life's problems. Suicide has always been prevalent among troubled teens. These kids just decided to take their problems out with them.

    This is not to say that I condone their actions, I don't. Only that I understand where they could have come from. When guys who have all the cards— girls, money, looks, athleticism— make life a living hell for those who don't, society can't seriously expect them to sit there and take it. This IS America, after all. Land of self-sufficient tough guys with big guns who don't get mad, they get even.

    Who knows why the kids shot up the school. Did those kids deserve to die? Probably not. Would the shooters beg to differ? I think so. Something pretty bad made those kids mad enough to kill.

    Still, maybe some good will come of this tragedy. Maybe the shooters will become martyrs for all the little guys who are beaten up, bullied and ostracized by the big guys. Maybe it will cause spoiled, genetically blessed pricks to think twice (okay, at all): "Hey, this guy I'm tormenting for fun might go ballistic someday and kill me if I give him one more wedgie."

    That wouldn't be all bad.

  • I don't like to gloat, but to all my Wintel-using friends and even <shudder> family, "I told you so". (I love the quote from one Linux fan regarding the DOJ's finding that Microsoft is a monopoly. He called it "the Duh heard around the world".)

    How much evidence does the DOJ need to convict Microsoft of monopolistic business practices? Apparently, a lot. Do they have a lot? Sounds like it to me.

    Is there really any viable Operating System(OS) alternative? Not if the corporate-herd mentality among IT administrators has anything to say about it. In the quest for compatibility, standardization and saving a few bucks in the short term, IT administrators fell for the "No one ever got fired buying Microsoft" line.

    But what of other OS's? M$ says they have lots of competition? Do they? Actually, yes. But only now that they've been reigned in by the DOJ.

    By keeping them on a short leash for the last year or so, the DOJ has inadvertently allowed competitors like Linux and Macintosh to flourish. Without fear of retribution, major computer manufacturers could then sell the free OS, Linux, on their computers. And the blackmark on M$'s "good name" allowed new users to consider other options like the Mac.

    But are they enough competition to warrant letting M$ off with a slap on the wrist? Not a chance.

    Linux? Uh, not yet anyway. I've tried it and it works for the most part every bit as well as Windoze, which is to say, not easily. But few if anyone already running Windoze will change since all their applications run only on Windows. Talk about high price of entry...

    What about the MacOS? Still only 12%, but growing again. Is it better? Unquestionably. It's the difference between a Chevy and a BMW. (Sure you can get a Camaro that'll toast a Bimmer, but which would you rather own?)

    Has Microsoft used their position to gain unfair advantage? You betcha. Ask Apple, Netscape, Real Networks, IBM, Sun or any of the hordes of innovative software company's whose ideas were knocked-off by M$ and put out of business.

    Windoze is a piece of inelegant crap. Poorly designed from the get-go and shoddily constructed over a patchwork of bug-ridden DOS code. It's the result of thousands of programmers and third-party component drivers unaware of what each other was doing. Hence its incompatibilities and continual fixes (M$ calls them "issues").

    Finally, the darling of Wall Street is losing some of its luster. With the surging interest in Linux, companies are eschewing the herd mentality and pleasantly discovering that they can replace their crappy Windows NT servers with license-free Linux ones. The endorsement of major companies like IBM, Sun, Netscape and others have lent Linux the cred it needs to succeed in the business environment. Hopefully, it will catch on on the desktop as well.

    After playing with a HP PC, I can say that, as far as PC's go, it's as good as Windows. Still, all it really succeeds in doing is pointing out the vast superiority of the MacOS for MOST users (serious computer-types hate the Mac's friendly user-interface because it "hides" complex code from users. Huh? Isn't that the idea?).

    Plug & Play on the Intel machine is a joke. Design aesthetics are feeble at best. My Mac makes the Linux and Windows interfaces look like a student project. And I'm only running version 8.1.

    Bill Gates is, in my opinion, evil. Now, I wouldn't care if his crew in Redmond actually made good products, as I'm sure Steve Jobs is no saint himself. So let's say he was forcing us all to drive BMW's (arguably the best car in the world). If that were the case, I wouldn't be complaining. But the analogy is closer to making everyone drive Yugo's. Badly designed machines that are unreliable at best and dangerous at worst.

    You may be asking yourself, "If their stuff is so bad, why don't more people complain"? I feel it's because they don't know the difference. To most people Wintel is to typewriters, what Yugo's are to the horse and buggy. A serious leap in technology, yes, but still not good.

    Most people don't realize that a computer CAN work correctly most of the time. That it can actually REWARD experimentation. And can make you LIKE using computers (No, really. Try a Mac for thirty days).

    That's why Mac owners rarely complain about their computers. Mac's are NOT overly confusing and frustrating. They are logical and understandable. If something doesn't work, you can usually figure out why through trial and error (usually pointing to the culprit as Mac-versions of Microsoft software...). Trial & Error attempts on the PC result in serious damage to the system or simply locking up and forcing you to take it into a dealer to fix. As people are fond of pointing out, Americans wouldn't tolerate this kind of crap in any other product. And yet, now we're suing the manufacturer of a demonstrably inferior product for owning 90% of the market. How sad is that?

  • NOTE: This was written before terrorists were invented.

    The downfall of society can, I think, be directly traced to the precipitous decline of fear in this country. Not the fear of uzi-totin' criminals or large-toothed beasts, but of our fellow Americans. You know, the guy next door. Sure he seems nice enough, but what do you know about him REALLY? Not too much, I'll wager. And that's why you make nice and try not to get him riled. Otherwise, he might go postal and slaughter your whole family during the night with a hedge-trimmer.

    See? Now that's a civilized relationship. You don't bother him, he doesn't murder you. Then, if you have a problem with him blowing leaves over into your lawn, you knock politely on his door and ask him nicely to blow them on his OTHER neighbor's lawn instead. (Because that guy's a douche of whom neither of you is afraid.)

    That's the positive effect of fear; the basis of all law enforcement. How else are you gonna instill civility in people? By asking them to nicely? Don't bet on it. This is American and dammit, we're entitled to have things OUR WAY, just ask Burger King. If we don't get our way, we're gonna A.) kick somebody's butt from here to Timbuktu, or B.) sue a large corporation with deep pockets, even if they had nothing to do with our problem.

    Why? Because we've virtually eliminated dread in modern society. With each generation we get wimpier and wimpier. Take me, for example. I'm a total wuss. I get winded if I surf all 60 channels of cable TV.

    My parents, conversely, are much tougher. They never complain about anything. You could chop their limbs off and they'd muddle through without ever calling a barrister.

    I'm betting their parents were even tougher still (I sincerely doubt that my grandfather would've taken time away from putting food on his children's table to picket the TV studio that canceled Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.)

    Now that we, as the dominant species on this planet, have taken care of all the big problems in life—Death by Sabertooth Tiger and Donny Osmond's comeback album—we're stuck whining about the little things. Like rush hour traffic and the decline of customer service. Ironically, the more successful we are at surviving, the less civilized we become.

    Think about it. When you're well-off and comfortable, you're less likely to tolerate even the tiniest inconvenience. It's that whole Princess and the Pea scenario. You get so used to ideal circumstances, that you're put off by the slightest imperfection. Some would call that "discerning". But most would call it being a "royal pain in the ass".

    You work hard trying to smooth out and refine your life until it is perfect. And when it gets close, you have nothing to notice except the small niddling snags, and they upset you as if they were insurmountable problems because you don't have any big things to tick you off. That's why a quick uppercut to the jaw cures most folks overly concerned with declining moral values. It gives them something more immediate to worry about: Internal bleeding.

    And that's where fear comes in. It makes you cautious and more concerned with your fellow man—is he carrying a concealed weapon? Fear makes you circle the wagons.

    It keeps us honest. It keeps us striving. Without it, we get complacent. We get lazy. We fall asleep on the couch, the cigarette falls and we torch the house. Then, where would we be? Out on the street. Right where "they" can get to you.

    As a newborn, you lived without fear in a utopia in which all your needs and wants were immediately catered. And what did you accomplish? Bubkiss. Nothing except an abundance of dirty diapers. And, frankly, nobody needs 270 million more of those.

    Fear is learned, it is not innate. You aren't born knowing that the surface burners on a stove will burn you. That the wall socket can stop your heart. That the man up in the clock tower with a rifle isn't in a good mood. Or that spitting up on a pitbull will send you to the emergency room. No, you have to find those things out the hard way.

    At some point we came to believe that a safe life is our birth right. That the realities of the world should somehow exclude us. Or even that it can.

    Now that we're so civilized, people assume the world is a safe place. That someone is watching out for them. Or that, if something does happen, the great benevolent US government, will sweep in and save them. That's what makes people act like assholes.

    Fact is, people need stress and hardship. If they don't get it in everyday life, they will go out and create it themselves. Hence the popularity of extreme sports like skydiving and bungie jumping. People need excitement, good or bad. It makes them feel alive. That's also what fear does. It isn't crime-riddled urbanites who go out looking for some way to risk their life, it's the suburbanites in the rural areas that are bored to tears.

    By making the world safe, we create a backlash of people trying to make their existence more dangerous. There's a balance that many sensitive-types fail to acknowledge.

    Folks want the world to be safe for their kids. But for their kids to do what? Exercise their Id? Their base instincts? Violence IS one of man's base instincts. So is random sex. What happens to a kid when you make the world safe for him or her? S/he gets really obnoxious. Painfully so. Kids need to know the world is not soft and warm. It is cold and has sharp corners.

    Where are they going to learn to be civilized? To play nicely with others. Are parents going to teach them limits? Yeah, right. They're going to pass it off on the schools, because they're too tired from working their dual careers.

    Life teaches restraint. Getting your ass kicked once is the best way to prevent, or at least temper, a person's violent reaction the next time.

    Take away the fear of getting hit crossing the street and you increase the likelihood that exactly that will happen. Don't lower the bar for people, raise it and make them live up to it. Sort of a twist on the idea that if you've got a lot of crap to deal with, don't pray for a lighter load, pray for a stronger back.

    Americans have always felt unduly self-important and that's not necessarily bad, but when the attitude of "screw you" becomes ubiquitous, it becomes harder to act civilized. That attitude should be met with a "no, screw you" backed up by swift and severe punishment to keep people in line. Freedom is important, but so is respect for others and self-restraint. That's why the death penalty and corporal punishment are not so bad. The message has to be sent to people that there will be grave repercussions for their actions. Americans are irresponsible, constantly looking for a scapegoat. Someone to blame their poor performance or bad luck on. This all stems from the "I'm trying to make the world as safe and protected as I can" mentality. So if something bad happens, there ought to be someone else who's liable. Couldn't be something I did, could it?

    Maybe it just happened, because things do. The world is a scary and unsafe world, but people don't think it is and we keep telling them we can make it safer when we can't. So when something tragic happens people look for a reason, when the reason is just hey, "shit happens".

    We have to stop telling people that if something in their life is not up to par, they can sue. Somebody can be fingered. Some big faceless corporation who can foot the bill and pass the cost on to everybody else.

    The world in unsafe. Living is risk taking. You can't be safe. You will die no matter what. Don't expect people to take care of you. Expect to get fucked. Then, when you don't, you'll be happy. (I've gone through life being disappointed only a few times. I've set my reasonable expectations very low. Try it, it works.)

    Fear is a useful tool for civilization. Nay, it is a requirement. People will act how they want unless there is some repercussions for their actions. Either physical violence or societal disapproval. Cars are so expensive that no one seriously considers swapping paint with stupid drivers who cut them off. The shootings in LA are a good example of society keeping itself civilized. I bet people thought twice about cutting off other drivers while that was going on.

    I once heard a story about how airbags were actually contributing to accidents by giving people the false notion that they were safe in their car at high speeds. Therefore, their level of awareness about the road and surrounding drivers dropped putting them at risk for having an accident because they weren't paying attention. The writer suggested that if you want people to drive more safely, don't put an airbag in the steering wheel, put in a sword.

    People operate best when they are expected to accept responsibility for their idiotic behavior. We can't keep tolerating stupidity. If people want to drive without a seat belt, we should void any insurance payoffs if they get in an accident. Why should one man's foolhardy unthinking behavior cost society a dime? It shouldn't.

    China has it right to one extent in that sometimes what's good for the masses is good for the individual. Am I advocating a return to a monarchy? No.

    Just swift and certain punishment for stupidity.