We're Socio-pathetic

I aopolgize (no I don't) if that last post was not as cynical or offensive compared to my normal standards; but when you've just done a few lines off a stripper's ass-- using funds allocated for a spec. ed. class in the back of a government limousine-- and the stripper is a friend's mother-- and he knows she's white trash but hasn't figured out why she always pays with ones-- can you really be angry?

The biggest question- and I dare make that generalization- is how she manages to let her child watch Christian TV. The bigger question (don't analyze the order of comparitives and superlatives) is how anyone can take Veggie Tales seriously. I HATE VEGGIE TALES, why?

And so I somehow segway to my scatological remnant of a point: SECTARIAN VIOLENCE.

Ethno-religious conflict is the primary reason Veggie Tales is bullshit. Look at the facts:

-Bob is a tomato (read: Jew)
-Larry is a Cucumber (see "Palestinian allegory" on wikipedia)
-That one other vegetable has a British accent
-They live in the promised land

This is inaccurate, ironically I was not referring to my post. Tomotoes and Cucumbers do not get along in Palestine. They do not get along anywhere. Clearly this British vegetable is an representative of Imperialism but neither side take the redcoat seriously.
I find it more acceptable that either the Tomato or the Cucmber would be lying in a pool of his own blood as the other sings songs praising whatever allah he wishes.

This can all be pinned on us: we're socio-pathetic. Why don't we show the real life drama of unplanned movement of religious masses into an area they had to flee centuries before? Why can't we take the brunt of the charge?

Why can't anyone handle the idea that Ketchup is really the product of bombings?

There is no mainline like an IED strapped under the robe of an irate cucumber who just can't take ths fruit-or-not sack of crap from the other side: move to my side of the shelf?!?! hell no Ima fucking kill you- and the cherries too- they aren't your family they look like you- besides heroin.

Read more!

It's Not Abuse If It Doesn't Bruise

You want to know who had the right way of doing things?

The Spartans- not that Gerard Butler homoerotic bullshit that I watch repeatedly wishing I will one day cloud my vision with the blood of an infidel ($30,000 signing bonus!) - the ones who beat their kids for not stealing "properly"; the ones who declared war on the Helots every year just so it wasn't illegal to kill one of them; the ones who were both property of the state and a freeman in the state. The Saprtans knew what was up.

The question I indirectly pose to you (that is a singular "you" b-t-dub.) is why we are not Spartans. Not to imply that there are two opinions on this. I am going to tell you what to think.

Among a number of different reasons we are not Spartans



1- We do not currently beat our children in the proper manner

2- We cannot spill someone's blood without getting in trouble for it (hooligan mickey cops)

3- We are not greek (this being the most complicated section- I know... and yes you are overanalyzing it- will require a new post) (read: needs more time to shit on his right to free speech with some malarky dung heap that makes a cynical, satirical and vaguely pretentious point and in the end illuminates an issue but does nothing to solve the problem.)



exhac: Child beating, or "loving" as my father called it.

DO it RIGHT.

I think every child should get the living shit kicked out of him at least once a year. The Spartans used this to technique to teach the kids who was in charge. It worked. It still does. Try it.
Today, the authorities on raising (mollified, semi-sedated, peices of shit, growing to provide no societal benefit) children tell us positive reinforcement is the way to go. We should reprimand, tell of our disappointment, and if the crime is most severe in circumstance ground them. This is a fallacy.

The kids who are coming into the high schools today are the first yearlings raised under this technique (or lack thereof). They are rude, lack social skills, are obstinate, and generally less apt. Abilities of groups of humans are not supposed to decline over time- we are disproving evolution with our parental techniques.

These kids are insolent without reason: My main cause to kick the shit out of my future kids.

When we got beat, we went inside ourselves, determined why this was wrong, if we deserved it, and on what accounts. Grounding cannot force a kid to completely reorganize his world view like a sea salt on a switch's wound, or elctrodes on the nipples, or standing outside all night. Beatings made us plot for ourselves and what we wanted in life. We never relied on other's- they might kick our asses. What is this?? It's sedition. It's revolutionary.

When we got the living crap kicked out of us at school and the teachers looked away (or in my case, told me to stop talking shit like a damn Irish would... with boys in the upper grades). We went to our friends and held organized wars across neighborhoods and playgrounds- politics and leadership and friends were solidified. You knew who had your back when a friend took a stick to the chest so you wouldn't have a bloody mess across the back of your head. You then had the pleasure to tag team the little shit who attacked you from behind and beat his pathetic ass with the very stick he took to your bud. This is where we learned the imprtant things- in conflict with our superiors.

Now take the nearest fourth grader and shake him till he fights back-- start quarrels with seventh grade boys and just gang up on freshman. Don't pick on the weak ones. The strong ones are the kids who haven't learned these lessons.

When you don't force a kid to decide what switch he's going to take you deprive him of any self-reliance and revolution and ability to be a man as I determine it. (There is not room for two opinions here.)

Force your kids to do their shit right. They will steal ice cream at night and not get caught. They will forge your signature on a test. They will learn that they can't, in fact, drink a fifth of whiskey in an hour and a half (unless he or she is of my family's seed; in which case they will be so incredulous as to the fact they just accomplished the deed they will consider never drinking again). They will sneak out and take the car to some slut's house. They will paint then bitch's yard red when she bangs their friend. They will do it all.

And you'll beat their ass raw.

Read more!

Unity and the Anti-Nationalist

Unity. One word, big problem. It is rumored that this country fails to have enough of it. I hear from certain sources, reliable sources like Fox News and friends, that we are a divisive country and that our next president should do something about it before it gets worse. Some sources say that it's a matter of time until we Americans tear each other to shreds and then some foreign power stomps on the shreds, I hear China has dibs. Some sources say that with all of our bickering and in-fighting we're getting nothing accomplished in this country. Some sources need to shut the hell up and get off the air so that maybe, just maybe, we can have something resembling real journalism in this country. In the meantime let's talk, just you and me now, about the important topic of governmental division. Not the math kind mind you, that's our next topic seeing as the government doesn't seem to understand that a negative minus a negative is still a negative, but the kind where everyone disagrees.

Don't argue with me on this issue either, don't say to me, "But Andrew, not everyone disagrees. There are some things we can all agree on, like immigration reform (with Canada) and the color of the sky (violet) and stuff like that." But no, you will not persuade me we shall simply have to disagree to disagree. But that's not a bad thing. "What?!", I say for you because I can tell that's what you're thinking. I know I know, ever since you were little you were told that you had to get along and nice little things like, looks like Mommy was wrong wasn't she? Disagreement is a good thing. A really good thing. A really, really good thing. I mean, well actually I think you get where I'm going. When we disagree, everyone wins. Why is that you say? Its because then we can create what we founded this country on. Compromise. Its that little thing that happens when two or more extremely unhappy, unsatisfied people get together and come up with some sort of agreement through which they can all be only partially unhappy and semi-satisfied. That's the reason that this nation is the way it is, Congress? created through compromise, What to have in the Capitol Building's Cafeteria? compromise. See it's just that easy.

If compromise is when we come to an agreement, wouldn't it be better if we all agreed automatically? Ignoring the ridiculousity of that last statement, it would be awful if we all agreed all the time. For one thing if we all agreed nothing would change, we would all be perfectly happy with what had already been decided. I'll tell you now that there are nation's that had unity, the Third Reich's Germany for example. Everyone was on that boat. It was headed towards a anti-Semitic, close-minded waterfall. Stalin's Russia, there was a nation with unity, one point-of-view, well maybe two, Stalin's or dead.

See the point now? Unity leads to death. The way I see it the more division, of the idealism and not mathematical kind, the better. If we're all divided up into little bitty parts we are all at least somewhat satisfied, alternatively some are happy others are unhappy. If you still think that pseudo-Nationalistic unity is a good idea, then please follow the media's finger of decision and pick their candidate. When the dust settles and you're believing the same thing as everyone else, don't say that we didn't have this conversation.

Read more!