The View from the Dark

I really had a hard time choosing sides over the Rosie vs. the Trump fight. Rosie with the over sized Mongolian head; Trump with the cotton candy comb over-- oh how to choose. Their TV shows had little to do with how much respect I had for them, both suck on a universal and god-like scale. I especially disliked The View, no matter who was on it, because it was a bunch of self-important, yapping, biotches that rarely made a semi-literate point that would assist a mentally challenged prison bitch in life scoping skills.

Rosie's addition to the show did little to make me hate The View more, it did make me disrespect Barbara Walters a bit more. It did reinforce that Rosie's intelligence was the quotient of her mouth size divided by her head size. For the students that were raised with New Math this means that Rosie is ate up with the dumb-ass, ( and sadly, unlike Anna Nicole, is extremely punishing on the ocular ooglers). Rosie's continued running of her mouth spewed forth ignorance like Chris Farley's ass on a steady diet of pickled eggs and rotting malt ale. Rosie's ignorance was only exceeded by her consistent spewing of said ignorance.

Last week's tragedy at Virginia Tech was in some respects not as sad as the rants made by Rosie O'Donell and the released Alec Baldwin rant. The saddest part of Rosie's rant is the disrespect of humanity. Her stance on late term abortion is an insidious soul-killer. Any parent that has scene the internal pictures of a four month fetus knows it is a living human. Rosie, because of her life choices, will never be able to feel the fetus grow and mature in her "body". To her, children are commodities to be acquired at one's own convenience. Thus sucking the brains out of an 8 month old fetus is OK if it is convenient for the mother.

Early term abortions are probably as sinful as late term, but late terms kill babies that could survive outside the womb at the time they are murdered. Medical procedures do not negate murder. After Alec Baldwin's hate spewing diatribe to his 11 year old child would he be free of guilt if he performed an 11 year old late term abortion on his "ignorant pig of a child"? Obviously not, a viable human whom is terminated is murdered--medical or likewise.

These arguments have been hashed over for decades, but the most disturbing portion of the whole Rosie episode is her obvious lack of the understanding of the separation of church and state and her prejudicial discrimination of certain peoples of faith. Rosie's reasoning for the Supreme Court's ruling on Late Term Abortion, was the court's religious make up. She did not believe that it was valid that the court made a ruling on this issue while five of the Justices are Catholics.

Separation of church and state is the restricting of a state mandating a specific religion. The English told the Pope to piss off so they would not be under the Catholic heel. The Catholic heel was replaced by the Anglican heel in England. Then many, mostly the Plymouth Brethren told them all to piss off and moved to America so they could worship in the manner they wanted. Many of the forming fathers were Deists rather than Christians so they understood and desired independent worship that no governing body could regulate. That is THE separation of church and state.

So five Justices that made a decision on a ruling that happened to be of the same faith is NOT state and church united. It should be said that since they happened to have faith they may have believed in a soul and decided late term abortions would kill those souls. It does not matter if this is the case, because most of the world believes in a soul. So Rosie's delusion of a Catholic conspiracy to hijack the pro-abortion cause is the same excrement her discrimination of Catholics is made of. Is Rosie anti-Catholic? No she is pro-death, when it is convenient and fits her elitist "theology".

The Virginia Tech mess is decidedly more tragic, but it is demonstrably sadder that small minded people like Rosie and Alec Baldwin are seriously listened to concerning things they have no knowledge or expertise about. I can have an organization corrected and moving in the right direction in six months, but do not feel I have the right to do stand-up in front of 500 people or make sweet, clean love with Kim Basinger. I am damn sure I could do both, but would suck in at least one of the tasks.

Fame does not give one the right to pontificate in self absorbed righteousness, it just gives one the right to pontificate. Now here is my version of Rosie's post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. Alec and Rosie are both noted liberals. It seems that in their cases they are full of hate and want to kill the innocent, undesired or inconvenient. Therefore, there is something about Liberals that does not allow them compassion, but seems to infuse them with unreasonable, vicious, barbarism. Probably not a proper conclusion--in general.

If a soul reads this I'm sure I will quickly be labeled a born-again right winger. I'm a Deist in the universal sense and a free market anarchist--I'm not sure which is my political belief or my religion and they may be the same, but the point is we are individual souls that cannot be lumped together because of one set of beliefs. I wonder if Rosie was an admirer of JFK? Would have been damn hard for him to become president with world full of hers.

As a post script, why is there ever a need for abortions--at least late term abortions? As we were taught in the 1980's the all powerful condom would stop these issues. Why have they forsaken the Trojan Christ?

Why God Let It Happen

Just as many bloggers discussed the tragedy of the Virginia Tech massacre. I'm sure many are now querying why God would let something like this happen. This is a question that is asked every time some tragedy occurs.

What I am having a problem with is the the trinity of the God head. Jehovah is pretty much a vindictive and jealous god the commandment his tribe not to commit murder, yet a few chapters later he commanded the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. Jehovah God ostensibly is the creator God that brought the earth into existence, but was a bit of a bastard according to the Old Testament. So could it be that Jehovah God let this tragedy happen to whip into shape the Christians into obedience. If they do not obey his commandments retribution and punishment will be wrought upon some innocence to teach the remaining Christians a lessons.

Then there is Jesus the Son of Jehovah God whose New Testament was in polar opposite of God the Father. Jesus was about sacrifice and forgiveness. Is there some connection between God the Father's massacre and the concept of Jesus' sacrifice? It seems in polar opposites of what the testaments and messages meant, but perhaps there is some celestial meaning behind all this.

I'm really having trouble with trinitarianism, especially when it comes to the Holy Ghost. If it was God the Fathers plan to coordinate with Jesus to teach mankind a lesson of sacrifice and obedience was it the Holy Ghost the put into the mind of the assassin to execute the massacre. If this was a plan of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost perhaps there was some lesson behind all this. But if this is the case what a harsh lesson to be taught.

Somebody, please enlighten me on trinitariansim. I know the Pentecost was the first occurrence of the Holy Ghost, but it seems to me there are three separate entities and perhaps they all have different agendas. Is Christianity really a monotheistic religion?

Bless the students at Virginia Tech, be it God, Gabrielle or Raphael.

Trite Virginia Tech Blog

It would be a good bet that the majority of blogs in the last couple days commented on the Virginia Tech tragedy. And well they should it was a needless loss of life and an occurrence that is happening with greater frequency. The knee jerk talking heads immediately pontificate on the need for more and better gun control. The dichotomy of the talking heads is that the majority of the single gunmen that unleashed the holocaust on the students in the various Universities where the shootings took place is that the perpetrators were foreign students or immigrants that were not able to purchase firearms.

Great Britain which has one of the strictest gun controls laws in the world has a double digit increase in firearm crimes. Gun control does not control those that have the insidious impulses to destroy their fellow brothers and sisters. Rather, it refuses the right of the law abiding citizens to own a fire arm--which by the way is protected by the now withering Constitution of the Unites States.

Educated, informed and well armed citizens could decrease the impact of these tragedies. Ironically, the talking heads that are in favor of gun control have body guards that are well armed with semi-automatic and/or high caliber fire arms. This is not about hunting this is about the protection of the citizens from terrorists and yes in extreme cases out of control government.

As a post script of this tragedy a similar occurrence took place in a college in the Appalachians. The terrorist started shooting wildly at any and all students that were in his sight. Two students went to their pickup trucks retrieved their shotguns and blew away the crazed shooter. Total death count three--still sad and a tragedy, but what would have happened if the brave students did not take the initiative to take down the crazed gunmen--perhaps another Virgina Tech tragedy. It is trite, but gun control is a steady hand with a kill shot to the heart.

Peace Out and shoot straight

The Freedom to Edit Speech Revolution

It started years ago, mainly on college campuses. It was known as "politically correct" speech. Certain forms of speech were discouraged not because they were vulgar, but because they may insult some form of a minority group. These groups may not be racial or religious, or transgender or transvestite or transpecies. If a man was was trapped in a ladies body, or outfit, or soul of a horse--any type of lanquage that would be disparaging to these "protected" group could lead to severe ramifications to those that made the disparaging remarks.

A good example of how politically correct speech can be confusing is the case of how we described the Americans from African descent. Originally, in polite circles the term Negro was used, a derivation of the Spanish word for black. In least polite circles a bastardization of that word was used and was meant as an insult. Another term that was used around the same time was colored--I don't think that was as insulting as the "N" word but I imagine it became disliked in the South as there were many signs posted that said " No coloreds served".

Then in the 1960's Afro-American became the name that was in vogue for sometime. Concurrently, Black was a title that many were OK with. Then in the 1980's African-American became the title of choice among the black folk, but at about the same time it was becoming acceptable for blacks to call other blacks "niggahs". It was definitely not acceptable for any non-black to use the "niggah" term. However, it did become acceptable for everybody to call Americans of African descent blacks, again. Could it be that soon it will be acceptable to use the Spanish pronounciation of black? While it is spelled Negro, it is pronounced Naygrro. As one can see it is hard work staying politically correct and this example is for only one racial group.

Some other examples of PC changes are illegal immigrants are now undocumented workers. Short people are vertically challenged and bald people are folically challenged. It seems the worth in using PC terms is not to insult groups and their members. In the case of the African Americans there should be some sensitivity as they had to put up with centuries of crap and the "N" word was a vestige that abuse and crap. But can we now settle on an agreeable term to speak of your community.

Now the remainders of these "protected" groups should be ashamed of trying to equate their "struggle" with that of the Black community. Yeah, it is tough being a short person but as long one does not misuse the term midget, dwarf or munchkin; nor bowl said small person against his or her will things should be OK. Also, as a member of the folically challenged, I have heard it all and chrome domes get over it--especially those with the comb-overs.

Now, in the case of the transgender, transvestites, trans-species and transvampirical-crack whores; let's work a tiny bit more on getting our lives together and then we can concern ourselves with being insulted by possible insults or slangs, (is it possible to insult these groups?). After all, if a person, especially a high profile celebrity, all one must do is go to rehab and all is forgiven.

That is what is refreshing about the Don Imus situation. In the Ann Coulter case she was using a joke to kid John Edwards. Isaia Washington may have used the perjorative term for homosexuals in angry outburst but one did not get the impression that these terms were used in hateful attitudes. Imus on the other hand has exuded hate for many years--just ask Howard Stern. Calling the Cornell female basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed ho's", exemplifies racism and hatred. However, Imus has the right to be a racist and hater just as his employers have the right to suspend or fire him. Likewise, the sponsors have the right to pull their add time from the Imus program.

What is refreshing about this case is Imus did not really cave into some hypersensitive poverty pimp. He is feeling the retribution for his stupid and needless comments. True Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton were involved in this case but much of that is because of the nappy headed insult Imus used. He deserves the crticism and sanctions he is receiving.

There were cases earlier in this year that tried the same tact for the sole purpose of political ruin. Additionally, in the case of Coulter and Washington they are members of so called protected groups--females and African Americans respectively. However, in the case of Coulter even though her comment was made in jest and she is a female trying to crash the glass ceiling, more importantly she is conservative and that negates any protected status other females would enjoy. Nonetheless, while Coulter's comment may have been considered mean-spirited by some in the media, it was not uttered in hate. I wish the same could be said for Imus.

Imus had no political motivation to utter his perjoratives and worse of all after stating that the black members of the team were nappy headed he threw in the stereotype that they were "ho's". It's a good thing Imus has that ranch for the kids with cancer out in New Mexico, otherwise he would have the karma of Stalin. Come to think of it wasn't there some heat about how he set up his tax exempt status on the ranch?

For many years I thought Imus was a cynical, but intelligent talk radio show host that used his crotchety persona as an act for his radio program. However, the recent occurrences reveal that not only is Imus a crotchety arse, but a self-centered wanker that should be off the air. If there are any sponsors left on his show please boycott the products. A much easier boycott would be not to watch MSNBC, when was the last time you watched it on purpose.

The trend towards forcing celebrities and the laymen to speak only in certain terms with certain language is appalling, but using the public airways to spew misogynist racial hatred to innocent young female student athletes is sub human. Even a turkey necked, ancient relic, that reeks of cow shit and mothballs, whose brains is pickled by the copious amounts of illicit drugs and alcohol that were consumed in the 1970's should know better. Know better, yeah know better, yeah no better, no better-- he is no better than Klansmen that perpetuate this type excrement. Raise the bar Imus, although you probably can't get your fake hip over the bar.

I am for free speech, but Imus is quickly moving into mean spirited Alzheimer inspired drivel. Quack! Quack!

Imus Conundrum: Sacking, Rehab or Execution

Once again a white man has uttered words that have insulted or demeaned a group of people. Drastic actions must be taken to correct this crime against humanity. In this particular case, radio personality, Don Imus called the Lady Rutgers basketball team a bunch of of " nappy headed ho's". In the quick bit of research I was able to perform many of the Rutger players were indeed nappy headed, but in a quick straw poll of the girls not one teammate agreed to a monetary transaction for sex. Clearly, the Rutgers girls were nappy headed, but it is doubtful they were ho's (the possibility does exist that the wobbly turkey neck and the scent of embalming fluid that precedes Imus, may have greatly discouraged any possible "ho's" from accepting his offer).

In the previous weeks there have been cases where people have called other people gay or homosexual, and even though the assertions were correct the "offending" party entered rehab to cure themselves from the intoxicating feeling of calling a spade a spade--- and I mean spade as in the suit of cards. I cannot afford a thirty day stint in rehab. But in the Imus case, the Rutger's players may have been nappy headed but there is no proof the were ho's. Thirty days of rehab is simply not enough. CBS and MSNBC are discussing a two week suspension, but I think clearer heads will prevail and Don Imus will be put to death preferably by firing squad.

While many will argue that Imus has sponsored the program for children with cancer on his ranch, bringing joy to the last days of terminally ill kids or in some cases helping others go into remission, these self aggrandizing gestures cannot camouflage the underlying attitudes of disdain for ho's. Similarly, since these comments were heard nationwide and live on the radio I think it is safe to forgo the trial and move on to the execution faze.

Thirty days of rehabilitation effectively removes the disdain and guilt of homophobia when offendors call actual gays homos. But, in this case, I think it is highly appropriate to immediately dispose of Don Imus. For those that are a bit squeamish about execution we could also give a frontal lobotomy and remove his vocal chords to effectively squash this hideous menace to society.

If the above actions are not taken within the next two weeks we will all meet at Rockefeller Center and complete the citizen judicial action. God and Joan Baez would want it this ways.

My Best Sellers

While good writing is important to be a best-selling author, marketing makes it happen. That is why I, like many great writers, will create Titles that sell. By Titles, I do not mean some popular serials that will have on going characters and plot lines, but titles--the name of the best-seller. Below are my first five:

1) "10% Body Fat and Ice Cream 3 Times a Day"
2) "How I Watched TV for Six Months Landed a Six Figure Income, Beat Depression and Grew My Johnson (work on last part)"
3a) "Big Johnson and Little Divorces"
3b)"I Love My Wife"
4) "Me and Mrs. Johnson"
5) "Mrs. Johnson and Me"

Why two number 3)'s? Only single guys need ask. What is with Johnson? Let me beat depression and I will work on the rest, wip.

Guilty "Gonzo" Bloggers Killed Hunter S. Thompson --a look back

Hunter S. Thompson has been dead a little over two years and his ashes still have a street value of well over $1,000,000. I actually authored this line and unless one reads on may consider this "joke" a witty and "hip" joke. However, the structure of this joke is straight from Chevy Chase's Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is Still Dead bit and the punch line to a Keith Richards joke that I think Dennis Miller did--form and function 100% SNL. I wrote the joke to fit the theme of my "essay", and yet was only inspired by 25 years of SNL watching. (I have probably watched more, but, my late 1980's depravity has me uncertain.)

Why the Hunter S. Thompson interest? Actually, my interest was in Lester Bangs, who was labeled a "gonzo-journalist", but not the original since that would be... yes, Hunter S. Thompson. Stating the obvious, no disrespect Lester, but does writing record reviews make you journalist? (I know he was more than an album reviewer, I saw "Almost Famous".) As many of the printed eulogies stated Thompson was not really much of a journalist, but he was one helluva writer. D.A. Blyler pretty much wrote the same thing on rawstory.com, but he was "miffed" because some bloggers thought snorting coke, drinking, writing and taking quaaludes (normally in that order) made them a "gonzo-journalist".

Mr. Blyler deserves his "miffness" (and yes, "damn it", I am over doing it with the paranthetical statements and "quotes"-- I am developing a whole new "style" of "journalism"), especially since the "old" media ( "the" Times for God's "sake") gave credibility by association with the bloggers and the original Gonzo. Blyler made it a point to let bloggers no they should be overjoyed with what they accomplished in the realm of "Journalism"...

Bloggers...journalism...what the Hell? OK, blogging, the internet, Bill Gates--all in one basket combined with CNN, talk radio and time (as always) change the landscape. Hunter S. Thompson was a superb writer that did it differently, as did Kerouac, Twain, Faulkner, Tolkien, etc. Maybe what we should be asking ourselves is why does Dr. Thompson inspire bloggers so much? Thompson's writing was good, sometimes great, but, it exuded the free-spirit, the counter-culture, freedom...things that brought down the the Berlin Wall and many writers (not just bloggers, dammit).

The first paragraph really could have been used to sum up this whole train of thought. Those that create things we like people who inspire us and many times we would like to create like them. When it is all said and done all we have left as our legacy as writers are the words we wrote. ("FYI", (only 3 hits as of this "writing"), but if this "newer", "Freer" style catches on it is documented, by God I can prove it, it's on the "internet").