Everyone Loves a Disaster

The news is horrifying, isn't it?

I just tried to read/look at the front page of a "news" website as I was eating lunch. My stomach started to do somersaults, my gag reflex kicked in and I had to navigate away so that I could eat.

But maybe it'd be better if I didn't eat at all. I could lose a few pounds. New diet! Read the news while you eat! It's a highly effective appetite suppressant! I could run ads for my new diet secret that say something like, "Lose stomach fat with one word: OBEY." But just change obey to NEWS. And then make people pay me for the particulars of my dieting secret.

My main question is, do I need to know the particulars of every evil, vile, horrific, disgusting, infernal low down thing that's happening in the world?

I just deleted an entire page of my ramblings about evil and stuff. You would have loved it, but it was WAY out there and off topic, and probably somewhat annoying. So I'm sparing you, in case you didn't like it.

I live to please.

CNN Is the Devil

I'm wondering who, besides me, sits in their cubicles and reads the news. From time to time I do, and some days I get so DEPRESSED that I want to die.

This has led me to the conclusion that the news is the devil. Once upon a time I wrote about the devil room in the house Stoker and I bought -- which we converted to a harvest yellow in an attempt to overcome its natural gloom. So, I'm very familiar with the devil. The devil likes things to be black and dark and depressing. The devil room was black and dark and depressing . . . and it sucked the light out of the world. It took grueling hours of work to exorcise the demon and make the room livable and friendly and . . . yellow. Honestly? I wish the room wasn't yellow now. I'm probably going to have to go back and paint it again. Maybe a nice, flat black.

Anyway, the point is, I was sitting here, depressed as hell, when it dawned on me that the news is the devil, and I wanted to share this revelation with the masses, not that they'll listen, because . . . well, they're the masses and I'm not Bono or Oprah. And I guess it depends on your definition of devil. Mine is this: the devil ruins my life; the devil makes me want to give up; the devil robs me of hope; the devil makes me do my worst because I'm no good anyway.

Sound familiar? It sounds like a chant. Like I'm writing terrible lyrics to a heavy metal riff. Maybe that's why it sounds familiar. In any case, why do I read the news? I've been learning to cope with the daily onslaught of horrors, but some days they're just too terrible. Like today. Here's a sampling of stuff I read: babies in China dying because of poisoned formula; man on trial for brutally beating his ex-girlfriends' cat to death; woman still searching for her husband who disappeared over a year ago in Iran; Finnish guy murdering college students; E! online writing "obvi" to mean "obviously" (you can see why this one is so upsetting).

Ok, I don't mean to contribute by sharing the horrors myself. But I must be a masochist because I keep going back. And if I was more of an optimist, maybe I'd see more hope in those stories, hope for man's redemption or something, that there is still goodness in people, that they're all trying, they're all doing the best they can, that sometimes good people just get misled. The news doesn't cover that part of the story, and why would they? Sensationalism is what sells, right?

These days journalists suck. They have twenty seconds to pump out a story and thus their writing is awful and the stories are chopped up to fit the sensational tripe that attracts viewers. They have no pride in their stories. It's a news-mill. So what we end up with is a skewed perspective of the world and how it's doing. It feels like hell out there if we listen to the media, but it is it really any different than it's ever been?

At first I was sort of joking about calling the news the devil. I thought it would be funny to sound very fundamental, like an I-live-in-a-compound-with-my-religious-compatriots zealot that the news LOVES to crucify. I don't. That is to say, I obviously read the news and participate in the machinery of our great over-newsed society and so I'm clearly not one of THEM. I'm a news junkie. It's in my blood, I need a fix often, I've fallen prey to the CNN drug cartel. I can't believe this crap is legal. And now I realize I'm right. The news IS the devil.




Quite honestly, I do believe in a fallen angel named, variously, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Satan, Mephistopheles, Ned Flanders, etc. I think it's important to remember the things unseen that have the power to sway us, including the Internet. Can you see it? No! You see a manifestation of it, this page for example, is not real. It's ephemeral. You would not be able to touch it if you tried. It's unreal, yet its effects on you are real. Right now you may be livid with rage that someone might suggest that there is such thing as a fallen angel or that the news does more negative than positive in our society because you worship at the altar of the holy fount of CNN. Proving my point, this page is nothing. It's an idea, and yet it has the power to influence you. The most real and powerful things in our world are the unreal, the unseen. Think about it. (Yes, yes, so true, I am a genius philosopher.)

Cheating in the Olympics

I can't believe the Chinese are cheating at the Olympics. Oh wait, what am I saying? It's "for the good of the country."

At this point it's pretty obvious to everyone watching that the Chinese women's gymnastics team is full of twelve-year olds, and yet, no one seems able to stop them from lying to the entire world and continuing on as though they've done nothing wrong.

Honestly the rest of the Olympic community should have known they weren't ready to host the Olympics. Normally I'd say, "Hey, the fake fireworks display? No big deal. The lip sync fiasco? I mean, yeah, that's pretty insulting and cruel. But I'm over it." However, as I watched the women's meet last night, I realize that all of it matters and I'm NOT over it.

The picture China is painting is, for me at least, one of a nation full of automatons who are stripped of their will and free agency in order to do what is best "for the country." For a minute, I was feeling good will toward China and their efforts to impress the rest of the world. But as the Olympic games continue, I am compelled to no longer overlook the sins of their government. And I can no longer hold my tongue about the pollution in Beijing. From now on, when it's smoggy in Nashville and anywhere else, I'm going to say, "Where are we, Beijing*?"

It's one thing to have a coach who lies to his players (which is also bad, don't get me wrong), but it's another thing to have your government making passports stating you're sixteen when you're really only thirteen.

And it's even another to censor the press. That irks me too.

Am I a sore loser? Yeah. It's disgusting. But listen. How else is China cheating? In what other matters are they lying to us? All of them, probably.

So everyone has complained and complained about how the Tour de France has lost its glamour and appeal because of doping. Same here. It was no fun to watch the other gymnastics teams who were following the age restrictions competing against a team of eight-year olds. It would be the same as pitting a lightweight against a heavyweight. Where's the fun in that? The point of an age restriction is to even the playing field. When the restriction is ignored, the game loses its point.

I'm boycotting the rest of the games until the IOC does something about China's blatant disregard for the rules. I suggest the rest of the world do the same. Come on, now. Do as I say. It's for the good of the country**.



*I was overlooking the pollution in order to be polite.
**In this sense country means world. You'll no doubt agree with me that world wouldn't have had the same sarcastic ring to it as country.



I will probably keep watching the Olympics because I'm spineless.

Bashing Mitt Romney

My Bias

I don't know why anyone would want to be president. I can't think of any really really good reasons you'd want to expose your entire life to public scrutiny or why you'd want your character and integrity to be slandered.

Mitt Romney seems like a decent guy and I confess I have sympathies for him because of his religion. I expect more from him than I expect from someone like Rudy Giuliani. I expect Romney to be honest and charitable and to have strong moral fiber. I think he's probably most of those things. I don't know him, but I've come to recognize a certain amount of strength and goodness from Mormons in general. I know it's a generalization, but I have to say that the majority of Mormons I know try very hard to be good people and make honest decisions.

Time's Bias

So, when I read a story like the one found in Time, something doesn't ring true. What I see is less a story about Mitt Romney and more an illustration that Romney is not the favored candidate by Time. For one thing, the writer of the Time clip, Ana Marie Cox, doesn't mention some of the facts of the story. The original story was pulled from a Boston Globe article, which is linked in the Time news clip. But how many readers are going to go to the source?

I want to point out the bias. I think it's pretty disgusting. Cox draws quotes from PETA and some "experts" from Massachusetts who were not even around in 1983. I beg anyone out there to accurately report on the social climate regarding animal rights and how the family pet was typically viewed and treated in the late '70s and early '80s. Family pet, or bona fide member? I don't really know, I was only five at the time. My cats were still reeling from the shock of my birth, and I was still figuring out how to hold them without accidentally choking them to death.

Identifying the Bull-shit

You've got a bold and vicious headline (designed to lure readers) that makes it sound like Romney was found torturing his dog in the backyard. What really seems to have happened, at least as I perceive it, is that a father tried to make room for his entire family plus the family dog for a long trip. It sounds to me like it was important to have the family pet along on the trip because they, you know, probably love the dog.

I'm not sure what kind of excuse Romney might have for how he transported the dog. I wonder if he would do the same kind of thing today, or if he's grown into a different person. I know that when I was younger, I saw the world differently. I know that when I'm 60, I'll be different than I am now, at 29.

PETA: The Real Experts on Animal Cruelty

I question, very much, the expertise of PETA. I think it's great that on some level they give a voice to all animals great or small. But I also know that PETA encourages shelters to euthanize their animals and they facilitate, through their programs, chaining or tethering the family pet. They don't educate as much as they shock and scare the public into…what? Action? I guess.

They don't raise money to create facilities where animals need not be euthanized (something that would be extremely useful), and, on at least one occasion, their employees were found dumping the bodies of recently euthanized animals in a super market dumpster. That doesn't sound very ethical OR very empathetic (previous post on PETA).

So, where is this ethics line drawn? It seems to be very subjective. PETA answers to PETA. Everyone else answers to PETA and the law. But when it comes right down to it, I answer to me. Mitt Romney answers to his conscience. Given my experience with my own vicious conscience, I bet he's not proud of that choice he made. I imagine he tried to make it up to the dog. I could be wrong, but I also think he wouldn't choose that mode of transportation for the dog again.

Calling the Kettle Black

Me? I'm hypersensitive about how animals are treated, and I predict that, given the social climate and trends regarding animals, soon it will be considered inhumane to treat animals like luggage when we fly. That one really gets me. That we believe it's ok for a cat or dog to ride in the luggage bin of an airplane. Think of the lack of air pressure, and the wind, and the deafening noise. Can you think of it?

Stoker and I have taken our cat on a plane with us, where she rode in a carrier under our seat. She meowed the entire time. It was stressful, but at least I was there to hear her meows and touch her a little bit. Somehow PETA workers get beyond the warmth of an animals' life and, probably, its visceral protests, to find the strength of character it takes to kill the animal. Hmmm. Good ol' PETA and their double standards.

Running with Pepper Spray

It sucks to be a woman.

Wait, hear me out. I read stuff in the news like this, and I think, "Oh crap, I'm going to have to start carrying a gun and enroll in martial arts classes." Or something. Does anything work?

Seriously. When I run, I take a can of pepper spray. But is that enough? And as I run, I look passers-by in the face, so they know I'm not afraid and so I know what they look like. I'm hardly friendly, even though some people are very polite. I'm thinking about getting a big dog to take with me. A scary dog. And I'm considering getting tattoos and spiking my hair so that I look scary and uninviting.

Ok, the last bit isn't true. But it really bothers me that the world isn't safe. That a woman can't go for a walk somewhere without worrying that a man might decide to oh I don't know, rape then kill her.

I understand that choice is an essential part of life and that we should all be allowed to evolve at our own pace, and that a person should not be condemned before they've done something; or rather, a person might have evil thoughts now and then, but they might not act on their thoughts, so it wouldn't be right to pronounce a verdict until a crime is committed. Otherwise we'd all be in trouble.

Even so, I can't help but feel that so many bastards deserve to be banished to a penal colony before they kill. It really sucks to go through an entire life with the knowledge that men will always and forever be physically stronger than you. That's why I need to get a gun and some tattoos. And I guess that's one advantage to being a really butch woman. Maybe. Is it? Who knows.

Shawn Hornbeck: What IS Surprising is Everyone Else

What gets me is that everyone is so surprised when a kidnapped child is held captive in broad daylight, when the child could easily run away. You know, people get suspicious, like “why wouldn’t the kid go for help when he could?”

First of all, remember being eleven years old. Need your memory jogged? That’s easy enough, all you have to do is look at a bunch of kids at the mall or elsewhere. How are they behaving? Like kids, which is to say, kind of dumb, like they don’t get anything. They’re insecure, they’re awkward, they’re unsure of their place. They’re pretty much still a child. But they’re getting old enough to understand some things. When I was eleven, I was in fifth, maybe sixth grade. At the time I thought I was the shit. I look back now and I think, holy shit. I was so vulnerable and small. I can’t believe my mom let me walk home from school every day. Someone could have taken me so easily.

But my mom was really with it. A world-champion worrier, she made us call her at work as soon as we got home, and if we were late doing that, she was calling us. All afternoon we were allowed to call her over just about anything. If I felt like it, I could call my mom and complain about Dani’s unrighteous dictatorship. And I did, all the time.

The other thing she did that was strange to me at the time was make me memorize her calling card, and also how to call her collect. She told me that if anyone ever took me against my will and told me that if I ran away or called her or went to another adult for help, they’d kill me or my mom, I was to try to get help anyway. I was to run away at the first chance I got.

Now, I know that sounds crazy, because some kidnapper might have killed me if I had tried to get away. But what are the odds? I mean, honestly, what’s a kidnapper going to do with a child? Generally one of two things and I don’t think I need to name them*. Well okay, I’ll name one of them: they’re going to sell the child on the black market. Now, I don’t really know what that means, but my mom occasionally threatened selling me to the gypsies when I was bad, and I assume that translates to the black market. I’ve named one, you can figure out the second.

So anyway. You remember what it was like to be eleven. Now use your imagination and pretend you’re an eleven-year old, who has just been pulled into a car by a stranger and the stranger is taking you lord knows where. And they hurt you. And verbally abuse you and scare you. It’s a few days later and now you can go outside, but they tell you if you tell anyone anything that’s happened, they’ll kill you or your parents. So, what do you do? You’re eleven, do you even want to talk to a stranger? The stranger might be twenty times worse than the guy who took you. Can you trust anyone?

I know, it’s crazy. Can you believe these kidnapped kids? Let’s make a leap here, can you believe those moronic women who don’t leave their abusive husbands? How can they be silent when they’re being pummeled by someone who’s supposed to love them (and sometimes does, supposedly)? Another leap: can you believe those idiots in Communist China, or the former Communist U.S.S.R.? I mean, how can they stay in a country where they have no rights? Why don’t they flee? Why don’t they sneak out? I’m sure they could get away when no one was looking.

Okay, so maybe the last one is too much of a stretch, but the point remains the same: people, even adults, have fragile minds. We can easily begin to believe we’re worthless, that we deserve punishment, that we shouldn’t defend ourselves and our rights, that we have no rights, that Communist Russia is better than Switzerland (and anyway, we can’t get to Switzerland, we’re trapped, really, we are), and that Michael Devlin’s apartment is safer than running away.y \\

Why wouldn’t an eleven-year old boy run away? Better ask why an entire country would allow one man -- one evil dictator -- to continue to rule. That’s what I really can’t understand, because I completely get why a boy would be afraid to get help from a stranger after enduring any amount of abuse, most notably, the violation of your very freedom and trust in the world.

And if parents were wary, maybe they’d tackle the kidnapping issue with their children before someone else has a chance to impress their delicate minds with lies and threats. I don’t know for certain, but I feel pretty strongly that if someone had taken me, I would have tried to get free because of what my mom told me: go for help when you get the chance.**





*Because your’re not stupid, contrary to what Oprah might think. Why the hell did she have to get Shawn Hornbeck’s parents to publicly announce that he was sexually abused by Devlin on national television? Is that going to help him? Poor kid.
**My overall derisive tone is mainly directed at the suspicious reporters in the media.

The Pope, Muslims and a Delicious Stew of My Thoughts

It’s been blogged to death, and covered so thickly in the press I think the general public is in danger of suffocating. But I have to put my proverbial two cents in (in case you haven’t been able to tell, I love the word proverbial. Yes, I just love the idea of things being proverbial) regarding the poor Pope and the angry Muslims. I can just see him, poor Mr. Pope, offering an apology and having it not be enough. No, the angry protestors won't rest until he's given up a pound of flesh and perhaps a pint of blood. And I can just see the protestors violent at the suggestion that Islam promotes violence.

The cool thing about America is the freedom of speech. At least, the idea of freedom of speech, which in this annoying global society isn’t real at all. And probably, on lots of levels, it’s not a one hundred percent guaranteed freedom in America, either. Were it real, groups like the ACLU wouldn’t actually exist. As an aside, I typically hate the ACLU because invariably they take a side and it’s usually the side of the minority (which is good, if you’re the minority they’re representing). But anyway, I don’t want to open that can of worms. My point is that freedom of speech is golden. I think people should be able to say what they think without fear of being sued and be able to print the truth, whether it’s what I agree with or not, without fear of enraged protestors rioting in the streets.

Ultimately the beauty of living in this cold, cruel world is the diversity of opinion, culture and beliefs. Somewhere in it there is room for the warmth of understanding that occasionally happens between different cultures and various peoples. Even within the Muslim world there are different factions and groups with varying degrees of orthodoxy. What I don’t see is how the Muslim agenda of converting the entire world or killing them is any different than say, Hilter. Or the KKK. Or any group of people that wishes to eradicate another group of people because of race or ideology. So if the Muslims succeed in killing all non-believers, there would still be the different factions within Islam. They don’t have one great Islamic leader.

And what would happen without diversity of religion and ideas? Boring.

So about the Pope. I respect his intentions (see the full transcript of his speech). I doubt he knew the ramifications. And I don’t think it’s fair to try to blame him for violence or deaths that may occur as a result of rioting, angry protestors. If that logic works, then you have to say that smokers are responsible for global warming and all manner of smog, and that when a commuter kills someone in a fit of road rage, it’s the fault of everyone else on the road because they are there and so on. Everyone has the chance to choose. People are culpable for their own actions.

About the rioting Muslims. They are quick to anger and they are quick to find any excuse to riot, protest angrily, bomb, and kill others. The Pope’s apology was not enough for them, and I kind of think it will never be enough because the point isn’t to make him submit, but to have a visible reason to be angry at Westerners and infidels. So they have a scapegoat about why they’re angry. I understand being angry and annoyed about something someone else said, things public figures say, or the things that are sometimes printed about my religion (which is misrepresented in the press quite often). But I don’t riot. I get pissed and then I let it go.

7 Reasons MSN Sucks

Here's the thing: I want to believe in a man. I want to trust a man, to be in a healthy relationship, to know he's good and honest and that when he's out in the world and I'm not there to see it, he conducts himself in an honorable, decent manner. But it's really difficult and you want to know why? Because the loudest voices in the media are about how men suck. I just read this stupid article on msn.com (link)--don't think I didn't try to avoid it. I swear I did. Every time I logged into my stupid hotmail account, there was the headline staring at me "7 reasons men cheat," lit up and blue, just taunting me to click on it. Time after time I resisted and won, but tonight I gave in. I'm a real sucker for those stupid relationship articles the morons at msn write. What are their credentials? No one really knows. Who, I ask, is Tom Milnes and why should I pay any attention to the unsuccessful jerks he rounded up for his very scholarly findings on the inner workings of the male mind? His name carries so much gravity in the world of sociology they choose not to show his credentials. You know what I mean?

I know, I know. He's not giving relationship advice. He's just providing a lame-ass list of "why men cheat." But I'm telling you, stuff like that doesn't help gender relations. T.J., Drew, Alex, et. al sound like a bunch of vengeful, losers and I hope that good-hearted women potentially affiliated with any of those men in their respective cities sever their ties immediately.

I hope my relationship with Stoker is undamaged by the after-effects of reading such awful testimonials from such scummy sounding men. What's the problem with magazines and sites like MSN? Why do all these stupid lists revolve around such base behavior? They're never lists like, "10 Reasons Men Are So Loveable." Or "79 Things a Man Will Do for the Woman He Loves." Why don't they go ahead and draw up that list? I'm serious. I think it'd be ridiculous to assume that there is no fallout from the things the media focuses on.

If I could pinpoint a group representing the entire media and said to them, "What do you have to say for yourselves? Look at the damage you've done." They'd say, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We were simply representing the problems that were already there." Then I could only say, "Look at yourselves, look at your families." And they'd look, and hopefully their families would be in shambles because of the rule of poetic justic in tragedies and dramas. Then they'd hang their heads in shame and remorse and I'd raise my arms above my head in triumph. Just kidding.

Seriously. I just hate the lists on msn.com. They suck me in. They do me no good. They're a waste of time. Probably this blog is a waste of your time. Go do something constructive. Go play your guitar. Read a book. Write me a letter. Write your mom a letter. Your grandmother -- she's probably lonely.

I'm not giving you 7 reasons, either, if you were still looking for them. Not today. Like I said, go do something constructive. No 7 reasons today. Nothing.


ps . . . I wrote this entry back in January but didn't have the chance to finish it. So I don't know if the link works anymore.

Suicide is for Wimps

So Hunter S. Thompson kills himself and suddenly he’s a hero. Suddenly I go to a bookstore and there are his books, strategically placed at the front of the shop, on the counter, very near the cash register, as if to say, "We’ve always loved this man. We’ve always thought his writing was piercing, ironic and bursting with dramatic statements about the corruption of the American political system." Stuff like that. Like what Nick Hornby says about kids who were always punk rock. The employees of the independent bookstore were always liberal, open-minded, idea-worshiping people and it didn’t happen the day they found the independent coffee-shop with all the cool vintage-contemporary furniture and the thoughtful looking chess-player with his tweed jacket and elbow patches, as if that day wasn’t also the very day they discovered Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and the complete works of Hunter S. Thompson. A very loaded day, but all the same. It’s all the same. A bunch of crap.

If I sound bitter, it’s because I am. I think it’s ridiculous that the media worships the weak artistic type whose life is finalized in a culminating moment marked by self-murder. What kind of mixed message is being promoted through idolizing "artists" who blow their brains out, while imprisoning the sociopath who blow out the brains of their neighbors? Anyway, that’s not exactly what I’m so annoyed about. I don’t really have a huge problem with suicide unless it directly affects me. I feel bad for the people left behind, but I can think of a few people who ought to just do themselves in. I won’t name names. The main problem I see is that some celebrity-jerk is immortalized because he/she is weak and takes the easy way out, while the strong celebrities who survive and die of natural causes just fade away and are mentioned in a stupid blip at the edge of the newspaper as in: Deaths today: Bill Rosenrosen, star of the daytime hit "Sand through the Hourglass" etc. Instead of the suicide headline like:

BILL ROSENROSEN BLOWS HIS BRAINS OUT,
MAID FINDS BODY IN BATHTUB

followed by a lengthy description of the death scene, his family situation, and a detailed account of every major or minor work or influence he’s had on anything from television to salad dressings.

Celebrities who live long lives and dedicate a portion of their funds and time to charity are sorely overlooked, to the detriment of the masses. Celebrities who remain faithful to their spouses and families, put them first, are ignored. Writers who are not manic-depressive and die of natural causes are thought to be boring. A writer with too many demons for good mental health is worshipped regardless of the amount of destruction he might have caused in his life. And obsessing over celebrities is unhealthy.

Here’s my disclaimer for anyone who might actually read anything I’ve written: I have nothing personal against Hunter S. Thompson. I’ve never seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, nor have I read any of his writing. I was using his suicide as an example of a malaise in the media. Nothing more. Thank you.