The Republican Soul is Like a Unicorn; It's Mythical: President Obama's Address to Congress.

Spinning furiously on an axis of anger, there are a great number of people in this country who have completely lost the ability to carry themselves respectfully; they have also lost sight of what really matters, the American people’s access to health care. How disgusting is it that a member of congress would dare shout at the President of the United States of America while he is giving a speech to the two houses of congress?! This isn’t some rowdy town hall, and even if it was, Barack Obama is the elected leader of this country; he deserves to be able to give a speech without being heckled by men and/or women who haven’t accomplished nearly as much as he has.
Does the right have an alternative plan that they are fighting for because they care about the American people? No. Their goal is simply to kill any bill President Obama puts forth. It isn’t about representing the best interests of the people, it’s about bringing down Obama. Their behavior is representative of this; heckling the President, spreading lies about “Death Panels”, and offering no plan to replace the one they are against. Sure it’s easy to say that they know the system is broken, all people deserve care, and no one should be denied because of a pre-existing condition, but where is the bill? It’s in the same place as the Right’s soul (i.e. the imaginary land in which either of those things exists).
If the Right succeeds, and we have no reform, where are we then? We are in a country where millions of people have no insurance, people loose their insurance when they are sick, and the middle class rapidly disappears under mountainous piles of medical debt. It boils down to two things. First, the behavior of people on the Right blatantly exposes the fact that they care more about brining down Obama than they do about providing their constituents with affordable insurance (why heckle the President and then have no alternative plan for reform if this is not the case?). Second, for a group of people who have spent the last eight miserable years calling anyone who disagrees with the President of the United States un-American, the Right is awfully fond of showing absolutely no respect whatsoever for that office. These people are disgusting.

Busy, Busy, Busy.

So, my plan to win the lottery and live a life of sophisticated leisure has failed once again. Lottery tickets may not be the key to my financial future. I've been so busy with the move that I've barely gotten into the introduction of the I Ching. Unpacking has been dragged on to an unnecessary length due to the heat, and I've been ridiculously exhausted. None the less, I shall continue to trudge along. I could probably rant on about how numb the people are who claim that Obama's health care reform plan likens him to Hitler, but those people are so fucking stupid I really don't think they deserve it. I mean, is wanting all Americans to have health insurance really coterminous with wanting all Jews dead? Anyway, I'm starting to be reminded that I have sweat glands so I'm going to position myself in front of a fan. Stay tuned for updates on my literary quest.

Reading Martin Seymour-Smith's list of 100 Most Influential Books.

There are many lists out there entitled something like, "100 Most Influential Books", "Books Every Educated Person Should Read", or "Books You Need to Read Before You Die". But why? Why read at all? I would argue, because it is mankind's ability to create art and to reflect upon his condition that separates him from the beasts. It enriches people's lives. One can look more deeply at his/her own life or situation when he/she has looked into the lives and situations of others, even if those others are fictional characters (all characters are reflections of the world in which the writer lives, even in fantasy). Furthermore, it makes sense that by reading the best literature, one will best be enriched. For this reason, I have decided to read and comment upon every book on Martin Seymour-Smith's list of "100 Most Influential Books Ever Written". Hopefully, by the end of this project, I will have enriched my life, proven the importance of reading, and separated myself from the beasts. The first book is The I Ching or Book of Changes. Stay tuned.

To learn more about Martin Seymour-Smith see: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/19/arts/martin-seymour-smith-70-critic-biographer-and-poet.html.

Funny Joke

Just thought I'd post this funny joke I found on http://www.coolfunnyjokes.com.

Sisters of Mercy A man was driving down the highway, and sees a sign saying "Sisters of Mercy, House of Prostitution, 10 miles"

Thinking it is some sort of joke, he pays no attention, until he sees a similar sign reading "Sister's of Mercy, House of Prostitution, 5 miles."

Still unsure, he drives on, until spotting a third sign saying "Sister's of Mercy, House of Prostitution, next exit". His curiosity getting the better of him, he takes the exit and parks his car outside the convent.

He knocks on the door, and tells the nun who answers "I saw your signs on the highway, are they for real?"

The nun answers "Yes", and tells him to give her $50 and follow her to a room.

He enters a room, and a second nun requests $50, and leads him to a door. Once he opens the door, he is quickly shoved outside by the nun.

He finds himself behind the convent, where he sees the final sign, "Thank you for you contributions, you have just been screwed by the Sisters of Mercy."

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Blames the West for Iran's Government Sucking Balls

According to an article on CNN.com, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran is blaming the West and western leaders for inciting the riots that followed the "re-election" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He claims that western media showed the Iranian people as "rioters", and that some how the many leaked videos of thousands of Iranians protested the election results was an effort by the West to destroy Iran and Islamic culture. Is anyone else bored to tears by this overused scapegoating of the West by Iranian leadership for the problems they create for themselves by operating an oppressive government? These videos of Iranians protesting the election only exist because Iranians were, in fact, protesting the election! It's the people of Iran, specifically young people and women, who are so sick of having no rights. Furthermore, the protesters weren't simply angry that their candidate didn't win, they were angry because they believed the election to have been a fraud; the government throwing all international media people out of the country after the election doesn't exactly work to negate this claim either. I mean, why would the Iranian government do that? Hmmmm? Oh, maybe because they didn't want the world to see Iranians taking the initiative to protest their own government, not because the West opposes Iran, but because many Iranians have problems with their government. Perhaps Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should spend a little less time blaming America and Western Europe for its problems, and more time not holding fraudulent elections and/or oppressing Iranians. Just a thought.

On another note, did Iranian leadership really think throwing some reporters out of the country was going to keep the world from seeing the protests? Someone should tell them about camera phones and a nifty little thing some like to call the "Internet". Douche bags. Now the government wants to investigate and prosecute, "individuals 'who cooperate with satellite television programming providers'" (CNN.com). Even better, Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi said, "It is imperative that this phenomenon be seriously dealt with by all judicial authorities of the country as well as by provincial judicial authorities". Ummmm, yeah. I'm not a computer or tech genius, but I'm pretty sure that in 2010, satellite television and news via Internet aren't considered a "phenomenon". They've been around for a while now. Put down the abacus and pay attention. Another point would be that punishing people for releasing news, not because it isn't true, but because it makes you look bad, might be one of those oppressive actions that protesters are frustrated about. Get a grip.

Fox News- Enough Said

It's almost 1am and I am unable to sleep because, like an idiot, I watched a Fox News segment tonight. Why do I torture myself by voluntarily exposing myself to televised idiocy? Some blond female reporter was bashing the Twilight books and movie because of the positive light in which the FICTIONAL stories position the MYTHOLOGICAL vampire. Wow. . .wow. I understand criticizing a book or movie because of bad writing, thin plot lines, vapid characters, etc. I can even handle someone bashing a book because it doesn't accurately portray this group or that one. The problem here is that vampires DO NOT REALLY EXIST! For this reason, a writer can portray them anyway they wish. They are a myth, to which no one has exclusive artistic claim. The newscaster's issue was that Stephanie Meyers's vampires are not evil and scorned by God; this must mean that the book is anti-god (unlikely considering that Stephanie Meyers is a practicing Mormon).
The problem here is two-fold. First of all, there are no anti-god messages that can be validated by reading the books or watching the movie. There just aren't. If anything Meyers's work supports the Christian stance of abstinence. Second and MOST IMPORTANT, is the fact that vampires do not actually exist, they are a myth as I have said. Therefore, they cannot be appropriately or inappropriately represented. They do not have any real characteristics, only fake ones dreamed up by writers. If one writers says "In my fictional world the mythical creature the vampire is scorned by God", all this means is that, in that writer's fake world, vampires are blood sucking preternatural creatures, the Christian God exists, and he's not down with the blood suckers created by said author. On the other hand, another writer may say, "In my fictional world, vampires exist as creatures that live off of blood (whether animated by magic or virus or whatever), God may or may not exist in my world, and vampires are not necessarily evil but, like people, differ depending on the individual". The two writers are using the same myth as a spring board for writing, sure, but in either case the fact remains that vampires do not really exist, and therefore are not for or against God outside the scope of the book, if God even exists in the book. You don't hear people saying, "Gee, I hope this movie appropriately represents unicorns, cause that last one I saw made it seem like they would have voted for Obama, which we all know a Unicorn would never do." Why? Because unicorns do not exists and therefore can have no political opinion to be misrepresented. If someone has a problem with the way myths are represented, their problem is actually with the writer's point of view, which he or she is expressing through the characters. Meyer's doesn't end her books with all of the vampires being killed off or miserable because they were against God and were therefore punished. Therefore, since vampires are not evil or good in real life since they don't exist, and since there is no underlying anti-Christian message Meyers is trying to hide in her book, Fox News is talking out of their ass.

Then again, Christians seem to have a problem with anything that doesn't sing the praises of their religion. So maybe their problem is that Stephanie Meyers didn't write a book about how freakin awesome she thinks God is. That is why the newscaster was having an orgasm over Anne Rice; her vampires were tortured souls, separated from God (the assumptions being that God exists and being separated from him means you are evil, which is a circular argument that only works if vampires are bad and their punishment is no God, which is an artistic choice), and Anne Rice stopped writing vampire books to write about God and Christianity. Of course, if the people at Fox News had really read Rice's work, they would have noticed how ridiculously homoerotic her works are, the gay characters not always vampires (Blackwood Farm's main character manages to practice homosexuality, masturbation, and incest all in one scene). Since they are so pro-christian, shouldn't they have a problem with this? That is very poor reading. Or maybe no one at Fox News reads above a ninth grade reading level?

Once again the ignorant right-wing Christians are up in arms about anything they think could threaten their precarious hold on the masses, even things they either didn't read, or read but couldn't understand.

Chubby Chasers? WTF!?

Yet another weight related reality show. The fact that there are so many reality shows focused on obesity shouldn't surprise anyone considering how much of a weight problem this country has. What should surprise/disgust/enrage/nauseate people is the MTV True Life "I'm Happy to Be Fat". The show follows three different people who have no problem being overweight. One of the women isn't terribly overweight and her goal is to get people to accept the fact that they aren't all destined to be a size two; a totally acceptable and positive message.
The other two, however, are both a disgrace to humanity. One is a man who's proud to make the Goodyear blimp look small. His "boyfriend" is this ridiculously in shape guy who loooooooves the chub. It's great to love someone for their personality and not to care if they are heavy, but this guy is completely focused on on the weight, just not in the way most people would be. Then heavy guy, and this is where it just gets ridiculous, starts a Chub Chaser group, which basically works as a dating service to connect people who have a fat fetish to fat people. Not only does this encourage people to be unhealthy, but it's equally as horrible as starting a dating service that hooks people up with women who are all a size one with DD tits. Stop encouraging people to date others based on their looks! Someone can be as small or large as you find aesthetically pleasing, but that doesn't mean the sun shines out of their ass.
The third woman really pissed me off. Like the man mentioned above, she enjoys being over weight. Her friends, rightly, are concerned for her health. After a doctor's appointment confirms that the woman is on the fast track to diabetes, blood pressure problems, and several other medical issues due directly to her weight, this woman just can't decide whether or not she wants to loose weight. OK, fine, but if she has health insurance, her provider should drop her ass like a rock. People like me who eat low fat and work out on a regular basis can't get health insurance in this country, but others who are choosing to have health problems that the HMOs are then going to have to pay for, which raise statistics and health insurance costs, get insured. What the fuck!?
Like I've said, not everyone is supposed to be a size two. People should love themselves for who they are, and expect others to do the same. People should not, however, rebel against the never thin enough standard with the I Have To Be Weighed At The Zoo Becuase I Obliterate Normal Scales standard. It's just as wrong to date someone because they are over weight as it is to date someone becuase they are under weight with large breasts or perfect pecs. Worst of all, what is wrong with a health care system where people who are partially the cause of sky-high health care costs get insurance while the rest of us are willing to do our own surgeries to avoid a lifetime of medical debt?