Urinating on Private Property

This technically isn't a current event, but the last few weeks have boiled to a head.

Why must men urinate in public on private property? It is revolting, disgusting, absolutely gross. When it dries, it makes a stain. It's not water, people. It doesn't disappear when you're finished. If you don't do it in the bushed or on plant life, you can still see it. The water in it does evaporate, but it is not only water. there is ammonia, salt, and other things your body doesn't want in the blood. These things, without the presence of water, become solid crystals and stain the ground on which you just urinated. And it stays there, even if cleaned. The longer it is left without water, the more it stains, and it becomes like red wine on white carpet. Let's not forget the smell. We all know how urine smells. Sometimes it smells bad and other times not so bad, but we all admit it is never rose-smelling. So why do we do it? It brings nothing to the table. There are numerous public restrooms at shopping centers/malls.

There is a purpose for my ranting about urinating on buildings. For the last 2 months, I have been dealing with clever individuals that pee at my work that I cannot find on cameras. They find the locations that are out of the angles and views of the cameras. There is also the fact that I cannot pinpoint the people doing it, as there is too much traffic in and out all the time, especially late in the evening after I go home, and early morning before I get to work. Without being able to see who does, I am resigned to cleaning up the stinky mess and hoping it doesn't happen again.

I am revolted by this action. I cannot stand it. It pisses me off to no end and it probably raises my blood pressure. I'm not sure what pisses me off more: the actual urinating on the wall, or the fact that I cannot determine the perpetrators. It is absolutely frustrating. What I would like to do is to catch these fuckers in action and shame them into the pieces of shit they really are. Sometimes I have found that it has happened during the day when the office is open. WE HAVE A FUCKING BATHROOM FOR THE FUCKING PUBLIC.

It's an offense for which I would like to shoot people in the head. I want it to stop. I want to find the urinators. I want to chop off their penises a la Mrs. Bobbitt and dump a shitload (do not pardon the pun) of piss on their fucking houses, in their houses, and on their clothes.

It's time for these fuckers and pissers and douchebags to get some fucking manners and realize that private property and your desire to evacuate your bladder do not go hand-in-hand. I don't think it's too much to ask someone who most likely has a home with at least one toilet and has been using a toilet since they were about 2-3 years old. Perhaps I should start selling adult diapers in the office for these fuckheads who feel so strongly about peeing in public.

I. FUCKING. HATE. PUBLIC. URINATORS.

/end rant

I Weigh in on Miss California

So by now everyone has seen the clip of Miss California totally blowing a question on the issue of same-sex marriage:



Ok, so Perez asked her if other states should follow Vermont's lead, and she starts out by saying that she thinks it is great that Americans can choose. Doesn't answer the question by any means. She is specifically asked if states should fall in line and grant same-sex marriage, and she says that it is great that Americans can choose same-sex marriage. That's not a choice! You either have it or you don't. Heterosexuals don't say to themselves: "Hmmm, I have the choice to either marry the opposite sex or the same sex. The choice is too hard, I think I'll flip a coin." That doesn't make any sense. The legislature CHOSE to enact a law granting same sex marriage, but no individual is choosing to do it just for the fact that the choice has been granted. She also says "we live in a land where you can choose" and she thinks it's "great". But then 10 seconds later she says in her country, marriage is between a man and a woman. In her country? That must not be the USA, because she just said that we live in a land that grants same-sex marriage.

Don't even get me started on "opposite marriage" because I have no idea what that is. For the countless times she's heard traditional marriage, she was so nervous, she couldn't spit that out. In all actuality opposite marriage would be divorce or separation, as the opposite of marriage. If she was going to throw in the word opposite before marriage, she should have squeezed "sex" in the middle and it would have made much more sense.

Another one: "[she] thinks [she] believes" that a marriage is between a man and a woman, but since she said she thinks, she is obviously unsure of herself and her non-answer. She either thinks or believes, but not together or the other way around, because it just makes you sound uncertain and brainwashed. "I think I believe the grass is green, but I am incapable of seeing the color green."

And lastly, you cannot say that you were raised to believe marriage is between a man and a woman, a) as I am sure that never was a conversation when you were a kid, nor were you ever taught that, except maybe sparingly in Sunday school, and b) come out the next day and say your sister is a gay rights activist so it makes it OK, even though you were most likely raised the same way with the same parent who most likely held the same values as the two of you were growing up. It makes it sound like your sister is some sort of black sheep of the family, was raised horribly, or decided to cast off your family values like some rebel with a cause because it magically popped into her head.

The non-answer is filled with crap, and sure she was nervous, but if you're on stage in just a bikini, I think you can answer a simple question. A simple NO and then a supporting explanation would have answered Perez's question. Not some diplomatic "everyone wins" sort of answer with "my opinion" thrown in there for good measure.

DO IT New York

If New York passes the bill proposed by Governor David Paterson on legalizing same-sex marriage, that would be historically awesome. They would be the second state to legalize through the legislature after their neighbor Vermont, and we all know many gays and lesbians live in and around New York City.

I know I haven't talked about same-sex marriage a lot since I first opened my blog with all the jazz on Prop 8 here in California, but I've been extremely happy about the recent developments in Iowa and Vermont, which is better news for us Californians.

Unfortunately, we still have to deal with Constitutional arguments in the California Supreme Court, as opposed to directly attacking the problem of stripping rights away from citizens.

I've got fingers crossed for New York that they do the right thing, and that more states start following suit. California, we're still waiting.

If you are wondering what might become of certain states that might accept same-sex marriage in the end, look to my previous post about secession, all the way at the end. You will all understand since Canada has been allowing same-sex marriage for years.

The Force is Strong ... in Scotland. (LINK)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8003067.stm

Gotta love the British for taking unto themselves an awesome philosophy. Even if it's a joke, it's an awesome joke for those police officers.

Let's hope that for Scotland's sake, they aren't corrupted by the darkside. That would not be good for fighting criminals.

What's All This I Hear About Secession?

Since secession failed so miserably during the Civil War, you'd think Americans wouldn't use it as a go-to slogan anymore. You'd be wrong in your thinking though. All across the dumbass part of the nation, stupid speech reared it's stupid ugly head yesterday during those god-awful tea party protests.

Even Texas Governor Rick Perry got into the spirit of things by stopping just short of suggesting it speaking at a tea party event. He even signed a bill the other say declaring Texas' sovereignty. And while he was speaking, many people would just scream out "secede!

" It wasn't only in Texas either, and it has been going on for weeks since the stimulus package was passed and signed into law. Ignorant people everywhere who haven't learned about how damaging the Civil War actually was just shout it out because they think they are clever or something.

I have news for everyone who thinks that way: You are not clever. You will never be clever. You will live a hateful life. You will live an ignorant life. You will live a stupid life. Believe in what you want, but if you are truly American you will understand that talk of secession is treason and is punishable by death.

The Civil War was HORRIBLE. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It was a war where more Americans were killed than all the other wars we've fought combined. It is the last war we've fought on American soil. That'd be more than 100 years ago. Before that, remember, we fought most of the wars on our soil (e.g. The Revolution or the War of 1812). It is important to note that the Confederacy was only victorious for so many years because the North and South were starkly different. They had no money, they had very few resources, and by far fewer numbers to recruit (as they did not want to allow black slaves to fight on their side). It was a complete disaster for both sides and something that had to prevented in the future at all costs.

So when people say it is patriotic to secede should crack open in a history and look at how patriotism worked then. And then they should think about their stupid speech, wondering why people in power or supposed authority get the right to say such things. For once, I would like to see someone get arrested for treason or conspiracy to commit treason. Show the sheep what it means to talk about secession. Show them what happened to all of the Confederate States of America when they had to rejoin the Union, including Texas. The country is not best served by fanaticism, but by moderation.

Sure, you don't like what Barack Obama is doing, but hey, we put up with George Bush for 8 years, so you can sit down and shut up, because there were legitimate causes to protest back then, and I don't recall any politician screaming we should secede then. It makes all of you secession screamers look foolish and silly, in addition to dumb and easily swayed to the extreme.

However, you can't to these people. They don't get it, and probably never will, because the talking heads don't want to get it. And thus keeps up the vicious cycle of stupid speech.

Oh, human nature, how I lo(ath)ve thee.

This is secession at its finest:

Use Condoms Fools!

The Pope don't know what he be talking about, yo! Listen to kung-fu Jesus!

I like how the Pope's face is blurred out. Probably a Pope John Paul II action figure. Good times.

Barack Obama Spoken Backwards is Satan

So, I'm sure you've all heard about reverse speech found in music and spoken words. It is something that is made fun of by comedians and anyone with a brain. It is used by fear mongers to advance an agenda to the unwitting public. But it actually has some psychological underpinnings. It can be studied, and it has been studied by cognitive psychologists. But first a little taste:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So Barack tells us to serve Satan, and all that jazz, just by reversing his phrases. You would totally be surprised at how many words int he English language when reversed sound like Satan. Now, I used the word "sound like" because no one can be totally sure the reversed audio is actually saying "Satan".

The term used for reversed audio is backmasking, which basically means hiding a message purposefully in reversed music or speech, for a dastardly agenda, like telling people to subconsciously serve Satan. However, if one is not told what to listen for, then most of the time you won't hear what is purported to be said. The main problem with the Rachel Maddow clip is that she shows us what is being said, written on the screen, so your brain doesn't hear the audio without any previously gained knowledge. It is the main difference for top-down and bottom-up processing of information. Bottom-up processing is what your brain would have to do to the reversed audio if you never heard it before and weren't given any cues as to what is being said. Top-down is what the clip did. You read the information presented on the screen, and the more times the audio was played the better you "heard" what it was saying. You were given the knowledge beforehand, which makes it top-down processing.

Not to bore you, but the research I have done, and hope to continue to do, is instead of presenting the actual words of the phrases of the backmasked audio, I presented visual stimuli, i.e. pictures, of what the main item of the phrases were. The majority of the people could not decipher the reversed audio. Which means that the visual stimuli did not present the information necessary to make the processing top-down. Thus, it can be said that backmasking may not be real if one is not told what to listen for.

There are people that are huge proponents of backmasking, essentially with the evil messages of Satan and telling kids to kill people or smoke stuff. Now, I have a test for you:

Listen to the first video/audio for the forward music. Then listen to the second one for the reversed audio. Comment what you think the reversed one is saying. NO cheating either!

The Beatles - I Am Tired Forward

The Beatles - I Am Tired Reversed

(They are links to .mp3 files; they should play automatically in your browser depending on what you're using.)

If you can't get it, I'll tell you later, but you have to work it out for yourself. It is gonna be hard, just a fair warning. However, if you've heard it before and know the answer, it will be as apparent as forward speech. I've heard it so many times, I cannot get it out of my head unless somebody hits me really hard, and even then, who knows if it will be gone.

So the moral of the story is: don't believe everything you hear. Just support Obama and Satan.

Just a quick edit: Here's a site that has a good amount of backmasked audio from famous music sources: BackmaskOnline

Michelle Bachmann... Part Deux

I found this video while surfing HuffPost:



So what is it with this woman? Is she Joe McCarthy reincarnated? Is it some weird ritual that put his soul into her body, like in The Mummy 2? What is it with her? She spews hate like she's a hate-breathing dragon. I get she has her views on the world, but do they have to be so utterly extreme? Does she have to tell the poor confused moderate part of the country that "re-education camps" are what Obama wants to do? Does she realize that she uses words that are intentionally loaded? Does she not understand that people will take her words literally? Does she not understand that people are dying taking words literally (e.g. the Koran)?

I thought when Barack Obama was elected by a large margin over Old Man and Crazy Hypocrite, the country had agreed that right-wing policies were failing the country as a whole. I guess not, seeing as how left-wing policies need to be stopped at all costs! We cannot elect a liberal-centrist and allow him to change the country the way he sees it! Don't be silly, we elect a liberal, but they must follow conservative agendas. That's how the US works.

Wrong. That's how Michelle Bachmann thinks the country works. Lucky for the rest of us, she doesn't get much of a say int eh House of Reps, seeing she is the in the minority of the minority.

She needs to go away. She needs to get out of national politics. Resign, or something. The Radio hosts says at the beginning of the movie that she hopes MB runs against Amy Klobuchar in 2012 for the Senate seat. I hope she does, because Amy Klobuchar has a bigger chance to win the entire state than Michelle Bachmann can squeeze out in her own district. Then she'll be out of the House and Senate! One can only hope.

However, there is one upside to her spouting off her mouth: She and people like Sarah Palin keep putting their feet further down their mouths, digging the hole of the über-conservative part of the Republican party deeper and deeper.

I guess I'll keep up my crusade against stupid speech. I'll be keeping my eye on her. Don't think Part Deux the last...

Religious Majorities: My Thoughts

I skimmed a new Newsweek article that touched on a possible "end" to "Christian America" (LINK) and I am actually happy about the new statistics regarding religion in America.

I am an agnostic individual. I do not confirm nor deny the existence of a God or gods that may or may not exist in the supernaturality (if it's not a word, it should be). I gracefully take a skeptic's stance in the face of organized religion, effectively saying the phrase, "I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I'm going to questions 'why?'". My main problem with humans is the creation of such religions that claim extraordinary things. I understand that humans must make sense of the world around us, creating explanations of unexplainable things, but when it is morphed into any old interpretation, used as a rule of law or moral code for the majority, there is a problem.

For any of you that come from my Facebook, my info states under my religious views that I don't care, as long as you don't tell me you're right. Which is as plain as I can be. I am more than willing to discuss theology with anyone, use their circular logic against them, but when I am told that I am wrong and they are right, there is a disconnect. If I truly believed the sky was red, and ended a conversation with "you're wrong, it's not blue, it's red, I'm right," you'd look at me as if I were crazy and walk away. This is my feeling on proselytizing is it should not be around. If we are all truly meant to believe in something, it would present itself to each and every one of us, and make us a core believer, not a follower of some esoteric doctrine said on high. Of course, there is that convenient thing in Christianity saying that if one does not accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior, then one is doomed to damnation, electrifying the whole free-will debate (but that's a whole different story for another time).

So to say that Christian America is shrinking is to say that we as a nation are moving toward a more inclusive country, that even though our fore fathers were Christian and used Christian principles to govern, we can still use those laws in a blanket fashion, where one's creed or religious affiliation has nothing to do with how one is treated. One specific debate would be same-sex marriage: Is it morally wrong for two people of the same sex to have a legal joining under the eyes of the law based on the teachings of people who don't exist anymore, or is discriminatory to not offer Bob and Rob the same rights under the law as Bob and Sue, regardless what the teachings say in that case?

What I see in the fall of any religious majority in any country is parity among all who dwell within. Because then, and only then, does the rights of man (and woman) come before the rights of a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu.

The more people who become atheists or agnostics create an army of questioners (some more than others, of course) that pause to look at the moral majority, and say "Wait a second, that doesn't sound right..."

Think of this way, if you are religious and spiritual and believe the Bible: The more non-believers there are means heaven won't be so crowded. Just something to think about the next time you try to spread the good news.

I know there are some strong thoughts and viewpoints on the other side, so I am willing to hear them!

Fox News is on Top...? (LINK)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/fox-news-claims-9-of-top_n_181878.html

This is shocking to me. How is that a cable channel where facts and logic are optional wins ratings battles for cable and has the top 9 shows in cable news? I do not understand this. Obama wins by a large margin, by a huge electoral vote margin, along with the popular vote, and Congress gains huge Democratic majorities, a mandate if you will to change Washington. It is no secret Fox has been and is a cheerleader for the Bush Administration and Republicans. Only a few times have I seen on that channel a break from talking points or accountability toward the Republican party. Bush chose his interviews wisely, and most of the time it was on Fox. So how did Fox do it?

Because now there are not the cheerleaders. They now get to be the channel of the regular folk, not beholden to any major authority in politics. But none of the personalities have changed, save for Glenn Beck. How does that work when Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly are backing up President Bush's choice to enter Iraq to criticizing Obama for his own policies? Sure, they might not agree, but the viewers should not have changed. If you hated liberals and liked Bush, then you watched Fox. If you hate liberals and like Republicans, then you watch Fox. Where's the disconnect? Where do the increased viewership come from?

I watch all three cable news channels (basically whichever doesn't have a commercial on), and I can't see why anybody would want to watch Billo the Clown, Hannity the manatee, or Glenn "I'm fucking crazy" Beck. It is too bad people fall for this trap of pure populism. I can understand staunch conservatives watch Fox, but normal folk is just ridiculous. This is what adds to the ignorance of Americans, our ethnocentrism, and our arrogance toward the rest of the world.

People need to stop giving Fox the respect it doesn't deserve in the form of ratings. I hope it changes and Fox makes some changes.