At least this post doesn't have a picture of a beautiful girl

I like to imagine myself as a true intellectual, someone that is above the regular riff-raff, someone that has truly evolved. Yes, I like to think of myself as being part of an elite crowd (albeit invisible), a man of quality and discerning tastes. Thus, it is with some hesitation that I have to admit the following things about myself.

I used to like the TV show 7th Heaven. I watched it for a solid two years. Its a show about a self-righteous Christian family. Every show has some sort of religious moral. My initial reasons for starting to watch it were because of the cute girls. Thats pretty shameful too. Then I began to enjoy the plotlines. I eventually stopped watching because the show became ridiculous.

I think Lionel Richie is really good. No, seriously. I honestly think he's really good.

I have a Ringo Starr disco album (but not on cd). Some of the songs are good.

The TV show Survivor is one of my favorite things ever.

I watched Home Improvement in 1991.

My favorite restaurant is Wendy's. I'd rather eat at Wendy's than almost anywhere else.

I have seen every episode of Melrose Place. And I liked them all.

When I was 13 and 14, I avidly watched the Guiding Light. It came on at 3:00, just a little before I got home from school. Don't believe me? Then how could I know who Reva is? How could I possibly know that Beth got blinded at Lujack's club?

My favorite show for at least three years was Dawson's Creek.

I don't think that all of Britney Spears' songs are bad.

Well, thats enough for now, I guess. I can't think of any other awful things. Nevertheless, I think the above offenders are enough to cause any reasonable person to question my judgement.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 4/20/2004 04:35:54 PM

Look at this picture! Do you see this?! Have you ever seen anything more wonderful and horrifying? This man is Keith Moon, deceased drummer for The Who. I'm reading a book about him right now. The book is mostly fascinating, and only occasionally boring. But thats not why I'm writing.

The point of this post is that no one around these days is as interesting as Keith Moon. It seems like back in the 60s and 70s, there were a lot of real nutty eccentrics around, and they were famous. But now, what do we have?! Andy Dick? I don't think so. I mean, holy shit, who would dress like this?

Everything is so homogenized and "safe" now. No one truly interesting every rises to the top. Thats it. No big statements here. Mostly, I just wanted to post this picture for all to see, and enjoy.

I think this problem is one of my own making, but I'm going to explore it here anyway, because it's driving me up the wall

It seems like I've been having a really hard time with people who just don't know when to shut the hell up. I'm talking about co-workers and others that insist on telling me about their lives, and going on and on and on, even though I didn't ask, and I'm obviously bored. I THINK its obvious.

Okay, if someone is talking to me, and I'm either bored or not interested, I respond with various dismissive utterances such as "oh" and "oh really". Perhaps I break out "Uh huh", "Wow", "That's interesting", "Hmm, I don't know". And if thats not enough, sometimes I'll actually be typing on my computer. Yet, for some reason my little cues are being missed! Why?

Work is the most obvious manifestation of this problem, but it seems like I get it a lot elsewhere as well. People just can't seem to take the hint. Isn't this part of the basic of social interaction? As you talk, aren't you supposed to be sort of gaging the responses you get, and making adjustments, or possibly deciding to just bail? Isn't that how people figure out with whom to be friends? I would think that if everytime you talk to someone they seem bored, then you might look elsewhere for verbal gratification.

Well, I just don't get it. I think its possible that I'm simply not being rude enough to make my point. Maybe I should try, "Excuse me, but could bugger off?"

This post is in response to a comment regarding the viability of Social Security that was made in yesterday's entry about 911. The following explanation is a brief summary, off the top of my head, so don't hold me to specific facts. I'd have to analyze the budget for the past 25 years to get every fact straight. This is my understanding based on numerous readings over the years. It isn't a term paper.

The WWII generation had more children per family than the succeeding generations. The baby boom generation included people born from after the war until 1964 (I think), which counts for 77 million people. If you assume that each individual reproduces, you would expect another 77 million. However, several trends occurred that discouraged that. First, birth control. Second, women working. Third, increased cost of living compared to wages. These forces meant that the boomers did not reproduce 1:1, let alone 2:1 or 3:1, such as their parents did.

The program did not intend for children to pay for their parent's social security. It really WAS a retirement-type plan. If everybody paid in, then over a lifetime, more than enough money would be available. However, starting in the 80s (I don't think any sooner) the President and Congress started to spend the Social Security surplus (the boomer contributions effectively) on defense spending, and social programs. This continued into the 90s, to the point where the budget actually included the surplus.

Now that the boomers are close to collecting, the money isn't there. Nor are there enough workers contributing to the system to make up for the difference. And even if there were enough worker contributions, the money is being spent on current projects because they still include "surplus" amounts in the budget. That was a campaign issue in 2000, the source of Gore's much maligned "lockbox" terminology. He wanted to stop the practice of budgeting the social security surplus.

And now we're stuck with it...

Now that we live in a "9/11 World", its almost hard to imagine that there was ever a time when we didn't live with the spectre of "9/11" looming over our public lives, political culture, and pop culture.

Within hours of the terrorist attacks, President Bush, declared that we were in a new war, a war on terror. Remember back to those days in early September when it was decided that our country was now going to be in a long, protracted war against all evil-doers? It seems like it was preordained when we first heard it. No one in the major media outlets questioned it. As far as I could tell, the general consensus was "Oh yes, war on terror. Of course. Kick their asses!" Since that time, the U.S. has attacked Afghanistan, specifically the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In addition, the Patriot Act passed Congress and was signed into law, and then Iraq was also attacked. All in the name of "the war on terror".

Allow me to now present an alternative view...

The planes crashed into the buildings, and the media goes nuts. Coverage of the attacks was 24/7. Then we hear pronouncements about evildoers, the Congress singing God Bless America, an endless stream on analysts telling us that "everything has changed" and "nothing will ever be the same", the terminology "9/11", tribute songs, large rock concerts, no sporting event took place without a moment of silence, pictures of crying eagles sprouted in our nation's cubicles, we were constantly told about how "America came together", and every so many weeks we'd go on "high alert". At this point, everything became about 9/11 and the "war on terror". Flags appears everywhere. An SUV wasn't complete without a flag sticker.

But why? Who determined what the terrorists attacks would mean? And how did this happen? Did it ever occur to anyone that it was through the various major media outlets that we were taught what terrorist attacks meant? My premise here is that what we know as "9/11" is a contrived notion. We were provided this umbrella concept of "9/11" by all of our favorites TV channels, radio stations, newspapers, and magazines. Now "9/11" is an unassailable concept. Its heresy to even question it for fear of appearing "unpatriotric".

Did terrorists attack the United States? Of course. Did people die? Absolutely. Was it horrific and awful? Yeah, is was terrible. But so are a lot of things. Its terrible that hundreds of people are dying every week in the Sudan. Its terrible that the U.S. has killed thousands of Iraqi's in an unprovoked war. Killing innocent people is bad. Its ALL bad. My point, however, is that we consumers of American pop culture and media were given our beliefs about "9/11". We were told what it meant, and what should be done, and for the most part took it for granted. After all, seeing planes fly into buildings IS pretty maddening.

I'm not saying that this was a conspiracy. I don't think that all of the various players in public life could ever be so coordinated to pull that off. What I AM saying is that there were many people who helped form the concept that "9/11" and "The War On Terror" is the new Communism, and and make it our reality. And now it is used to preemptively attack other countries based on weak intelligence, establish new laws that threaten our civil liberties, and fund an entire new generation of defense spending. Now, we are supposed to believe that we are constantly in danger, and that any amount of spending of our tax dollars to supposedly ease our fears is absolutely necessary.

Now let me quickly dispel a few ridiculous notions:

The War On Terror: There is no such thing. You can't win a war on terror any more than you can win a war on hate. There will never be a time when we can sit back and say "Well, everybody loves us again". The "War On Terror" is a concept used to polarize people, and spend money that helps certain people and industries, while crippling others.

9/11: September 11 is a date on the calendar. 9/11 is a way of expressing that date. The United States was attacked by the Al Qaeda network on September 11th. "9/11" is a metaphor that obscures and confuses the meaning of the actual event that occurred on September 11th.

America Came Together In A Time Of Tragedy: Uh, no we didn't. Some people volunteered to help in New York City. And Congress sang a song. People didn't call President Bush an idiot for a couple weeks (even though they probably should have). Maybe some people were a little more polite, but thats it.

They Hate Us For Our Freedoms: Wrong again. They hate us because we have wealth, and affluence, and privileges that they don't have. They also hate us because we aren't a conservative Muslim state. "They" want to be free to live as they wish, which is in an Islamic state, without outside influences. They don't want to be "free" like us. That isn't what "freedom" means to them.

George Bush brought the country together in the aftermath of 9/11: Bullshit. He did what any President would do, but worse.

Here is my "9/11": It looked like something I've only seen in movies. Its hard to believe that the World Trade Center collapsed, and the Pentagon was hit too. It must've been terrible to be in those planes. We should destroy Al Qaeda. In other words, have a war with Al Qaeda, not "terror". Otherwise, my life is pretty much the same. Actually, its totally the same. I still have a greater chance of dying because of a drunk driver than in a terrorist attack. And I still think that preserving Social Security the most important priority for this country. I've been paying into that program for ten years, and if isn't going to be around in 30 years, I want my money back. I think that getting a decent prescription drug benefit in Medicare is important. Drug costs are out of control. I think that ensuring that workers in this country (and others) are treated with respect and paid fairly, is something that will have impact on me, and almost everyone else.

Terrorism is a joke compared to those things.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 4/15/2004 04:36:58 PM

With a title like that, who knows what could be coming next?

Let me tell you, I live a life of sexual anguish. When I was a teenager, I thought my sexual anguish was due to never having any sex. At the late age of 17, I was seriously thinking that I might go the distance. When my own personal sexual revolution occurred at a little over age 19, it was a wondrous occasion. Finally, I though, I was in the land of the sexually normal. Shortly thereafter, I realized that while I may technical "had sex", I had not extinguished my "anguish".

It also seemed that most of my male friends were subject to this anguish. Thus, I tricked myself into believing it was "normal". Eventually, I realized that we had unknowingly selected each other as friends because of our mutual sense of anguish and low self-esteem. Allow me to list the qualities of this anguish:

Wanting to have sex with every half-decent looking woman

Knowing in one's deepest heart of hearts that it won't happen

The realization that any woman we see will reject us... this includes the woman on the bus, the woman at work, the waitress, the girl at Starbucks giving you change for coffee. They don't want to go out with you. They don't care how talented you are. They don't want to know you. They don't even know that you exist.

Only mentally disturbed girls like us.

A deep-seated sense of embedded rejection that exists whether or not we're actually being rejected in the moment.

Contrast this with more or less average guys who may have the first quality, but not the others, and you'll see why this is a problem. Much of life in this condition can be pretty unpleasant. Basically, everywhere one goes is an opportunity for rejection that is always fulfilled. One solution is to simply stay indoors. It works!

Interestingly enough, actually having sex does little to fix the problem. The anguished condition initially subsides, but then shortly returns with a vengeance. Why? Well, if its a short-term fling, then one would want an ever-expanding supply of short term flings (if one is really attractive, this becomes a sexual addiction). Or, the short-term thing would be discredited for one reason or another (person was ugly, drunk, insane, etc...). If its a relationship, then the anguish takes a different form altogether. I think its because of a false belief that implies that because at least one girl likes you, then you may have a chance with all the others too. But it doesn't matter, because you can't (shouldn't, dont want to) cheat. So the pain becomes just a tad worse because now even if "any girl" likes you (which she doesn't), you can't do anything about it.

God, whats the end result of all of this?

You can do nothing and just continue to be miserable (my usual choice).

You can try to live out your urges. Preferably you don't get married. You really have to be pretty good-looking for this to have any success though.

You can cheat on your spouse or girlfriend as you follow through with your newfound addiction.

You can get married, and secretly lust over every girl in the world

You can get married, and seek therapy to learn to deal with sexual urges. Thats what I do! Although, in all honesty, the therapy came first.

What is the root cause of all this, you may wonder? Well, its low self-esteem, of course! Yes, low self-valuation, a core belief in one's lack of worth. Yep, it all stems from that one simple place. Oh, and the other belief has to be that "sex" and how much you have it is an extremely important measure of self worth. Good luck trying to fix it. Try pills!

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 4/13/2004 02:30:11 PM

Instead of my usual pissing and bitching about something which is totally out of my control, this posting is going to be personal.

I'm a married person now. It was insanely easy to get married. We got a license at the county courthouse, then we signed it, and my parents signed, and we were married. Thats it! Legally, it's called a Quaker Wedding. There is no ceremony, nor does anyone officiate it. The only requirement is that two witnesses sign the license. I'm sure a little more is expected if the wedding is religious.

Despite having no ritual or ceremony, I still felt, and continue to feel unusual about it. I'm "married". It doesn't resonate. And it doesn't seem like it was before. I guess it is, but I feel "weird".

The next day, we embarked upon our "honeymoon" which was a 3 day trip to Philadelphia, where I lived for seven years in the 90s. Almost all of the activities revolved around food in some way. First up was the Ruby Chinese restaurant in Roxborough. It was still there, but the food was different. Then we drove to where I used to live in East Falls. Then we drove through the hood and up to where I went to art school for two years, Tyler School Of Art. Jesus, that place was the same as ever! But thats another story...

The next day, we went to South Street. Tower Records was still there, but I didn't give a shit. It still smelled too. Tower Books was gone. As was South Street Books. Then we walked up through the historic district and checked out Benjamin Franklin's privy, and a few other sites. We then drove up through China Town, which is only a couple blocks. We made some purchases there. More on that later. During the afternoon I realized I had forgotten to take my meds, and was thus, having withdrawal symtoms. So we went back to the hotel. We had dinner at Bertucci's, which is a chain brick-oven pizza place that is fucking fantastic, and only on the east coast.

I continued to suffer from the withdrawal for most of the day, and didn't sleep very well that night. Nevertheless, we managed to make it to Pat's Steaks, which was just as good as ever. There were a ton of people there though, and most of them were telling their friends how Pat's was "like the Soup Nazi". Its getting way too popular.

That was pretty much it. Then we drove home the next day.

So, the long and short of it is that I'm married now. I still feel pretty unusual about it. Oh, and Philadelphia has changed some, and not for the better in most cases.

The idea of The Pixies reforming doesn't exactly make me happy. I became a fan shortly after the release of Bossanova, in 1990. Prior to that, I had heard both Surfer Rosa and Doolittle hundreds of times in my friend's dorm room, and I liked both (yes, it took me some time to become a "fan"). By 1991 or 1992, I had reached the conclusion that the Pixies were probably the best "new" band around, with Janes Addiction and REM close behind. Shortly thereafter, the Pixies broke up, and that was that.

Then, as music fans will know, every two-bit "alterna-band" ripped off the Pixies sound. God, the list just goes on and on. I'll name a few of the irritating acts that come to the top of my head: Weezer, Veruca Salt (ech!), Better Than Ezra (who??), Letters To Cleo (yuck!), Marcy Playground (why do I remember them?), Radiohead (early stuff), Belly, etc... I know there were plenty of others about which I've forgetten. I'm thankful for that. Of course, the most famous of the Pixies' followers was Nirvana and Kurt Cobain who openly admitted the Pixies' influence.

I don't count Kim Deal's Breeders or Frank Black solo as "sounding like the Pixies". They WERE IN The Pixies goddamn it.

So now, 12 years after the Pixies disbanded, Frank Black has agreed to/decided to reform The Pixies. People seem to be clamoring for it too. I'm not sure who these people are, but their concerts are selling out. Personally, I think its WAY too late. The Pixies were a great band, with a unique sound and songwriting vision, but their style has been so bastardized by the wannabees that when I hear the Pixies, it doesn't sound particularly original. Still, if they come to Pittsburgh, I'll try to go if for nothing else, than to check out Frank Black.

That picture at the top is what Frank Black looks like now. To the left is what he looked like back in the Pixies-era. Obviously he doesn't look so hot. And he's aged worse than me. Nevertheless, he's pretty damn good. This is what talented people are SUPPOSED to look like. He's also not financial well-to-do, which actually seems like an injustice to me, given his body of work. So a fat paycheck might be some of the motivation behind the reunion. I guess he deserves to cash in. Its just WAY too late now. I think the posthumous buzz surrounding The Pixies peaked in the mid-90s.

I've been listening to Frank Black's solo stuff recently, including his most recent album, and I think it sounds pretty damn vital. So I seriously doubt this is an artistic move. If he's doing it for the money, then God bless him, I hope he gets some. The man who wrote "Monkey Gone To Heaven" and "Debaser" should at least have a boat. Still, I'm really skeptical that anything the Pixies do now will be half as good. Plus, Gen-X alterna-stalgia seems like a generally grim prospect for all us.

Everything is new, When the sky is blue, You got everything to do - Frank Black

UPDATE: I guess this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Aside from the occassional album release, the only things I've ever read about Kim Deal is how she hangs out at some bar in Southern California where she smokes and drinks from morning until evening. Who knows if that's true, but this picture does nothing to disprove that possibility. Damn, I used to think she was so hot too. I'm pretty sure that time is our enemy. Not to mention booze and cigarettes.

I'd like to point out a couple of quick things to my precious readers. Perhaps some of you already know all of this good stuff. I graduated from college just over nine years ago now with a degree in Political Science. Now that we're in yet another Presidential election cycle, the third since my graduation, but the first since the creation of this site, I'm going to share some insights that I learned from the years pursuing my degree.

Most legislators are dedicated public servants who try to do what the believe is right

Most legislators are very concerned about their districts, and will pay special attention to your concerns

Most legislators could make more money in the private sector.

The President has a lot of power. The President can appoint judges, decide how or if certain laws will be enforced, and set the agenda in Congress for legislation he wants to push. The President can perform certain acts by Executive Privilege. These include appointing revoking certain regulations and using military force.

Only Congress can spend money. Only congress has the authority to determine how the money with be spent. The president's budget is a recommendation only.

The influence of "special interests" on legislation is not clear. Lobbyists and Interest Groups attempt to influence through campaign donations as well as providing education on the issues (lavish vacations and dinners are the exception). Frequently, the Interest Groups support legislators that already share the views of the group.

A career in Washington is a distinct possibility. Someone with a specialty in a certain area can move from branch to branch, and in and out of the private and public sectors.

Frequently, laws are enforced by the industries impacted by the law. Sometimes, these same people actually assist in writing the laws. Why? Partially because they are the only ones that know HOW to write and enforce the regulations (ex. Who can enforce nuclear energy policy except experts in that field?)

Everything comes down to money. There is a certain amount available, and its a zero-sum game. Everyone competes for their share. If you want to know about public policy, then read the legislation, and check out the vote.

The media is out for itself. It isn't liberal or conservative. Media companies are for-profit. They report the news and information that they feel will appeal to advertisers and viewers.

All of the information to be informed is out there, but sometimes it's hard to interpret. The following web sites will give you a good start.

Congress.org: This webpage has a liberal slant, but it also presents all of the details on legislation, and recent votes. Plus, its a fairly easy site to navigate.
GPO Access: The Government Printing Office provides legislative, judicial, and executive details about public policy.
FactCheck.org: Factcheck.org analyzes the accuracy of election campaign advertising.
US House Of Representatives: Hard to use, and hard to navigate, but its all there.
US Senate: Again, hard to use and hard to navigate, but it has everything you need to know about ongoings in the Senate.
Open Secrets: A detailed, but easy use site that tracks Campaign donations in every way imaginable. Every wonder why your representative voted a certain way? Well, you may never know, but looking at who donated may give you some tips.

People complain that information isn't available. Don't believe it. There is plenty of information. There is more information than time. Certain political leaders rely on the public's ignorance and unwillingness to learn about the issues and candidates. Unfortunately, neither of the two parties takes the high road on this. They distort the information, mislead, and falsify information in order to influence public opinion. But the information is all out there if people would just take the time to educate themselves.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 4/06/2004 04:19:51 PM

One of the few times I endorse something...

People, Freaks And Geeks is now on DVD. This show was briefly on NBC. I believe it aired in the fall of 1999. Then it was pulled from the schedule because of baseball, then came back again in November, then got pulled again around Christmas. Then several more episodes trickled out over the next few months, and by spring it was all over. They made 18 episodes, but it was a great show.

Every so often, network TV does something right. In this case, NBC did something right. Then immediately corrected themselves by drowning the best show they had in years on Friday and/or Saturday night, then putting it on hiatus several times during its run, then finally cancelling it. Screw them.

The show is vaguely similar to The Wonder Years, but far superior. Freaks And Geeks was set in 1980, had better and more realistic characters, and no cloying voice-overs. Go get it now.

Enough for now. Must get back to watching Suddenly Susan (all four seasons of it), Veronica's Closet (all three seasons), and Caroline In The City (all four seasons). Would somebody kill me? I swear the producers of these shows must have pictures of NBC executives having sex with goats. Ugh...

There have been far too many pictures of hot girls on this page recently....

Again, one of my pronouncements on the nature of fame is coming true. I wrote about this some time ago in a post titled There Is Too Much Talent In The World. Without rehashing that post, the basic point I was making was that being talented is so easy these days that even really attractive people can do it. Whereas, prior to TV, movies, and rock 'n' roll, it was so hard to get good at something like music or art that only unattractive people had the time to do it.

So now we have Nellie McKay to contend with. Who do I mean by "we"? Well, all of us wankers of course!

There are plenty of examples of accolades. Here is an example from the Washington Post. She's sorted being hyped as an edgier version of Norah Jones. She's also whiter, but I can't honestly say if that has anything to do with it.

I'm sure this girl IS talented. She's 19, and she's been a musician forever, and she plays piano and writes jazzy music. She's certainly more talented than 95% of the rest of the world, and 99% of famous people. Still, I just know there are plenty of unattractive girls out there who are even better. There have to be. If this really attractive girl can get good, then there must be at least a few really unattractive girls with plenty of time on their hands that have become positively brilliant. There are probably acne-scarred, distorted looking girls with the talent and skill of Mozart, Beethoven, and John Lennon combined. Please come forward! Please reclaim your rightful position along side the likes of Cass Elliot, Patsy Cline, Bonnie Raitt, and Janis Joplin.

The various bios I've read about Nellie McKay haven't mentioned what her school life was like, but how could a girl that looks like this have spent many nights alone in her bedroom in her parent's house. There are tons of guys, I being one of them, that fall (and have fallen) for girls like this all the time... the talented, beautiful, but emotionally unaccessible (I'm just guessing) beautiful young woman.

Well, there isn't anything I can do about it. Talent is dead.

I really don't want to turn this site into the blog equivalent of The Man Show, but I just have to get this off my chest...

I have a huge crush on Barbara Bush.

There I said it. I've been meaning to get that out of the way for a long time now. I don't know anything about her. Supposedly, she's the "shy one", while her sister, Jenna, is the party hound. However, I've also heard that Barbara can kick it up a little as well.

Nevertheless, what does it mean when you're attracted to George W. Bush's daughter? Is that like being attracted to Hitler's daughter? I read somewhere that the daughters don't go along with all the anti-gay, crazy Republican, Christian bullshit. But does it matter? I mean, she probably loves her dad. And her dad is GEORGE F'IN W BUSH!

So, in another lifetime, in another world, and in another body, with a different face... would I date her? Yes, I probably would. I would at least try. However, its possible, and even quite likely that the Bush Universe is so repugnant that I'd be unable to sustain it with Barbara for very long, even if I hardly ever had to see the old man. He would be calling, and she'd be talking about the good old days in Kennebunkport, playing doctor with the Culkins (I don't think that ever happened, but you know what I mean). I just wouldn't be able to deal with it.

However, saying that I dated the president's daughter, even if it was George W. Bush's daughter would be better that what I DO have to say: "I dated a psycho-stalker from Chicago, a girl with borderline personality disorder that I met in a mental hospital, a girl that admitted that she didn't like to read, and a girl whose father was a minister, etc..."

I guess that's debateable...

I'm linked over at Bibb's Revenge now. I'm in the big-time now. Watch out New York Times. Thanks Mr. Bibb!

Girls gone wild? No, girls gone stupid...

One good thing about the internet (there are actually about three good things... more on that later) is that it takes the spectacle of public ridicule to heights previously unheard of. Unfortunately, the public ridicule usually comes from Christians and Conservative wackos.

Two days ago, I wrote about "Jen Sincox" and her little Spring Break escapade. Well, it turns out that I wasn't the only one. I recently did a search for Jen Sincox on Google to see if my page came up, and lo and behold, it didn't. BUT... a whole bunch of other pages DID come up. Unfortunately, most of these pages were along the lines of "Jesus Would Be Disappointed" or "Her parents must be proud".

Damn, some of the pages are straight up bigoted, anti-gay, conservative, Christian bullshit!

First of all, I'd like to commend myself for taking a different type of position on the topic. Secondly, Jesus would not have been disappointed, because when Jesus was on Earth, he was a man, so he would've been turned on. And now that he's dead, it doesn't matter. And third, as for her parents, who even knows if she has parents. They could be dead, or just like her.

It does upset me though, that my page will eventually come up on this search, because I don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of religious wackos.

Let me be clear, my criticism of Miss Sincox is because she is stupid. Nothing else. Holy fuckin' shit, its not because she's a bad Christian! And the larger context of my disapproval is to question where censorship performed in the name of "the kids" has gotten us? So if anybody finds this article, please remember that I made my judgement because Miss Sincox is an idiot, and I'm both marginally jealous and marginally prudish.

As a quick followup, supposedly someone called her father. Whatever...

I just had to get that girl's picture off of the front of my page. It was driving me crazy.

Some of you readers out there may have noticed that for the past two weeks, my entries have been particularly judgmental, and even mean-spirited. And dammit, I didn't get any comments! Okay maybe one or two. But, hell, if it wasn't for Mr. Stone, then there would be nothing.

I make no apologies. I'm just keeping it real.

But it got me thinking about what kind of posts generate interest, and what kind of posts get a big gaping yawn (as determined by the number of comments people leave). Gape...

Posts about baby news: Snore... a couple random comments, but generally not good blog food.

Posts about My Ex-Girlfriend: These were huge snoozefests as far as I can tell. I thought they'd be a big hit. Copying stuff from her blog, and then viciously commenting on it. Sounded like a winner to ME!

Posts where I knock Christianity: These have been popular for the most part, but usually in a bad way because they seem to attract wacky religious people.

Posts that criticize the Iraq War and Bush: These have also been pretty popular, but in a similar way as my Christianity posts. They also get some positive notes though.

Posts that criticize advertising: These have been reasonably popular, usually attracting one or two comments.

Posts where I reminisce about my life: Snore..... understandably.

Posts where I discuss music: I usually get a few comments, so I guess these are fairly popular posts.

Posts where I broadly criticize "people" in a very judgemental way: very unpopular, snooze, etc...

Posts where I criticize or make fun of President Bush: Decent response overall.

Posts about social issues: Some activity here. But not as much as I would've expected.

Posts that contain anti-semitism: No comments. I haven't written anything too anti-semitic. But watch out!

Posts dealing with my sexual frustrations: Not too popular. I understand why too.

Posts criticizing specific celebrities: somewhat popular, but erratic. I thought my Courtney Love post was wonderful, but I got no juice on it. The Whitney Houston post did a little better. The Madonna post got some juice, but its gone because my comments all died at the end of January.

Posts about Spring Break people: Hmm... not too much interest.

Oh well, thats it for the popularity survey.

Next time: More fun with feces!

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 4/01/2004 04:43:36 PM

Get ready for more critical and judgmental stuff...

I'll admit it. In so many ways, I'm a total prude. I'm not quite sure what a prude is, but I'm pretty sure I have a lot of prudish traits. When it comes to sex and hedonistic behavior in general, I'm usually pretty uptight. Although, in fact, I'm also jealous of people who do these things. That said...

On Wednesday, I read an article in the USA Today about Spring Break. I've always been uncomfortable with the whole "Spring Break" phenomenon. I never went to one, of course. And most of what I've seen has been on MTV. The only thing I've ever found appealing about the whole thing is the random, meaningless sex (of which, I've had none). The drunkenness and general chaos seems scary to me.

This article mentioned someone named "Jen Sincox". There are a couple pictures of her in a slideshow accompanying the article. I encourage everyone to check it out. Also, listen to the little soundbites. There is one where she says, "We want to get drunk and naked - that's why we're down here". Another soundbite has her claiming that the guys are doing bodyshots off of her and its "getting good". Oh, and how could I almost forget about how she bought her "slut clothes" before the trip?

This girl is 20. Judging by her pictures, and her quotes, she seems like quite the sloppy tramp (or to use her wording, sloppy "slut"). Would I "do" her? Hell yes! Would I want to have a conversation with her? Hell no! (Yes, I know that is not a very flattering fact about myself)

If she were to read this, I'm sure she would say that I'm an old crank, and I'm just jealous (both true), and that she works hard all year long, and this is just a chance to blow off some steam, followed by "You don't even KNOW me!". Well, that's a huge lie. You know how I know she'd be lying? Look at her body! Its all doughy and bloated. This is obviously not the first time she's blown off steam (or guys... sorry). And trust me, I know everything I need to know. I mean, what if I did KNOW her? How great would my life be then?

And look at the horrible Playboy rabbit tatoo above her bikini (which is quite unflattering given her girth). Clearly, Miss Sincox can claim herself as a proud member of Generation Xtina. You go girl! You show off that gunt! Don't let "society" tell you what you can and cannot wear! I'm sure she's a very intelligent person that has a lot of unique qualities and talents to offer. She probably has a loving family, and she's a true friend.

WHAT? That's not what I really think! How did that get in there????!

Anyway, I see these sorts of things and I have to wonder... what is her phone number?

No, I mean, with all the talk lately about protecting our children and indecency and whatnot, has it escaped everybody that things like this go on constantly? Will removing Howard Stern from six Clear Channel stations prevent future Jen Sincox's? Back in the halcyon day of the late 80s/early 90s, I remember hearing talk about the kids. "What about the kids?" was the response to every form of adult entertainment. Since "Jen Sincox" is 20, that would've made her a "kid" in the time frame I mentioned. A lot of good all that PMRC and Family Council bullshit did HER! Look what she turned into. Someone who buys "slut clothes" and brags about the body shots the guys "do off" her! So, does that mean we should've had more censorship? Or does it mean that all of those efforts to "protect the kids" didn't amount to shit? Personally, I'm going with the latter.

And what about her name, "Sincox"? An article about college kids drinking and having sex, and her name is "Sin.... cox"? And what ABOUT these "cox"? Hmm, very suspicious. Did USA Today search for a person with an ironic name? Or is it a made up name? And she goes to a college called "Ramapo". Its a real school, but it also sounds suspiciously like "Ram A HOE"!!!.

Can any of my New Jersey friends provide some insight?

And again... YES, I know that the guys are just as bad. I'm not picking on them because I feel no sexual frustration regarding them. OF COURSE, those guys standing around her are huge morons. Read the article. Geez...