I threatened to do this a long time ago, and now it has come to pass. Within days I will be starting the process of changing my domain name to http://www.ant-in-a-hailstorm.com. Or to put it another way, Ant In A Hailstorm.

I already have the domain name registered, and you know it was IN DEMAND! But I'll have to do a fair bit of reconfiguration to get everything up and running over there before its officially ready. I'll post a final message here to redirect.

My wife now has a blog. Does saying "my wife" automatically resign me to the world of "lame blogs". Or is that a REDUNDANCY? When will all of this madness end? I'm serious.

I actually encouraged my wife to create a blog. It turns out she already had one, but never used it. I encouraged her to use it for creative writing and social interaction. I'm not going to look for her blog though. I don't know the link or name or anything. I want to read what she writes. I don't know if it's personal or what, but I don't want to be upset, and I don't her to feel like she has to censor. So, there you have it. She says she doesn't read this crap. I think I believe her.

While perusing another site (a blog!), I found out about The 2004 Weblog Awards. Awards, eh? Something about this doesn't sit right with me. On the one hand, I wish that my humble little sink hole would win an award. I suppose if it happened (which it won't), I'd tell people, and I'd post a little banner announcing the news: "Winner - Unfunniest Blog".

But that won't happen. So what do people usually do when they want something they can't have? That's right, they kill people. No, I mean they try to invalidate it. So, thats what I'm going to have to do. Honestly, I think that while this invalidation strategy has its obvious problems, there may also be merits too. For instance, when I decided to hate the popular kids in school, I might have been angry at them. I might have been pissed that they cruelly rejected me. However, did that change the fact that they were rich, slavish, fashion snobs that wore stupid clothes and listened to stupid music? No, of course not! Most of them were mean pricks that deserved to die. (Oops).

So on with my point.... There are something like a million or so blogs. Most of them are bullshit with one post, or some diary junk, or spam, etc... Then there is what I'd assume to be a minority of blogs, where the person (writer) updates at least semi-regularly, considers what to write, and makes an attempt to produce something halfway decent. Then out of that crowd is the super-minority that is really popular. The blogs everyone has a link to. These would be the equivalent of the "cool people" in high school. Then there is a super-duper-minority of blogs, made up of already famous people like Andrew Sullivan, or Michael Moore, or god knows who else. These people don't even need links or blogrolls. They shouldn't even count. Its like if Hilary Duff went to your high school. Of course, she'd be popular. But she's a fucking celebrity. That doesn't count!

Yes, I know. Of course, sometimes the "cool people" were nice, as well as being popular (but usually not).

So, if I won some kind of award (I won't), would I be cool? What if one of my blog friends like Glampers or Mr. Head won? Would they be cool? And thus, would I be cool due to the transitive property? And if any of us actually became cool, would that automatically make us lame? Y'know? Like after R.E.M got too popular? Or would we be the blog equivalent of The Beatles: really good and really popular?

I think its probably better not to dwell on these complicated matters for very long. I'm not cool. I'm not popular. Certainly not in real life, and not in blog life either. So, if I were to win an award (won't happen), I would still be lame ol' me, an ant in a hailstorm of blogs and bullshit.

Next...

My latest couple months of posts have been decidedly impersonal. I've been dealing with various topics as they come up, but this post is going to be a general update about my deep inner life. Very deep.

I'm actually pretty upset about the election. Not only am I saddened by John Kerry's loss, but also by the gains made by conservative Republicans in the House and Senate, and all across the country. It genuinely makes me fear for my country. I try not to be alarmist, however. Thus, I've been spending a lot of my free time reading history and political science books. I've read The Right Nation, by Thomas Frank, to try to get an understanding of the conservative movement, and its place in history. I've also been reading How Democratic is the American Constitution?, by Robert Dahl as a prelude to a further examination of the roots of American-style democracy. Its purely political science stuff.

I'm not sleeping well. First of all, I have a 4+ month old baby, and he isn't consistently sleeping through the night. Let me tell you, there are a hundred books on babies and sleep. And damnit if they don't contradict each other all over the place. One book says that night feedings are good. Another book says bad. One book says don't pick up your crying baby right away. Another book says pick them up immediately. And all of the supporting evidence for the various claims have merit. The problem is that these books are written for "all" babies, and I have a particular baby. So its all very confusing. And of course, our doctor has additional opinions, and so on...

The other sleep problem I have is that I may have sleep apnea. I have to get a sleep test in a couple weeks to find out. Basically, I'm exhausted constantly, and sleepy, and fatigued, and ready to go to bed after roughly 10 hours of wake (sometimes there was a nap in there too).

My health is declining. My total cholesterol is 232. My HDL is 37 and my LDL is 168. My triglycerides are 136. Its not good. Then I had another test called a CRP test which is something of a predictor of heart problems. Apparently, a score between 3.1 and 10.0 is bad. I have 4.2. And I'm still overweight by at least 30 lbs.

My computer at home went down. Its been in the shop for two weeks now. The hard drive went bad. At least I had a back up.

Aside from all the downer stuff here, I'm not feeling too bad. And my little baby is a real joy. He's the cutest little guy, and he's really starting to become more engaged and involved in the world which is a real experience to witness.

Aside from this blog, I haven't done anything creative in a long time. Honestly, I'm not so sure this blog is actually all that creative. There is something unseemly about "blogs". I actively resisted creating a blog for over a year or so after reading John Dvorak's first article on blogs in February 2002. Aside from revealing the incredible history of the word "blog", he made the whole thing seem very average and pointless. Re-reading the article, it still seems dead-on. He has a follow up article on blogs which also hits the mark quite nicely. Well, I've had this blog for 15 months now. Overall, I still think blogs are okay.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 11/22/2004 01:59:00 PM

In this post I reveal myself to be so self-consciously introspective and conflicted that I actually begin to turn myself inside out. Is anybody still reading?

I imagine that by now, all of my Amurrican readers who have no choice in following pop culture to some degree know about the Monday Night Football promo BRU-HA-HA. For you lucky several that live in other more civilized countries, click on the link to see what farcical nonsense the American people are up to this week.

Quick summary: ABC showed a promo for their new HIT TV show Desperate Housewives, in which one of the characters, played by Nicolette Sheridan tempts one of the football players (a large BLACK man) to skip the game, and (presumably) have sex with her. He resists, she drops her towel, revealing nothing more than her back, and knees (tricky camera work). The football player (who is LARGE and BLACK) decides to skip the game. (Check out the ad here). Then conservative folks, and groups such as the American Family Association get pissed off, write letters, the FCC gets involved, the media makes it a big story (no more Scott Peterson, right?) and then ABC Apologized

Wonderful country, eh?

Now, here's the problem for me. I hate BOTH sides of this issue. If there is anything I despise more than pro-family (in other words Christian) advocacy groups and their causes, its advertising! And this commercial was quite simply base. I don't think there was anything remotely sexual about it. It was bullshit and titilation. It wasn't hot. It didn't make me want to pull down my shorts. It was crap. And I hate advertising that uses some pseudo-sexual scenario as a means of attracting attention. I don't care whether its beer, laundry detergent, or cars. That type of advertising is lowest common denominator swill. Not because its sexually provocative, but because its just stupid and insulting.

If they wanted to show something truly hot, and possibly outrageous, get a clip of someone boning the talent-free Lindsay Lohan. Show us some real porn and quit this silly teasing with bare shoulders, and backs of legs.

If someone asked me whether I would like to see more or less of this type of advertising, I'd say "less". That puts me firmly on the side of the moral purists and prudes. That means, on this issue, I am on the side of both people, institutions, and beliefs that I find almost ENTIRELY repugnant.

I heard one of those worthless debates on this promo issue where a conservative argues with a liberal. The liberal guy was all like "I thought it was funny". The conservative guy was all like "I don't want to stop and have to explain to my children why a blonde woman is taking off her towel". I thought they were both full of shit, but while 48% of my anger went to the conservative, 51% of my anger went to liberal. I mean, he "thought it was funny"?! What the hell? What an idiot! Who watches commercials and sits back with a chuckle? Screw him.

The conservative guy was an idiot too though. Yeah, thats a real hard "conversation" to have with your kid. Kids don't think disgusting prurient thoughts. (No, thats for white conservatives). Just tell the kid that she going to take a shower, or that she's married to the BIG BLACK MAN, or she's just changing. Jesus, you people are so stupid! Little kids are not sitting there thinking, "Wait a minute now.... are they going to have rough interracial sexual intercourse? Mom? Dad?" Kids believe in tooth fairies, Santa Clause, Jesus, the Easter Bunny, fairness, etc... Big challenge there to "talk to your kids".

Still, the "duh, it was funny" answer is even more infuriating. So... So what if they don't make commercials with sex, or sexual innuendo, or whatever. I'll be happy about it. I think that using sex to sell crap products and tv shows is an insult. Its like selling life insurance to a fat man by offering candy bars (but then taking them away, of course - right? because average people never actually have sex with tv people).

Goddamnit though, how I hate being on the same side as those AFA people!

I was an Eminem fan almost from the minute he came out with "The Slim Shady LP" back in 1999. I consider myself a "rap purist". I usually like my rap uncommercial, hardcore, and black. I honestly have no idea if liking Eminem means I'm not a purist, but I seriously don't give a shit. Eminem is a lyrical genius madman and that's all there is to it.

This is his fourth album (not counting the 8 Mile soundtrack). At this point, its really hard for Eminem to do anything that is truly new or shocking. His first album, The Slim Shady LP" was precedent setting. His second album, The Marshall Mathers LP" expanded on his first album, and consolidated the Eminem's lyrical brilliance. I considered the subsequent album The Eminem Show to be more of the same, but not as good. Although, it was actually a bigger commercial success. I also didn't particularly care for the 8 Mile soundtrack, but I did like the battle scenes in the movie. "Lose Yourself" lost me.

I started to grow concerned by his work with D12, his "band". I find their stuff to be gimmicky, and I don't think the other guys are even remotely close to being as talented as Eminem. Aside from feeling a loyalty to "put his boys on", I thought he was wasting his time. So naturally, I was not very excited about the new album, Encore.

Well, my concerns were put to rest. I think this album is a return to brilliance. His lyrics may not be as unexpectedly shocking as on his first two albums, but he continues to lay it down, and even occassionally shock. First the good points:

The album is 50% produced by Dr. Dre, which usually elevates the tracks. Eminem's weak spot has always been his non-Dre tracks.

The track "Evil Deeds", which covering familiar ground, covers that ground in interesting ways. "Edna and Charles, Edna and Charles, Edna and Charles..."

He confronts the bullshit feud with Benzino brilliantly on "Yellow Brick Road".

"My 1st Single" has burping and shitting in it, and its funny. Yes, it has actual plopping.

"Rainman" is a goddamn brilliant track lyrically with nice Dre production.

There are numerous other high points. With an Eminem album, every lyric should be closely examined. Its usually worth the extra effort. On the downside, the album's overall packaging, as well as lyrics are occasionally cartoonish. For some reason, Em is so pissed off with his audience that he goes on a shooting rampage which is depicted on the back cover and booklet. Additionally, some of his lyrics seem to be geared to 12 year olds, as if he realizes that he can't simply depend on 30-ish fans, such as myself, to make him a millionaire. Again, the cartoonish violence is a turn-off for me. And I don't know why he's goofing on Michael Jackson. It's beneath him.

Nevertheless, there is plenty to like in this album. Its not as fresh as his first album, but its at least as good as his second album. And no rapping over Aerosmith tracks this time, nor any singing like on the last album.

Its a winner folks. Get it. Like it or not, Eminem is still one of, if not the most, brilliant lyricist/poet/whatever out there.

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 11/17/2004 03:28:00 PM

On the one hand, I know I shouldn't be writing about this. But on the other hand, I'm typing.

One of the HUGE downsides to blog world is that too many people have them. Personally, I doubt that most reasonably "normal" people have a blog. However, if you are even marginally talented as a writer you are much more likely to have one. In addition, you are more likely to interact, and even date people with similarly marginal talents. And in this day and age, that means there is a strong chance that you are dating with people that also have a blog. Probably a boring blog, but a blog nonetheless.

Several months ago, I happened upon the blog of an ex. And then I proceeded to mock her comments. I mocked her pseudo-psychological bullshit psychobabble both HERE and then HERE. At the time, I felt that it was funny. I didn't do anything as crazy as post her name, or include a link to her site. Thus, I viewed the whole episode as virtually a fiction. I mean, who even knows if this so-called "ex-girlfriend" even exists?

And as for now.... well I'm pissed! Why? Because I'm a huge hypocrit? No, but good guess. No, but because she has recently mentioned me on her stupid site and referred to me as "Puke Boy". Yes, it is better than "Likes It In The Ass Boy" or "Republican Boy", but trust me, "Puke Boy" is not meant to flatter.

Okay, so why "Puke Boy"? Well, I'll be honest. I'm all about honesty on this site. Right? Okay then. So I got in way over my head with this girl. WAY over my head. I'm talking changing my personality, beliefs, behavior, values, etc... And if that wasn't bad enough, I nearly bought an investment property with her (with me providing 90% of startup money of course). Then, as had happened with me in the past, I realized all of a sudden that I'd fucked up in a big way. Not wanting to quite admit that I'd been in denial and in a state of virtual delusion, and not wishing to be single again, and not wanting to deal with another hosed up relationship, I attempted to carry on. And that turned out to be simply impossible.

What happened was that I started having panic attacks. And during those panic attacks, I puked, or wretched. On the first day of this process, we went to an expensive restaurant (that I didn't care for), and I ordered some crazy dish with a raw egg, and I got violently ill. I threw up in the bathroom on two occasions. Then I was sick for the next few days, until I got some pills. Pills....

Now, let me tell you, she had absolutely ZERO sympathy for me. As far as SHE knew, I was simply SICK. Just a day before, she's professing her love for me, then the next day she IGNORED me when I was very visibly sick. Well, that was just part of her true personality coming out, the personality that I was trying so hard to convince myself didn't exist.

The relationship limped along for three more weeks. I did my best to avoid her while trying to figure out why all of a sudden I couldn't stand her (there were many reasons, which I won't go into). I went back and forth trying to figure out whether to break up with her or to stick it out. Ultimately, she caught on that something was wrong. And she had a change of heart as well. And she broke up with me, over the phone, stuck me with theater tickets, stole my paints, etc...

So, yes... I AM "Puke Boy". That is how she remembers me. That is how she chose to refer to me. Not as "Very Kind To Her Son - Boy", but "Puke Boy". Hell, the puke was even more relevant to her than the panic attacks. I could very well be "Panic Boy". I like that better actually.

I had actually never puked before during a panic attack. I think that the puking was a result of the horrifying food I tried to eat. Although, I did continue to wretch for a few days. I reckon that I've had around ten panic attacks in my life, although during that one weekend, I had several panic attacks. I count those as one "episode", however. Tony Soprano passes out when he has panic attacks, but my symptoms were pretty much the ones listed under What Happens During A Panic Attack?.

Yeah, so this ex of mine has a blog, and referred to me as "Puke Boy". And I have to take it, y'know? I mean, what are you going to do? Its a bloggy world out there.

Imagine my dismay when I was in Borders yesterday and I see a sign that says "ODB (Russell Jones) November 15, 1968 - November 13, 2004. I'm like "What day is this? Isn't the 13th tomorrow?. Oh fuck, it was yesterday."

How can the Ol' Dirty Bastard be dead?

If this had happened a few years ago, when ODB got into several violent altercations, and ultimately did jail time, this wouldn't have been surprising. An overview of his gruesome downslide is at All Music Guide's Entery for ODB. So when I finally accepted he had died, but before I knew how, I kept going throught the possible scenarios: Drug overdose, gotten the shit beat out of him, shooting, or random heart attack. And wouldn't you know, he died of a randmon heart attack. Surely this was unrelated to the many years of alcoholism and drug abuse.

Well, I just think this sucks. Personally, I think ODB had bipolar disorder, and an early death is pretty typical for such folks. ODB can join the ranks of Keith Moon, Jaco Pastorious, and probably numerous other folks that died young because of their crazy bipolar-related behavior. And yes, I do believe that doing tons of drugs and acting like a maniac, then going into recovery, and then dying of a heart attack to have its roots in bipolar disorder

Of course, for as sad as I am about this, I do realize that the loss of ODB is not the same as say, John Lennon. "I felt the earth tremble under my balls. Something shot out of me real fast" is not quite the same as "All we are saying is give peace a chance". Nor does ODB's back catalog imply unfulfilled genius. He was never going to top his first album, Return To The 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version. Never. That was it. That was his genius, all on one album. From there on, aside from the occasional one-off or guest appearance (Hip Hop Drunkies, etc...) his sebsequently releases were merely hints of that greatness. And his output on his latest label, Rock-A-Fella, was unlikely to make us all rejoice.

Still, the ODB was funny as hell, and he WAS the Keith Moon of the Wu-Tang Clan. If any of you are fans of The Who, you'll know know what I mean by that. He made a mockery of the Grammy's. He provided MTV with its best moments when they followed him around Central Park while ODB sang "Over The Rainbow", discussed having gonoreaha, and then rode in his limo with various kids and girlfriends to pick up a welfare check. Yep, classic stuff.


She flew in like calm breeze
Tall brown skin her weave like palm trees
I went coconuts
Dipped my Dunkin' between your Donut
Don't want it if it ain't no slut, bitch!
Fathership touch ground, like fly on soup
Don't invite me I tear the fuck down
White ones cut my toupee!
Seventh day rester, or scream play
I slump MC slay, it ain't nuttin to bust ass
Bullet him, get him fast
Bitch I don't break out, blast to the next rash
The dog piss on MC's like trees
Got meals but still grill that old good welfare cheese

- "Dogshit" by the Wu-Tang Clan featuring ODB

The exit polls taken during the recent election showed that 22% of voters thought that "moral values" determined their vote. And of that 22%, 70% voted for Bush. I think it was 70%. So now the Democrats are all freaking out and trying to figure out how to reach out to church folk. All the liberals are snapping up copies of Whats The Matter With Kansas (including me). And why? Because of the supposed impression that Democrats and/or Liberals are not moral.

Uh, so what exactly are morals? Isn't that question important? Does it simply mean church attendance? Does it mean being "born again"? Does it mean belonging to any religion? Does the religion have to be Christian? Does it have anything to do with practicing the morals entailed by any of the aforementioned entities? Are the people who vote based on morals actually moral themselves? Are any politicians in this country moral?

For the sake of argument, I'm going be a typical jingoistic American and say that by "moral", the meaning is Christian morality. Whether one is born-again is optional. So we'll deal with Christianity here.

The Ten Commandments - Breaking It Down

First, lets consider some Christian moral principles, as listed in the Ten Commandments:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me: Okay, this is pretty clear. If you are a Christian, then God is God, and Allah is some other God. So other religious beliefs are pretty much out. But this isn't really a "moral".

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: Is this more of a rule? Or is it a moral? Does that 22% of voters swear with God's name? Hmm...

Thou shalt not kill: This one is in most religions. Pretty straightforward. Even satanists have this. Did anybody think that John Kerry did not believe in this? Well, he DID kill people in Vietnam, so maybe not. George Bush didn't kill anyone as far as we know until he invaded Iraq under false premises. Nevertheless, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty black and white. It doesn't offer any caveats. Oh well. Of course, if abortion is killing, and one doesn't support making abortion illegal, then one violates this commandment. I guess. So a vote for a politician who vows to make abortion illegal would, in fact, be the moral Christian thing to do. On the other hand, overwhelming percentages of people support at least abortion during the first trimester. Looks like this is pretty thorny. Especially since President Bush has not stated that he's against first trimester abortions. Oh well, better vote for him anyway!

Thou shalt not commit adultery: Uh oh. Here's tricky one. At first, it makes sense. Don't cheat on your wife. But something like 60-80% of married adults cheat on their spouses. Yes, these numbers are hard to pin down. But even if it's 50%, would that EXCLUDE all of the people who voted for Bush because of moral issues?

Thou shalt not steal: Another tricky issue. Pretty much everyone steals at one time or another. Sometimes people steal habitually even though they don't realize it, such as downloading copywritten music, or using non-licensed software, splitting the cable line, or any other variety of seemingly victimless crimes. Is THAT stealing? You bet. I have to assume that all of the 22% never steal. I would think that if any group of people is careful to not steal, its THIS group.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy: The entire text of this commandment is pretty thorough. You really shouldn't do ANY work on this day. Is it okay to watch football? Well, it isn't work. But is it okay for the football players? I'm not sure. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that for the football players, it IS work. So is it okay for a good Christian to watch other men commit sin for their own enjoyment? I say it isn't. Again, I have to assume that the 22% does not watch sports on Sunday.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's: Uh, yeah... I don't think too many people abide by this. Especially men. What man doesn't covet another man's wife? And by the way, what IS a "manservant"?

One thing that is pretty certain, however, is that if YOU don't get it right, then the punishment is severe. God is not ambiguous. He has his rules, and you better follow them, even if you aren't quite sure about their meaning:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death (Leviticus 20:10)

Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death (Exodus 31:15)

And what about gay sex? Surely THAT is okay. Hold on there, buckaroo. Leviticus has something to say: "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Oops. Don't lie with "mankind". Couldn't GOD have been more specific about this?

Okay, now let us turn to everyone's favorite Christian, Jesus.

What Jesus Says

The good Christians in the world, especially those that voted for Bush because of his morals, really need to start reading their Bibles, or at the very least living by some of the things he said. I mean, after all, Jesus put the "Christ" in Christianity. Okay, lets get to it then...

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven": The poor in spirit? Well that could be anyone. But I imagine it is intended to apply to the financially poor, the mentally poor, the spiritually poor. "Theirs" is the kingdom of heaven. I can easily see where one would hear this phrase from the Sermon on the Mount and think "Hmm... George W. Bush"

"Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth": Obviously this applies to pretty much any leader who launches a preemptive war against a country that posed little or no threat, while ignoring countries that were starving their own people (North Korea) or engaged in mass genocide (Sudan). Again, that 22% clearly made the "moral" choice.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy": More great stuff from the mount. Uh, do I really need to address this? The merciful? The current Republican party? Next...

"You have heard how it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say this to you, if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart, etc..." (Matthew 5: 27-30): Whoa, one of the most controversial, and most conveniently ignored of Jesus's pronouncements. Surely, the 22% who voted based on "moral values" abide by this teaching. Jesus goes on to say that one should remove their eyes and limbs rather than go to hell. Clearly, Jesus thinks that looking at woman "lustfully" is worthy of going to hell. A sin. I have to assume that the 78% who didn't vote primarily because of morals are in big trouble.

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matthew 5:32): Uh, I assume that our favorite 22% group of Americans are not among the over 50% that get divorced, or marry a divorced woman.

Well, clearly I could go on and on. My point in all of this is to ask the following questions: What are morals? Do our favorite religious conservative politicians live by Christian morals? Do people who vote based on "moral values" even live by moral values? Look at the Bible. Read it without bias. Is it really possible (let alone advisable) that a political party align itself with the religion of the Bible, and then use this supposed association to draw support from voters? Is THAT moral? Is THAT what Jesus would've done?

Our Conservative political leaders would have us believe that THEY are the ones most able to "restore" this country to being a land of the Christian God. They will say this while they take money from corporations that have no interest other than selling their products. They take money from the large and small businesses that sell their products to our children by using sex and violence in their advertisements. They make policy and advance agendas to support the very corporations that have no problem advertising on programs such as "Desperate Housewives", "The Swan" or "Will and Grace". Lets be real, if the advertising vehicle (the television show) is drawing viewers, then those very moral corporations have no problem trying to sell their wonderful products.

These same corporations also resist almost all attempts to protect God's creation, the Earth. It took him six days to create the Earth. Maybe our CEO friends figure that if they ruin the Earth, God can just make another one while they have a nice vacation. And what about how these corporation treat their employees? Does anyone want to try to make the argument that say, Procter & Gamble or Goldman Sachs treats their employees in a Christian manner? Is there any Jesus in their HR departments? Would Jesus approve of how corporate America handles employee's health care? Or how they treat the mothers of our children? Does corporate America do anything even remotely Christian that they weren't forced to do by the American people taking collective action to create change? Should they get tax cuts? Of course! Should our children pay for the tax cut. Absolutely!

The same Conservatives that are going to restore our country to a more Godly state have no problem lying to win office. They have no problem slandering their opponents. Hell, they have no problems advancing anti-Christian principles, while luring voters with issues such as abortion and homosexuality.

Now, I ask you, are all of you 22 percenters really being well-served by people like George W. Bush, Tom Delay, John Thune, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, etc...? If you wish to vote for these people because you are rich, or own a small or large business and believe that these folks will be good for you financially, then go ahead. But please, if you think these politicians are in the least bit moral, or Christian, then you should be worried more about your soul than your country.

Why do I have a feeling there will be more to this?

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 11/09/2004 01:34:00 PM

I've decided that I can no longer stand up against the crushing influence of religion in this country. You see, in life, we all have basic choices to make. One of the most basic of choices is whether to "go with the flow" or "buck the tide". Do we go our own way, or "when in Rome do as the Romans do". It truly is one of the great decisions. Do we be individuals, or follow the group?

Well, I'm here to say that I'm going to follow the group. I've reached the conclusion that I simply cannot resist the trends. I'm far too weak and feeble-minded to have opinions that a "majority" of the people disagree with. I'm so emotionally vulnerable that I can't maintain my opinion in the face of someone else who's opinion is backed by strong emotions. So, I give up. I'm going to make a radical change. I'm going to stop the fighting and join the crowd!

Here are all the things that are true. These are think that I used to think were true, but about which, have decided to change my mind. I've finally decided to stop fighting the inevitable. Here goes...

The world is slightly more than 4000 years old.

Evolution is a highly suspect theory.

Cutting taxes for the rich is good for the poor.

The Earth revolves around the sun.

Global warming is a myth.

Jesus Christ was not gay.

Liberals are responsible for everything wrong in the world.

Life begins at conception.

The Bible is the literal word of God.

The media is liberal.

The tv show "Friends" was a good show.

Bill O'Reilly is both fair and balanced, and does not "spin".

Homeless people want to be homeless.

The world is flat.

Corporations are good, and only have the best intentions.

Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to America.

George W. Bush was smart, while Bill Clinton was stupid.

A president gets a mandate if he wins more than 50% of the popular vote.

The Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles.

We are safer from terrorism now, than prior to 9/11.

Moral values are more important than jobs, health care, the environment, and war.

Uneducated people are just as smart as educated people.

Republicans - good, Democrats - bad.

The war on terror will be won by the USA.

Bush won the election fair and square.

Christianity is the one true religion.

There is a God.

God is not gay.


Okay, now I feel better. I can finally get some rest. Going with the flow sure is a lot easier than what I used to do. Now that I believe all of these things, hopefully I can find some peace. Yes people, peace!

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 11/09/2004 01:02:00 AM

Here it is. The threatened Michael Jackson post. Rock on Michael!

I think its really a shame that Michael Jackson is rock and roll/R'n'B persona non grata. Aside from the weird behavior, and possible/likely child molestation, the guy is a brilliant musician and performer. So, I'm now going to defend the man.

I don't put a lot of stock in Michael Jackson's explanations of his weirdness or his facsinating with children. He talks about never having a childhood, and getting his ass beat by his father. As far as never having a childhood, that may be true since he was in the Jackson 5 when he was just a little kid. Nevertheless, he's also been a very rich adult for over 25 years. I think he's had enough time and money to fulfill every childhood wish and dream many times. Clearly, the man has problems in his personal and psychological life. That said...

The Jackson 5 were a wonderful band. From "I Want You Back", "ABC", "The Love You Save", "Never Can Say Goodbye", "Dancing Machine", "We're Almost There", "Got To Be There". Enuff said. They have tons of great songs. Now, most people are willing to admit that the Jackson 5 and early Michael Jackson were pretty cool. But what about when Michael got older. Okay... he still fucking great!

The Jackson's 1978 album Destiny is simply classic late 70s RnB at its best. "Shake Your Body (Down To The Ground)", "Things I Do For You", all wonderful stuff. Then there is the 1980 album Triumph album. Again, great stuff with "Can You Feel It", "Lovely One", "Heartbreak Hotel". All classic stuff.

What, you're willing to accept that? But solo MJ is taking to far. Well you better talk to someone else, because Michael Jackson's Off The Wall is quite simply one of the best albums ever. Any album that has "Rock With You" on it is a great album. But it doesn't stop there. Every single track it good. No crap. Its all hardcore late 70s RnB.

Some people will still be with me, but they lose it with the 1982, mega success Thriller. Yes, it was the biggest selling album ever. I don't know if it was deserved but people were caught up in it. Still, this album has "Billie Jean", "Human Nature", "PYT", and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'". Even freakin' "Beat It" and "The Girl Is Mine" are good. The whole album is really good. This was Michael Jackson with all his quirks working to his advantage and simply being brilliant.

Now, comes the problem. I can typically get people to go this far with me, but then I lose them. Between 1983-87, Michael Jackson because "Michael Jackson - the elephant man collecting, freak in a body bubble, Webster-loving, friend of Liz Taylor" freak that we all know. Thats when all of credibility went out the window. Still... 1988's Bad is not only "good", but nearly as great Thriller. The album is certainly a line in the sand. This is beginning of the end. There are still great songs, but there are unpleasant quirks too, not the least of which is MJ's increasingly odd appearance, on display on the album cover. Still, I will stand behind "Bad".

Unfortunately, it pretty much gets weird here. The Dangerous album is considered okay, but Michael's weirdness really takes over. The megalomania is to the fore. And worse yet, the music has lost its melodicism and charm. Now its just too hard to be a fan. At this point, all of us old fans were hoping that he would get it together again and make an album like Off The Wall, but it wasn't to be.

Next came the molestation lawsuit, then the crazy "History" album, the baby dangling incident, more molestation, another crappy album. Ugh... Its all lost now. Still, the guy USED to do brilliant stuff, and THAT is what I care about. He may never do anything half as great as Off The Wall, and he might get even weirder and weirder. Still, I don't think this takes anything away from his previous achievements.

Yes, even though he sleeps with kids, and maybe even molests them from time to time, I say that Michael Jackson's MUSIC (pre-1991) is still worthwhile, and worth listen to. Music is music, art is art, and I don't believe the artist's personality should detract from his creation. Thats it. MJ Rules!

I was looking at Coalition Of Eevyl today, and she had the picture at the left posted (and pilfered for display here). Its funny, yet true. However, I thought that with a split like that maybe we really could secede and/or join Canada. I mean, why not.

Those people in Jesusland really want to have a Christian Republic, a true Christian state, no different that the way many Muslims prefer their countries to Islamic states. So let them have it, I figure. The rest of us can just leave. All of the states that voted for Kerry have the best colleges, so we'll certainly have the brainpower to leave and start a new country. Right?

Well, unfortunately, no. Since garnering the majority of a state's votes wins the entire state, it looks like that Jesusland picture. The problem is that only people in the cities voted for Kerry. While those are where most of the people live, the East and West Coast cities are simply not as contiguous as the Jesusland graphic would imply. The really scary graphic is the county by county results.

Electoral Results By Country

This is a far more disturbing graphic than the electoral vote by state. Here you will see that actually very few counties (albeit those with nearly 50 million voters) voted for Kerry. And the counties are barely connected. Accept for in New England, the various counties that aren't in Jesusland are not connected. Consequently, it would be nearly impossible to join Canada or otherwise secede.

I think that the various progressives, devil-worshippers, advertising executives, Muslims, Howard Stern listeners, liberals, and atheists should take a page from the neocon textbook, and launch a preemptive strike on the various red counties that prevent the east coast from being contiguously blue. We could defeat those counties and banish the citizens to states like Idaho, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. Then we can simply secede without those pesky reds to worry about. They could do the same thing on the West Coast if they want to.

Hey, I'm just talking!

Okay, the United States is run by Christian Conservatives, what is going to happen? Apparently, "morals" was a big reason why Bush won. So... where does that lead? Well, lets stop and think about a possible scenario, and see how it might all pan out.

Now that the religious right is in control of all the branches of government, and people voted for Bush because of morals, there is now a clear mandate to make some progress in the area of improving morality. Now, I know a little about being a Christian because I once was one. I know plenty about what is right and wrong, and what is immoral. And there is PLENTY wrong, let me tell you.

So here is what we can expect.

A Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

Reversal of Roe v Wade.

Prohibition of alcohol again.

Banning of violent movies and video games. Only PG, or G movies are allowed.

Banning of television commercials that use sex or violence.

A new census that requires everyone to choose a Christian denomination.

A new faith-based "door-to-door" initiative to baptize and save heathens (including Catholics)

No more Seinfeld reruns. That show is totally anti-religious.

No more Simpsons. Lisa is agnostic, after all.

No more Will And Grace (of course).

No more Ellen Show (she's gay)

Divorce will be outlawed.

Forced church attendance.

A new faith-based tax to support churches.

No more non-religious music. Definitely no rock and rap.

No science in schools that is not faith-based or creationist.

The entire internet will regulated by a central federal system which determines appropriate content (must have good moral values).

Okay, thats a good start. Now, I'm sure that all of the various corporations (who also donated enormous sums of money to Bush-Cheney 04, and the Republican Party) that advertise, and make beer, and produce movies, and sell music will completely support these measures. Why? Well, of course, because their candidate, George W. Bush received a clear mandate from the people.

In addition, the "the people" will be firmly behind all of this because these measures will clearly restore "morality" back into our culture. No more sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Finally, our country can go back to being the Christian country envisioned by the Bible.

And what about the millions of people who didn't vote for Bush, and thus, did not think that "morality" was the most important issue facing the country? Well, they will be forced to comply. And if they don't comply? Well, they can either be sent to religious concentration camps, or prison, or forced to leave the country. Although, I seriously I doubt it will come to this.

And just remember, if these things do come to pass, and John Ashcroft's goons come knocking on your door, you still have the right to defend yourself. Just remember, we will still have our guns (Thank you Wayne LaPierre, thank you NRA!). As I have learned from the NRA, the first thing a tyrannical government does is take away the population's guns. And since the NRA supports the Republicans so unquestioningly, we'll still have our guns. We'll be able to congregate freely, and form militias to fight the new Crusaders that may come after us.

See, there is hope!

// posted by Ant In A Hailstorm @ 11/05/2004 01:16:00 AM

I fully intended to write about the brilliance of Michael Jackson in this post, but instead.... ugh, more political shit.

I had been hearing talk about healing and Americans coming together from the White House. For instance, Mr. Bush said "A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation". He said it was his "duty to serve all Americans, and I will do my best to fulfil that duty every day as your president"

The most shocking statement made during his victory speech was the following:


We will make public schools all they can be, and we will uphold our deepest values of family and faith. We will help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan so they can grow in strength and defend their freedom, and then our servicemen and women will come home with the honour they have earned. With good allies at our side, we will fight this war on terror with every resource of our national power so our children can live in freedom and in peace.

Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans, so today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.

Now, in theory, this sounds just fine. I'm not sure which families and which faith he's referring to, but I understand what he's talking about regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, etc... And of course, he is correct in saying that reaching those goals requires broad support. So an appeal to Kerry voters makes alot of sense.

But then I see this article: White House Claims Mandate for Bush Agenda Here are some quotes:

"The American people spoke clearly about the agenda they want for the next four years," White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

"President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate," Vice President Dick Cheney.

Uh, as a Kerry voter, I hear that stuff and think, "those arrogant fuckers, so much for bringing America together". Bring Kerry voters to his side would entail allowing that people who voted for Kerry really disapprove of MANY of Bush's policies.

Let's take a quick look here. Bush won 59,150,654 votes. Kerry won 55,592,568 votes. That is a difference of 3,558,086. The percentage was 51% - 48%. A 3% victory. What I see is that nearly half of all votes cast were against Bush and his leadership. Half. That is not a mandate for the president. That is called a virtually split electorate. These results do not tell me that he now has a mandate to change the constitution, try to get rid of abortion, or continue his policy of preemptive war.

I think that as the exit polls continue to come in, and the analysis is done, the final results will show that Bush received a second term not so much due to mass support, but rather to the Democratic candidate's perceived and real weaknesses. The Democratic party simply wasn't able to make the case the enough people. And the Bush team employed a strategy of fear that is hard for many people to deal with rationally. A stronger candidate would've beat Bush. Bush's win is going to come down to the following: Bush is the president, and many people are unhappy with his policies, but Kerry didn't convince enough people he could do better.

Again, I don't hear "mandate" out of any of this. Running around saying mandate is surely the best way to fan the flames of the angry Kerry voters. Bush received a mandate from his core supporters. Period.

If he wants to win ME over, he'd have to be a hell of a lot more conciliatory. Hell, I'd like to be won over. I'd like to support the president. Its frustrating to be so angry all the time. But Jesus Christ, throw us a bone! Back off the reactionary social (Christian) agenda a little. Consider why people voted for Kerry, and pursue policies that strike a middle ground. If Bush had been a moderate Republican, he would've destroyed Kerry in this election. Instead, he merely topped him by 3%.

As I said before, the ball is in his court. He, the Republicans, the Conservatives, and the neocons are in charge. They control each branch of government, a majority of governerships, and a majority of state congresses. If they succeed, then they can have their success, and maybe we'll all be better off. If they fail, we still have elections. Eventually people will come around and get it.

I am thoroughly depressed today. By all appearances, Bush has won the election. This election was almost exactly the same as 2000. The differences, well, made the difference. First due to the 2000 census, more electoral votes went to "red" states, so Kerry clearly had to win a Bush 2000 state with a sizeable electoral count. This did not happen. Kerry took New Hampshire from Bush. But Bush won everything else he had won in 2000, but he also took Iowa and New Mexico away from the Democrats (both of which Gore narrowly won in 2000). That gives Bush more than enough to win. And now Kerry will be conceding.

What appears to be the case is that Bush turned out the evangelical vote, and Kerry did not have enough traditional Democratic votes to offset to evangelicals and fear-voters.

So what does this all mean?

First, this was still a close election and quite nearly evenly divided. Some are calling it a Bush mandate due to Republican wins in Senate and House, as well as a Bush win in the popular vote. I don't think this qualifies as a "mandate". But I think the Bush folks will take that approach, especially since they did it in 2000 when he actually lost the election. This should produce a fairly critical and attentive electorate.

AND, there IS a bright side to this. Stay with me people. The bright side is that by giving the Conservative Republicans what they have wanted for the past forty years, with no real opposition, the American people will finally see what these people are all about. If they screw up (even more), there is no Bill Clinton to blame. There aren't any "liberals" to attack. If they screw up, this is going to be on them.

Iraq is a mess. There is talk about trying the same thing in Iran. The possibility of a draft has been reviewed. The economy is still not doing well. Middle class after-tax earnings are the worst since the early 70s. The gap between the rich and poor is greater than ever. 40 million people do not have health care. Decent paying jobs in the U.S are being outsourced to countries overseas. Bin Laden, Al Quada, and terrorist tactics are alive and well. Social Security is still in jeopardy.

If Bush, et al, are able to make progress in all of these areas, then they deserve the credit for a job well-done. If these issues remain in 2008, or get worse, then who will the American people have to blame? Evil liberals? Democrats in the minority? Bill Clinton? The "liberal media"?

Its their ball now. Let them run with it. Either they do well, and we're all better off. Or the mess everything up. If they screw up, they will pay at the polls in 2006 or 2008. Look at history. Look at presidential second terms. There is hope.

By the way, I was cleaning out my garage over the weekend and I found 1,209 votes for Gore. Go GORE!

Now that this election cycle is nearly over, I have a few closing comments to make before half the country decided to sit on the asses and not vote.

As a student of history, with an interest in politics, and a respect for the document that is the U.S. Constitution, and the efforts of those who constructed it (yes, I know about the "Great Compromise" and "three-fifths compromise"), I find the state of electoral politics absolutely disgraceful (and thats not even considering the actual voting conditions!)

I think this election season is the most despicable I've ever seen, especially the Presidential contest. Although, certainly there have also been some terrible U.S. Senate and state races as well (particularly offensive is a Ohio Senate Race In District 20 in which former Iranian hostage, Terry Anderson, is being smeared as soft on terrorism, and even friendly with Hezbollah). This guy was an actual kidnapping victim of real terrorists. Even if he was "soft" on terrorism, at least have some respect for the guy.

And now, on to the putrid Presidential race. My bias towards Kerry necessarily informs my opinion on what has been the most disgusting and outrageous elements of the campaigns. Regarding Kerry, it has been said that his victory would lead to more terrorist attacks in this country, or that making the wrong choice could lead to hundreds of thousands American deaths. Churches in America now take positions for or against specific candidates. And some churches in West Virginia have claimed that Kerry and the wants to ban the bible. What else, Kerry was a traitor to this country by speaking out against the Vietname war, Kerry didn't win his medals legitimately, etc...

Beyond this, Bush and Cheney simply say whatever they want about John Kerry. They know it isn't true. They lie, and thats all there is to it. They say Kerry will sacrifice the defense of this country to the U.N. They say he wants to raise middle class taxes.

Kerry has been out there saying a lot of crazy stuff too. However, I think he realized that unless he starts saying crazy lies about Bush/Cheney, then their lies will just stick to him. So Kerry claims that there will be a draft, and that Bush will cust Social Security, or privatize it. And mentioning Cheney's LESBIAN daughter in the debate was obviously unnecessary. His reasoning was that it was unlikely to lose him votes, but that it could lose Bush evangelical votes. If it had been me, I wouldn't have done it. I winced, to be honest.

I don't have any problems with documentaries like "Bush's Brain" or "Fahrenheit 911" because I agree with them. However, I also know that those movies don't HELP the political discourse. I'd like to say that movies like that are a reaction to the Republican/Conservative/Bush approach to politics, and the Democrats and their sympathizers are simply fighting fire with fire. That may or may not be the case.

People will point to the Lyndon Johnson's 1964 "Daisy Ad" with the little girl, and the mushroom cloud as an example of negative, below the belt campaigning. The thing that is forgotten is that Barry Goldwater WAS advocating the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam at a time when the dominant geo-political strategy was to avoid using them.

Much of this election has been based on bullshit and rhetoric, and I think its reasonable to say that most elections have been like that. Historically, in this country, there have been many filthy elections (Jefferson, Cleveland, to name two off the top of my head). However, I find this election to simply be beneath us all. I would like to hear either John Kerry or George Bush admit the possibility that the other is probably okay. Members of their parties do it, but there is no "I respectfully disagree with the distinguished Senator" or "I must contradict that statement your excellency". John McCain stated that he thought Kerry would be a good president, but neither candidate can actually be THAT civil.

One of these guy is going to be president for the next four years. After a year of hearing that either one will lead to the destruction of the country/planet/universe, is it really possible that either can lead with any credibility?

Oh well, I'll be voting tomorrow. And then I'll be waiting. And I'll probably take a pill or two to ease my nerves. See ya folks!