A slight rant

Perhaps you've heard of scream therapy? It's one of those new age therapy ideas whereby a person bellows at the top of their lungs in a wordless roar. The idea behind it is to tap into whatever inner rage you have and release it as a form of catharsis.

This post will be a slightly different take on scream therapy. I'm going to scream, but it sure as fuck won't be wordless. If you are easily offended, you should prolly stop reading now. Don't say I didn't warn you.

There is a person at school with whom I am at loggerheads. That's the nice way of saying it. How I really want to phrase it goes like this: This fucking cock smoking cunt whore at school is about two seconds away from getting a foot up her ass. This stupid bitch has decided to wage a war against me because she has decided that she doesn't like me. I can understand not getting along with someone, as I commonly don't get along with 99% of the planet. But this dumbass bitch has made it personal. And dammit all to hell, when you make things personal, that shit simply won't fly with me. When someone thinks they can slander me with impunity, speak to me like I was their fucking dog and treat me like I am shit they scraped off their shoe, I react. And I will react. I will fucking make her life a damned cesspool of shit so deep she'll be swimming in it for years.


Ah, I feel much, mcuh better now. It reminds me of my time spent as a bouncer in college when some dumbass frat boy would throw a beer on me as he hurled invectives. I always, without fail, had the last word.

Nose Hair

This time it's something a little less serious.

Why do we have nose hair? I know the scientific answer: they act as filters to keep debris and other particles from entering our lungs. But as I've gotten older, it seems like my body feels the need to filter out particles the size of Honda Civics judging by the length and number of hairs accumulating in my nostrils. You would think that evolution would have provided a better answer for filtration than nose hair.

And don't even get me started on the fucking hair in my ears!

Christian Hypocrisy

I've got a bone to pick (what, you thought this would be a shiny happy post? Read the title of the blog, dumbass). Who am I grinding my axe against this time? Christians.

More and more, especially given the intense (and intrusive) media coverage in today's society, we see some religious leader condemning someone or something because of a moral failing or sin. And every last time I see a "Christian" castigating another human being my blood pressure rises just a bit. I won't claim to be a great biblical scholar, but I could hold my own in a theological debate. And nowhere, in any translation you care to name, have I ever read where Christ told his disciples to point their finger at someone who sinned and say "Shame on you".

Their popularity has waned over the last few years, but everyone has heard of or seen one of those silly plastic bracelets inscribed with "WWJD". "What Would Jesus Do". Whenever I see one of these "Christian leaders" stand on their bully pulpit spitting scorn and derision at whatever their target of the day is, I can't help but wonder what exactly would Jesus do in the same situation? If Jesus were among us today, would he be in support of gay marriage? I think it would be a safe bet to say probably not. Would he, with the same breath, condemn those people that are gay, telling them they will burn in hell for their sins? I would honestly have to say, probably not. Wait, before you get all pissed off, let's look at a really good example here, two in fact (I don't have the relevant book, chapter and verse for you, nor have I ever cared to memorize it...I'm sure there are people in hell who can quote the Bible, much like there are people in heaven who never learned to read so I don't think memorizing scripture is high on God's wish list for us). Jesus had two encounters with women who liked a pinch and tickle from men who weren't their husbands. In both instances, we don't see Christ pointing the finger of blame or even of superiority. In the case of the adulteress, he does the opposite. He points the finger at those who are condemning her for her misdeeds. The second instance is where he meets a prostitute at a well. No scorn or mockery, just simple understanding. Yes, he tells her to stop whoring (in so many words) but he never condescends or insults her.

Yes, I can hear the Bible thumpers screaming now: God hates sinners! Um, no, he doesn't. God hates sin. Big, big difference. Yeah, God wiped out Sodom and Gamora because they were having crazy butt sex with each other. But God didn't hate them. Those people lived under the old law that did not include the dispensation of grace (for those of you that rode the short bus to Sunday school, grace is the thing that allows us to ask God for forgiveness when we do sin...prior to Christ, there was no grace). That's what the old law was all about: follow the rules or die, there was no other option. Man, I really got off track there, but I felt it necessary to offer a pre-emptive counter argument.

So, we have two examples where Christ himself was in a situation to point the finger of blame and instead chose to extend the hand of compassion. Now, seeing as the word Christian literally means "Christ-like", shouldn't everyone who professes to be a Christian be following his example? Instead we get a holier than thou attitude more in line with those pesky enemies of Christ, the Pharisees. So when I see someone who calls themselves a Christian stand up and deride another person (Christian or no) it really makes me wonder just how "Christian" they truly are? Furthermore, one of Christ's commandments was to love one another, not piss on them when they are down. Yet, all to often, these "Christians" are the first to point out the flaws in others or condemn them for their failings.

So, if you have ever asked yourself, what would Jesus do if he were among us today? He'd probably sit down and cry over those people who condemn others while professing to live by his word. Then, I'd like to think, he'd (pardon the expression) come down on them like the hand of God. Lord knows that some of them deserve it.

Send his kids

So, Jenna Bush is getting married Saturday. It's a big ol' Texas sized wedding at the Dubya ranch. My question is this: Why isn't she in the Army, fighting in Iraq?

Michael Moore, one of my most favorite people in the whole world, asked some Congressmen with children of enlistment age if they would tell their kids to sign up for the armed services (the responses he got ranged from silly to hostile. You can watch it on the Fahrenheit 9/11. Everyone needs to watch that movie). The idea that these people WHO VOTED TO GO TO WAR wouldn't want their kid in a war zone is just plain disgusting. That's like saying to your kids that you can buy your sundries from Walmart but there is no way in hell they're going to work there.

So, why isn't Jenna over there? Or Barbara (Dubya's daughter, not his mother)? How is that Dubya can send tens of thousands of OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS to a war but he won't tell his own children to go? In damn near every speech he gives on Iraq, Dubya talks about how great an honor it is for the US service men and women deployed over there, how they are fighting to enrich the lives of the noble Iraqi people. Well, if it's so fucking great, why aren't his daughters over there? Does avoiding active military duty run in the family?

And before you start, I actually did sign up for the Army. I was a delayed entry recruit, signing up in the summer before my senior year in high school. Unfortunately, a car accident robbed me of my hearing, disqualifying me from going. Maybe that's why the Bush twins can't go. Maybe they tried, but got disqualified for some reason? Shit, Prince Harry was in Afghanistan. It's a sad day in American history when the British will send their royalty to fight but our elected officials scoff at the idea of their own sons and daughters in harm's way.

Redundancy at it's finest

My mother is one of those home decorator types. You have to see her house to appreciate it. There isn't a wall or bare space in the joint that doesn't have some type of decoration. It's like something you would see in Southern Living or something.

So it wasn't too much of a surprise that she has decorations in her laundry room. What was a bit jarring was the decoration itself. I love my mother to death but even I was a bit disconcerted by the wood lettering on the wall next to the washer and dryer. It reads: Laundry. Isn't that just a bit redundant? I mean, that's like putting a sign over the toilet that reads: Shit here.

I'm as much a fan of decorating your has as the next person, but this is just a bit too much, I think.

My word is bond...a junk bond

What the hell ever happened to keeping your word? You know, you tell someone you'll do something ("Yes, I'll wax your cat") but then never show up as promised? Did personal integrity drop off the map?

I am ashamed to admit it, but I was once like this. Very fly by the seat of my pants. Tell you one thing and forget about it the next minute. It took a very rude awakening for me to realize that giving your personal oath on something actually means something. To wit: I was in high school, 16 or 17, and I was mowing lawns over the summer to make some money for various things, including the upcoming marching season for color guard. I had a friend who offered to pay the full amount of my fees if I would tend his yard every week for the whole summer. One, this was a sweetheart deal because my fees were somewhere to the tune of $500 bucks and two, this guy had a yard the size of my bathtub. "Sure, I'll do it!" A few weeks went by with no problem, but then I skipped a week. "Sorry about that, I was busy". Then another week. And after that, it was purely hit or miss as to whether I actually showed up or not. Finally, he pulled me aside and told me that he would square up with me for the work I had done so far but no longer had need of my services. He needed someone he could depend on. Man, that really cut deep. This was someone who I looked up to and admired. Total burning bush moment for me. From that point on, if I said it, I did it, end of story.

Why is it so hard for people to follow through with what they say they will do? Has the country become so narcissistic that it's become a land of self-centered egomaniacs who don't give a shit about everyone else?

And before you ask, this wasn't prompted by any one thing or person, just something I've had on my mind recently. But we really need to start holding each other more accountable for their personal vows, don't you think? Otherwise the whole country will turn into the Bush administration.

Church and State

I thought I would post some clarifications on my stance on church and state and the separations thereof. I'm not one of those red staters that think we need to arm every child with a bible and a burning conviction to win the heathens to Jesus. Nor am I a blue stater who feels that even mentioning God somehow interferes with my civil liberties. I think we should allow people to worship, and yes expose other people to their religion, even if that means letting a holy roller set up a voluntary bible distribution desk on school property. However, by the same token, I also feel that we shouldn't allow that same school to hold a school function where they are told to prefer one religion over another, or that all religions are bad, or some such. The difference in this? The former is choice, the latter is coercion. Let's look just a minute at why there is even a church and state separation after all.


The Pilgrims (you know, those Puritan folk from England, Plymouth Rock, Thanksgiving and all that) were condemned in their own country for their religious beliefs. They came to the new world to escape the political persecution they received in their home country (oddly enough, the Puritans were some of the most religiously intolerant people on the block. When they were in power after the English Civil War, they were some of the most vigorous people in stamping out other religions invading on their own). The same thing goes for Lord Baltimore and the Catholics in Maryland (and the Quakers in Pennsylvania and so on. In fact, most of the northern colonies were established as religious havens).


These people grew up in an era of government sponsored religious persecution and intolerance. So when they fought to create an independent state from England, one of their first orders of business was to create a government that would not endorse one specific religion over any others. Hence the Freedom of Religion inclusion in the first Amendment. Further, they drafted language to state that government will be free of religious influence. All of this was to insure that they could worship peacefully without fear of persecution.


Nowhere is there any indication that our "founding fathers" ever intended to keep any religious ideas out of schools or government. No, what they wanted to make sure of was that those schools weren't espousing one brand of religion over another. Or that the federal government would suddenly taken up Buddhism and make everyone convert or die.

There is a world of difference between saying "we don't mind if you bring ideas into our schools" and "we want our school children to follow this religious doctrine". Just because I listen to those Jehovah's Witness ladies that come to the house every Friday morning doesn't mean that I'm endorsing their religion (I'm too nice to scream at them and I don't want to deal with the trouble I would get in if I answered the door stark naked). I'm simply allowing them to explain their religion. There is nothing wrong with giving someone the opportunity to volunteer information about something they are passionate about, religion included. Even if that means they are handing out bibles to kids at the lunch lines. The problem would be, and this is where the idea of church and state needs to be separated, if the school MADE those children take the bibles. Entirely different scenario there.

Hmm, not much clarity in that is there? Well, it's a murky issue. You've got people who scream because little Johnny wants to pray during class but whole-heartedly approve of the President swearing in on the bible. Personally, I would let little Johnny pray and scream my head off at Dubya, but that's just me.