Would you like retards with that?

There are many reasons why I never ever ever eat at McDonald's, not the least of which being that I start farting about halfway through my burger and then don't stop for three and a half days. But also, I just find it utterly depressing that I have to deal with an entire team of people who are quite literally as stupid as a person can possibly get without qualifying for a bona fide "disorder."

I ordered a Happy Meal for my daughter tonight. A Chicken McNugget Happy Meal. There are two choices when one orders a McNugget Happy Meal: a 4-McNugget meal or a 6-McNugget meal. So when I stepped up to the register and placed my order with Tardface, I said, "Yes I'd like a four McNugget Happy Meal, please." So you can imagine my shock when I looked at my receipt ten seconds later and realized my credit card had just been charged fourteen dollars for a Happy Meal that should have cost about $4.50.

"Well you said you wanted four Happy Meals," responds Tardface.

Okay, I'm sorry, Tardface. I know you're stupid. But I also know that the corporation that employs you understands that you're stupid and so has broken down everything you must do into about thirty simple phrases: Big Mac, Fries, Number Six, Super Size... I simply can't imagine that I am the first person to ever come in here and verbalize this particular order to you. I know that you know that you have a four McNugget meal, so... why, Mister McDonald's employee wouldn't you have at least clarified what you thought you heard me say before charging me for four freakin' Happy Meals? Especially when you can clearly see I am standing her with ONE DAMN KID!

Now please go get your slightly-smarter manager to come give me a refund while I continue to fart in your general direction.

Place head on table. Smash repeatedly.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. The Republicans have narrowed the race down to two guys: one who half of them can't stand because he's "too liberal" and another who half of them can't stand because he's a Mormon. What's more, they absolutely cannot shut up about it.

Seriously GOP, are you people TRYING to get Hilary elected?

Put a lead-based sock in it Boomers

I recently received this email forward from an older relative. Even though I can appreciate where the writer is coming from, and even tend to agree with a lot of the sentiment contained within the composition, for some reason it just pissed me off. It's a typical "Our generation is better than the new generation" tirade, which acknowledges all the things that made the previous generation great, but fails to recognize all the things THEY DID to screw it up for the generations who followed. So just to set the record straight, here is the original email in its entirety with my comments in bold italics.

======================================

Those Born 1930-1979!
TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

Yes and I’m sure many of you are still dealing with health problems and your own addictions to the same substances to this day as a result.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Of course, the oceans weren’t nearly as polluted back then as they were now thanks to you, so mercury contamination in tuna wasn’t as much of a concern back then.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

Look around at the gluttony of TV ads for designer pills intended to take care of everything from chronic asthma to irritable bowl syndrome to erectile dysfunction. Look at all the fun new forms of cancer you’re getting that your parents never had. Apparently all that lead-based paint and other chemicals you’ve been introducing into every product on the market had some unexpected long-term effects.

As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

This was all during a time when all your parents had to navigate were rural two lane roads with 45m.p.h. speed limits where you encountered maybe ten other cars on your way to work. There were two intersections and one blinking traffic light in town. Unless your parents were particularly idiotic drivers, the only chance they had of getting into an accident was if a deer jumped out in front of them.

Today we’re driving on multi-laned highways with heavy merges, multiple exits to left and right, hundreds of signs pointing this way and that so that you’re never sure if you’re heading in the right direction. Not to mention the fact that we’re trying to run this gauntlet with about a hundred other cars surrounding us, all going the same 65m.p.h. So forgive us if we’re a little more worried about what might happen to our children if we ended up in the middle of a ten-car pileup.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

Again, back then you actually had roads that weren’t jammed with other cars, and nice soft grass to ride on. But you’ve paved over everything since then, meaning we’re riding our bikes on asphalt. So yeah, we want a little more protection for our head in case we wipe out on yet another of your oil stained parking lots.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

Great, and maybe if you hadn’t gone and polluted the water supply we’d be drinking from the hose too.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

This seems a bit disingenuous. Somehow I don’t think the “cootie” argument began with our generation.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank koolade made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because :

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING !

We’d be outside playing too, except for the fact that you bulldozed the baseball diamond to put up luxury condominiums, you tore down the YMCA to build a WalMart and you drained the swimming hole to put in yet another massive parking lot for yet another massive strip mall (which you won’t allow us to skateboard on). You’ve kind of taken away all our outdoor places to go. We’d ride our bikes there, but again refer to the previous bit about those roads that you’ve made entirely unsafe for us to be riding on.

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day.
And we were O.K.

Of course chances are you were playing at or near one of your friend’s houses with at least one parent or trusted neighbor at home who was keeping a loose watch on everything. Today, our neighbors are strangers and both parents need to work just to keep up in this two-income trap that you somehow managed to set for us.


We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

Do you really expect us to believe that you’re going to allow us to race a handmade go-kart down your hill? You won’t even let us SKATEBOARD on all those nice big parking lots you built.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computer’s, no Internet or chat rooms.......

WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

Your friends lived across the street. Our friends live ten miles across town via one of those multi-laned highways we mentioned earlier. You know what we find when we go outside? Traffic.

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

Those trees were in the backyards of your own houses. But since you’ve created a housing race encouraged by zero-interest loans you’ve priced us out of our own neighborhoods. We live in crammed-together suburbs and apartment complexes where the only trees around are owned by somebody else who puts a fence around the thing so that we risk impaling our testicles more than breaking our teeth should we fall out.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

Okay, but then YOU yelled at US for swallowing gum. Which way do you want it?

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

Again, you had your own backyards to do that stuff in. Our downstairs neighbors tend to call the police when they see us holding a gun, any kind of gun, in our common yard.


We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

Yet again, your friends were a two-minute walk across the street. You’ve destroyed the idea of a town center so all our friends are scattered across a thirty-mile radius. We need phones and email if we’re ever going to talk to them outside of school.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

Because you still had parks and public pools and something called “recess”, it probably wasn’t such a big deal if you didn’t make the team. You had other things to keep you active. Since you’ve graciously ELIMINATED all these things for us, maybe we don’t mind creating a few extra Little League teams so that more of our kids have the opportunity to do something other than play those X-Boxes and Playstations you mocked just a couple paragraphs ago.

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

Okay fine, I’m with you on this one.

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

It has also produced some of the most soulless, narcissistic, toy-hoarding, money grubbing greedy generations ever to grace this earth. People who gave up on the idea of "changing the world" to make it a better place once they realized that they could drive a BMW , own a condo and go on a cruise every year… Just sayin’.

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

It’s also been an explosion of land, water and air pollution as you search for easier and cheaper ways to mass-produce all those innovations of yours.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

And you dealt with it by selling out the idealism of your youth in favor of stock options, middle-management positions and items that sell for thirty-nine cents less at WalMart even though it put some of your friends out of business. Quite frankly, I’m not impressed with what you did with all that freedom, success and responsibility.

If YOU are one of them . . CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good

Okay, excuse me but YOU PEOPLE are the ones IN CHARGE of the government right now!!! YOU are the ones who made these rules and regulations. If you don’t like the way the world has gone, you have nobody to blame but your old self-righteous self.

And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.

Brave? BRAVE??? Are these the same "brave" people who spit, cursed and threw blood at the soldiers who returned from Vietnam in the late 60’s? Yes, your generation turned out a few gems, but so does every generation... ours included.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?

No, it makes me want to strangle all you sell outs from the older generation for ruining it for us. God willing we'll do a better job with it for OUR children.

You Got Wagged

Whenever I think back on the first year or so of this war (the one in Iraq in case there’s any confusion), I can’t help but think of the movie Wag the Dog. For the uninformed, the basic plot of the movie is that the president of the United States, in order to take people’s mind off a scandal he’s involved in, hires a Hollywood producer to “stage a war.” They rally the American people behind the phony war by using every possible gimmick they can think of to tug at the heartstrings and foster a sense of unity and patriotism. I actually hadn’t seen Wag the Dog until the Iraq war was about six months in and even though the movie was already several years old by that point the similarities between reality and fiction were downright eerie.

There was the compelling footage: In the movie it was video of a young girl running through the streets, dodging bullets while clutching a cat (which they CGI’ed in later) to her chest. In real life, there was footage of the Saddam statues being pulled down and the shots of Jessica Lynch being wheeled by on a stretcher.

There were the hit songs: In the movie, they hired Willie Nelson to compose numerous uplifting songs that would get people emotionally attached to the war. In real life, Toby Keith released “American Soldier” while the Top 40 producers infused quotes from soldiers, their families and the president into sappy pop songs.

There were media created heroes: In the movie, Woody Harrelson plays the war hero William Shuman (“Old Shoe”). In real life, Jessica Lynch gets a book deal and a movie of the week for being a cutie pie caught in the middle of a dramatic rescue attempt.

Then of course there were all the symbols: In the movie, the architects behind the war threw “old shoes” into trees and onto power lines in honor of the aforementioned hero. In real life, yellow magnetic ribbons and American flags with some variation of the slogan “Support the Troops” went on the back of every car on the road.

With the exception of the far-fetched idea that the entire war in the movie was completely made up Wag the Dog was, almost without exception, strangely prophetic of what would start happening in 2003. I’ve been thinking about that movie and its similarities to reality a lot over the last couple days as I read the book Last One In by Nicholas Kulish. The story is about a gossip columnist who gets embedded with the Marines at the beginning of the Iraq war. Amongst other things it explores how the media in this war totally dropped the ball and made a farce out of the whole operation by presenting a completely distorted picture of the truth, all in the name of better ratings of course. It talks about reporters smearing grease and dirt on their faces and posing for stand-ups in front of burning vehicles to make it seem as though they were right in the middle of some important battle. It talks about reporters making up stories about anything, even if it was ninety percent bullshit, just so they could fill airtime or print space. It’s a very intriguing (and funny) read, which I highly recommend.

Anyway, all that lead up was to preface the fact that Lynndie England has been in my head. Remember Lynndie England? She was the soldier who became the face of the whole Abu Ghraib scandal because of an infamous picture of her pointing at a naked prisoner while smoking a cigarette. She was sentenced to eleven years in prison for her part in the “torture” of Abu Ghraib prisoners. From the very outset of that whole Abu Ghraib thing, my spider senses were tingling. Something just didn’t sit right with me about the way it was handled, or covered, or just plain perceived. And even to this day, I can’t help but wonder if the whole thing was just another incident of the tail wagging the dog – like it was nothing more than a big smoke screen intended to rally us together while distracting us from something else.

There’s no question that this war has been far from popular. Even before the decision was made to invade there were people screaming, protesting, sending up righteous anger at what they viewed to be evil and arrogant American imperialism. The “architects behind the war” did everything they could to rally people together with the aforementioned songs, symbols, heroes and whatnot. But I think they also sensed that even the people who were in support of the war needed some kind of outlet for their own anger. Supporters needed to show everyone that they only supported the “noble” aspects of the war. They needed everyone to see that they weren’t merely blind “let’s-just-kill-them-all” warmongers who had no respect for human life. Abu Ghraib and the accusations of torture gave them that opportunity. It allowed war supporters and detractors alike to meet on common ground where they could direct their anger at a few mutually agreed upon patsies. And the media, as predicted, went right along for the ride.

In case we’ve all forgotten, the “torture” in question at Abu Ghraib involved stripping prisoners naked, letting dogs bark at them and forcing them (the prisoners) to form naked human pyramids. As far as I was concerned, that always qualified more as a dumbass fraternity prank than anything that might resemble torture. And at first it seemed like a lot of the conservative radio shows I listened to thought the same thing. But then all of a sudden even they joined the angry throngs in condemning the “torture”, boldly stating that those involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. And as I said, Lynndie England became the ultimate face of evil in the whole thing. So much so that I can’t help but wonder if she’s in jail right now because she was simply a pawn in some evil and fucked up game of wag the dog.

She really did make the perfect villain. Unlike Jessica Lynch who was cute with long and pretty hair, Lynndie England had short hair and mannish features. The infamous picture that everyone has seen shows her with a cigarette not only in her mouth – an obvious “dirty” habit – but actually dangling from her lips in a way that could only be described as white trash. And of course, she was seen standing next to a naked man, pointing at his penis no less. Everything about that picture conjured up four words: “white trash dirty whore.” It was easy for people to hate her. It became easy for people to condemn her. I wonder if there would have been the same reaction had it been an attractively longhaired and feminine girl in that picture. But the thing is I firmly believe that this is the only way this whole thing could have transpired. The architects of this particular Alternate Reality Game knew what they were doing. They would never have allowed a picture of a good-looking person to be “leaked” to the media in relation to this scandal.

I honestly feel bad for Lynndie England. She is sitting in prison right now for the oh-so-heinous crime of pointing at a man’s dick. The country needed a bad guy (someone other than George Bush) and they got one. It’s like the old Hebrew ritual of the “scapegoat” (and actually where the modern term originated from) where once a year the priest would place the sins of all the people onto a spotless goat and then banish it to the wilderness so the nation could once again become blameless in God’s eyes. Lynndie England was our scapegoat in every sense of the word. We put our own sins onto her. Everything that we didn’t like about ourselves when it came to this war manifested itself in her smirking, cigarette smoking face. We put our willingness to go to war, our eagerness to go to war onto her. Our own righteous justifications for war – terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, taking down an evil dictator, liberating a people – weren’t enough. Even for those of us who were in support of the war, there was still an unspoken well of guilt for the sins we were committing to accomplish what we genuinely believed to be worthwhile goals. We needed to put that guilt onto somebody else and send them away lest we (God forbid) blame ourselves. The architects gave us Lynndie England as a worthy sacrifice. And we accepted her eagerly.

And that sickens me. That’s why I don’t understand people that are currently against the war who were once in favor of it. What made you change your mind? The media’s reports? People claim that the war is being run badly. That very well may be so, but my question is: How the hell would you know? Because the media says so? Because some politicians say so? Do we seriously still trust these two disparate but irreversibly interlinked groups for our Truths? What is it going to take for us to stop believing every freakin’ word that comes out of their mouths? When will the dog finally start wagging the tail for once? Or better yet, when will the dog realize that its tail has become incurably infected and simply gnaw it the fuck off?

The MySpace Generation... who cares?

I was cleaning out my computer this week and stumbled across something I'd written back around election time. It was originally written with the intent of submitting it to one of the local alt papers around here, but I apparently never found the time to actually finish and polish it. It was in pretty jagged shape when I came across it this week, but I thought the ideas I was presenting were good and valid and worth seeing the light of day. So I fixed it up a bit and, even though it's a little dated, I figured I'd finally share it with the world at large. Enjoy.

=====================================

WE ARE THE MYSPACE GENERATION… AND WE COULD CARE LESS
by Brian Hodges

I received a rather long internet forward on my MySpace bulletin board this week which basically said, "Hey couch potato, make sure you go out and vote next Tuesday!" Like most forwards that don't involve filling out surveys or watching videos of indie rock bands on treadmills, I gave it a only quick skim before devoting my attention to more pressing matters like creating my own South Park character and scanning for hotties amongst my friends' friends list. I fully expected the bulletin and all its content to fade from memory by the time I logged off the site. But before clicking away to post an animation of some fat chick having sex to a friend's comment area, my eyes happened upon one particular line: "They're calling our generation the Apathetic Generation."

The composition of this particular bulletin indicated an author of better writing skills than your typical 14 to 23-year-old MySpace user, so it made sense that the original poster was probably someone closer to my age and the apathetic generation to which he referred was my own. Born in 1978, I've always been rather confused as to which generation I technically belonged. A quick check of Wikipedia simultaneously places me in Generation X, Generation Y, The MTV Generation and something called "The Boomerang Generation." But no matter which "our generation" the author was actually indicating, I could only assume that the "they" to which he alluded meant the people of our parents' generation, which for the average MySpacer means the Baby Boomers.

Normally an attack like this doesn't bother me enough to give it a second thought (isn't that what apathy is all about?), but for some reason this particular criticism, made in this particular context, stuck with me well after I'd finished approving new friend requests and changing my profile song to "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley. What this nameless "they" was saying, according to the author, was that despite being faced with a war, a nuclear threat, human rights violations and a laundry list of other issues, "our generation" is still too lazy and uncaring to go out and vote. I went back over the post several times and the more I read that one key line, the more self-righteous my apathy became.

When "they" say "our generation" is apathetic, what "they" are really saying is that "we" aren't like "them." "We" don't do all the things "they" did at our age. "Our generation" doesn't mobilize for reform on college campuses. "Our generation" doesn't march on the Capitol building waving placards and hurling slogans. "Our generation" doesn't engage in civil disobedience while singing defiant folk songs. And "our generation" certainly doesn't rally around political candidates who might end the tyranny, bring peace to our country and harmony to the world. If this is what "they" mean by an "apathetic generation" then I guess I'd say "they" are right.

But can "they" really blame us? After all, "they" are "our generation's" role models. "They" thought trying to change the world was all noble and groovy for about a decade or so until they realized there was more money to be made selling real estate. "They" were all about fighting The Establishment and standing up for the little man until "they" realized they could use their law degree to defend The Establishment against little man's lawsuits and earn a fatter paycheck. Woodstock, Marin County, the Sunset Strip, places where "they" used to hang out, smoke dope and say, "Love is all you need," are now nothing more than giant spaces for them to build luxury condos and hang billboards advertising Big Macs, timeshares, and the next season of Big Brother. "They" were passionate. "They" were going to make a difference. And yet look at what "they" produced. Frankly, I think things might have turned out better if "they" had taken a cue from "our generation" and just said, "Eh, whatever."

If there's anything "our generation" has learned from "them", it's that politics is not the way to change the world. We tried it out for a while… more to see what all the fuss was about I think. During the 2004 Democratic and Republican Conventions, "our generation" descended on Boston and New York and tried to capture some of the allure of the late sixties. We marched. We protested. We spoke out on matters we only kind of understood. But the trend died quickly… probably when all the young men realized this particular political revolution wasn't manifesting with its own sixties-style sexual revolution. And as soon as it became apparent that those hot Blue State chicks weren't putting out after the rally, we went back to work at Best Buy so we could save up enough money to buy a Razr phone with internet capabilities – allowing us to check our MySpace while on the go.

Maybe "our generation" doesn't vote. Maybe we don't give two shits about who ends up controlling Congress next Tuesday. But does anyone among us – from "our generation" or "theirs" – really and truly believe that a different set of politicians will be the thing that brings about a new and better America? "They" have already proven their own lack of faith in the power of the vote by moving on from the passionate activism of the 1960's to the apathetic consumerism of pretty much every decade since. All "our generation" is doing is skipping over "power of the vote" and going straight to apathy.

That being said, "our generation" is far from apathetic. We do care about things. We really do. It's just that right now, honestly, we have no idea whatsoever how to fix the mess that "they" created. Perhaps it will come to us in time. Perhaps what looks like apathy is just "our generation" unconsciously biding its time, watching and waiting until "they" vacate the premises. We know there's nothing we can really do as long as "they" are still in control, so why waste "our" time and "our" energy on useless rallies and campaigns that will only serve to get another one of "them" elected? Better to just sit here quietly, listening to our iPods, playing Final Fantasy, and deciding which MySpace friends to put in our Top 8 List. Who knows, maybe MySpace will become the platform where the new revolution begins. Maybe with every silly blog we post, with every YouTube video we embed, with every slutty self-portrait we upload, we will slowly but surely come together as one unit who will finally bring down The Establishment "they" were ultimately powerless to stop. And unlike the misguided stunts "they" pulled in the preceding generation, our tactics will be less likely to get us shot by the National Guard.

So to all the "they's" who want to call us "The Apathetic Generation," we say enjoy your election next Tuesday. We won't be there, but we'll be thinking of you. And when your solution to everything once again fails to solve anything, we'll be here, predictably not caring. We'll just keep on doing what we do everyday; hanging out on MySpace and waiting for you to die.

An Inconvenient Following

I am seriously this close to being done with the whole Global Warming movement. I’m sure this will be an unpopular blog. Or who knows, maybe there is a quiet mob out there like me who will echo the sentiment. Who am I kidding though – most likely nobody but my MySpace contingent actually reads this crap anyway so why hold back? I should back up for a second and clarify that it’s not the Global Warming movement in and of itself that has inspired this latest of rants. Anyone who has read my essay “Is the Truth Really That Inconvenient?” knows that I haven’t closed off my ears to the debate entirely… or even a little. I simply have a lot of questions that nobody in the planet-hugger community seems willing or able to answer. Beyond that, I’m frankly suspicious that this whole movement, while it may have started out with good intentions, is being hijacked by disingenuous people more focused on money and power than actually fixing the problem. Where I really grind my axe these days is with two specific groups: A) Loudmouth global warming activists who are painfully (or willfully) ignorant of how global warming actually works; and B) Al Gore groupies. But it’s when you combine these two groups of earthy well wishers that I actually start to become afraid for the next few years.

Let’s start with Group A. All of us probably know at least one person in this group. I’ll set the scenario for you. See if you recognize it. You’re chatting amongst friends or shooting the breeze with somebody on IM when you make the mistake of making an offhand comment about the weather. The people of Group A don’t hesitate a beat before responding, “Well, that’s global warming for you.” It doesn’t matter what your comment is. It’s hot outside. Global warming. It’s cold outside. Global warming. It’s windy. It’s rainy. It’s dry. It’s muggy. Global warming… Okay, let me explain how global warming works. First of all, look at the first word: GLOBAL. You cannot gauge the plight of an entire planet by pointing to a weeklong heat wave in New England, nor is a freak cold snap in April indicative of glaciers melting and the impending ice age. In fact, if you have a week’s worth of unusually hot weather and then a week’s worth of unusually cold weather, as far as the GLOBAL temperature is concerned, nothing has changed. If January is five degrees warmer than usual and July is five degrees colder than usual, in the eyes of the overall climate, everything has balanced itself out. But the people in Group A either don’t understand that or are deliberately ignoring it so they can fuel their own activist fires. To listen to these people rant, you’d swear there was never any such thing as droughts, monsoons or hurricanes before the Industrial Revolution.

I’m going to say this just as clear as I can. Even if we take this “environmental crisis” at face value, the day-to-day effects of global warming are not dramatic enough to be noteworthy. Pointing to floods, tornadoes, heat waves or even glaciers collapsing in slow motion does nothing to prove your point. The things that lend credence to global warming aren’t sensational or visual at all. You know what they are? Numbers. Statistics. Data from all over the world painstakingly compiled into hugely boring tables and graphs that show the GLOBAL temperature rising by fractions of a degree. One quarter of a degree on a boring chart like that is far more damning than ten degrees on a bank thermometer. That is where the inconvenient truth really lies… even if it isn’t as compelling to look at. So please stop invoking global warming every time I decide to make small talk about the weather.

Okay, now for Group B. The Al Gore groupies. These people infuriate me more than Group A, who at least have the luxury of just being ignorant. The Gore groupies are different in that they really do seem to understand the causes behind global warming and are willing to condemn people, countries and corporations for all the damage they’re causing via their actions. Yet when it comes the actions of Al Gore, they turn a blind eye to that inconvenient bit of truth. In his movie, Gore urges everyone to make sacrifices to reduce energy consumption and lessen their carbon footprint on the planet. Yet when Gore’s own energy consumption habits were examined, it turned out that his house consumed nearly twenty times more electricity than the average American home. Twenty times! Add to that the fact that he flew around the country promoting his movie in a private jet and one has to wonder just how seriously Gore takes his own message. These aren’t groundbreaking revelations I’m making here. Pretty much every conservative radio show in the country has used this information against Gore over the last several months. But what continually strikes me as so odd is the way the Goreists consistently absolve their fearless leader of his conduct simply because he is the one getting the message out. “The private jet’s emissions are worth it if it means he can speak at more assemblies,” they urge. What other committed following would say that? If some Christian evangelist traveled the country preaching against, say, homosexuality and then it turned out he had been getting it on with male prostitutes after the show, would his followers say, “Well that’s okay because he’s out there spreading the right message”? Of course not! They would disavow themselves of him and his actions immediately.

The one argument I constantly hear being made in defense of Al Gore and his carbon footprint is that he “buys carbon credits” to offset his pollution. Essentially he pays a certain amount of money to companies with low carbon emissions, or to companies developing renewable energy technologies, or to organizations who do things like plant trees. Something to that effect. I’m exactly not sure how it all works, but the bottom line worth focusing on here is that Gore is validating his sins against the planet by paying money for them. Is it just me or does this all vaguely similar to the medieval Catholic doctrine of “Indulgences” where rich people could pay money to the church who would then give them (no joke) a “pre-emptive license to sin.” If a man knew he was going to have an affair, he would pay a certain amount of money to the diocese, and then his priest, rather than encouraging him to turn from his sinful ways, would simply absolve him of all future adulteries. The inherent hypocrisy wrapped up inside this doctrine was one of the primary triggers for Martin Luther’s grievances and the resulting Protestant Reformation. So why, just because Al Gore has more money than the rest of us, is he allowed to pollute at will? If he's supposed to be at the forefront of this movement, why doesn't he pay out that carbon credit money in addition to reducing his carbon footprint? (And just to be completely forthright here, it’s actually Paramount Pictures, the film’s distributor who pays those credits, not Gore himself.) And why oh why doesn’t Gore’s entourage at least acknowledge the inconsistencies between his doctrine and his daily life and demand that their leader hold himself to higher standard?

This blog has been a long time in coming. It’s been on the tip of my (fingertips?) for months now but without the time to actually sit down and hammer out my thoughts. Then I heard something, actually two things, that finally made me take the time to get this out there. The first thing I heard – which really was reason enough – was a speech made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Live Earth concert on July 7 where he flat out accused people who don’t believe the warnings about global warming to be guilty of “treason.” Treason! As in being a traitor to the country, perhaps the utmost crime somebody can be convicted of. Sadly, Kennedy’s comment was merely the most visible example of a scary trend I see developing in this country, where any opinions on global warming other than the ones espoused by Al Gore and those like him are opinions that are, at best, not valid. And at worst, if Kennedy can be taken at his word, those opinions can apparently make a person subject to anything from censure to death. We’re not there yet. For the time being there are voices who are countering the “Al Gore’s Way or the Highway” mentality. People like Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck who, love ‘em or hate ‘em, do make valid defensible points on the opposing side. The danger could exist however, if and when someone like Al Gore, somebody with his single-minded committedness to global warming, gets into a position of real power and opens up a new round of neo-McCarthyism.

I know that last remark sounds like I’m just being sensationalistic for effect, but I am dead serious. I wouldn’t have believed it myself except for the fact that I was also listening to the audio book version of Bill Bryson’s The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid. The book is a memoir of sorts using Bryson’s childhood as a jumping off point for talking about America in the 1950’s. Bryson spends several minutes (pages?) in one chapter talking about America’s fear of Communism and how that fear was personified and ultimately manipulated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy instigated a nationwide witch-hunt for anyone and everyone who might be perceived as collaborating with communists in any way. As Bryson explains, well respected scientists, businessmen, humanitarians and, of course, Hollywood artists were accused of being communists and couldn’t find work simply because they had once had a conversation with somebody who had once written a paper expressing what was narrowly interpreted as sympathy toward the communist party. Lives, careers and reputations were ruined for anyone who was even remotely suspected of advocating philosophies that strayed from the accepted American capitalist ideal.

As I listened to this recording I felt an eerie sense of foreboding over the similarities between then and now. As I said, we are not to that point yet, but the fact that somebody like Robert Kennedy can so openly and so easily accuse others of treason – not a light choice of words by any stretch of the imagination – simply for disagreeing with the most popular views on global warming… The signs are all there. McCarthy played on the country’s fears and people went right along with him, even as he made claim after increasingly ridiculous claim. The fears surrounding global warming are also building and are already being played upon. For the time being it seems to be mostly corporations who are reaping the benefits of those fears, with the sales of hybrid cars, fluorescent light bulbs and whatnot. But as the government changes hands over the next few years, who knows who might come into power and what ridiculous things might they get the country to agree to in the name of global warming? Al Gore claims we have ten years to change “or else.” If the threat is truly that dire, what will believers do to ensure that change? Surely shutting up dissenters à la Joseph McCarthy will be the first step. And then what? America’s fear of communism almost put us into all out nuclear war. What could our fear of global warming push us into?

As I’ve said all along (and I feel compelled to keep restating), I am not denying the claims of the global warming camp outright. But neither will I simply be pushed along by the rising current without asking what I feel are pertinent questions. Blindly agreeing with popular opinion doesn’t help any of us. In fact it could end up causing us to focus our efforts in exactly the wrong areas as projects and programs get green-lighted unchallenged, only to realize the mistake several years too late. At best we could end up wasting money. At worst we could end up taking measures that would alter whole eco-systems, something that, as humans, we’ve never had much success with. Better that we all take the time and ask these questions now. So show your dissent. Challenge others. Don’t let offhand, “Look what global warming is causing” comments go unchallenged. That’s how it starts, but eventually it could become, “Do you now or have you ever owned or operated an SUV?”

I, for my part, am showing my own personal dissent through typically passive-aggressive techniques. Blogs like this for one. And deliberately sarcastic mockery and oh-my-god-is-he-really-serious apathy for another. To that end, I need help designing a few bumper stickers. The prototype slogans are:

BURN MORE COAL!
...because penguins are EVIL!

GLOBAL WARMING:
…because it’s too damn cold out there anyway.

STOP GLOBAL WARMING:
Shut your big fat mouth.

And my personal favorite:

GLACIERS ARE MELTING! …so?

Anybody with graphic design abilities, feel free to collaborate.

Bada...Bing?

Although I don’t watch The Sopranos – I think I’ve seen maybe one half of two or three episodes over the years – I am quite positively oozing with sympathy for all the dedicated fans over what I’ve been reading was an absolutely atrocious end to the series. Apparently the final scene plays out with Tony sitting in a diner watching his daughter through the window as she parks a car. Then the door to the diner opens and the screen cuts to black. And… that’s it. The discussions that have popped up all over the internet since the “finale” on Sunday have broken down into two camps: the ones who feel cheated out of closure and the ones who think the ending ranged anywhere from “appropriate in context” to “sheer genius.” The people of this latter camp seem to be furiously attempting to fit the ending retroactively to the motif of the entire series – where life, even for a mobster, is mundane and full of loose ends. I read one quote on CNN, some professor who said, “In our popular culture, we've come to expect things to get tied up neatly… [But] real life doesn't have neat endings.”

I read that and similar quotes like it, which defend Sopranos creator David Chase, and I just get pissed off – as a writer, as a reader and as an overall lover of well-told stories. I’ve heard the same argument many times before, though usually it’s an argument used by amateur writers and filmmakers while defending their work’s monotony and boring self-indulgent dialogue. “Well that’s what happens in real life.” Yes, you’re right. Real life, when you think about it, is boring and monotonous. It’s a lot of waiting around, doing chores, standing in line and having the same old boring conversations that don’t mean anything over and over again until you die. But stories, whether they be on paper or on film, are merely microcosms of real life. They are not intended to mimic real life detail by detail. And as a storyteller, you have a duty, an obligation to your audience to provide some kind of closure to the story you’ve opened. That’s what makes it a story. Beginning…middle…END. It doesn’t have to be neat. It doesn’t have to be happy. It doesn’t even have to be perfect. But it has to be something.

As I’ve thought about David Chase’s decision for the end of his story, I think of a series I recently finished reading and the way it ended. The Dark Tower series by Stephen king is a monster seven-novel story arc that follows a gunslinger named Roland on his quest to find the mysterious Dark Tower. (WARNING: Plot spoiler ahead. Don’t read this paragraph if you don’t want the ending ruined.) Throughout the series, while the Hollywood part of you knows that Roland has to succeed and find the Dark Tower, you do gradually come to the sober realization that that ending might not necessarily happen. You realize that in this story there is a very good chance that Roland will die before he accomplishes his goal. In the end, Roland does reach the Tower and after all the trials, all the horrors, all the heartbreaks he has endured, he climbs to the top. Then he opens a door and is shoved forcibly through by the hand of God… shoved back to the first scene of the first book. Before he goes through he has a brief moment of horror as he realizes that he must go through all those trials, all those horrors and all those heartbreaks again… and again, and again for the whole of eternity. If you’ve been following the series, it is a sickening, gut wrenching ending, mostly because it is SO unexpected. And the human part of you so wants to pull Roland back and say, “No no no, not like this.” So that ending, as a reader, pisses you off. But, as a reader following the series the whole way through, you know that that is an appropriate ending. Perhaps the only appropriate ending. And even though it sickens you, you accept it because even though the ending wasn’t neat and tidy, it did provide appropriate closure.

From what I’ve heard, The Sopranos did NOT do that. It wasn’t neat and it wasn’t tidy. But so much worse than that, it wasn’t anything. I haven’t felt this bad for an audience since the end of X-Files. Damn that Chris Carter. He converted a whole generation into believers in aliens and the paranormal and encouraged them to keep following the characters as they searched for answers. And then he cut them off without anything. No answers. Only questions. I’m not saying he needed to answer all the questions, or even most of the questions. I’m not saying he couldn’t have opened up even more questions at the end, or left the audience to figure a few things out, Hitchcock style, on their own. But damn, throw your devoted audience a bone. Give them something. Anything. Real life doesn’t always provide answers or give you real closure. But a story SHOULD.

Take another much-loathed finale: Seinfeld. We all hated it when we saw it, but even in the midst of “a show about nothing” they still found an ending that was appropriate – namely landing in jail for the despicable people we all knew they were and then (finally) running out of stupid things to talk about. It wasn’t the greatest ending of all time, but it was appropriate to the series (hilarious even, in retrospect) and, most of all, it was at least AN ending.

Shame on you Sopranos. What you did doesn’t strike me as “art.” It doesn’t even strike me as a shameless tease for some future movie. It certainly doesn’t strike me as motivated or inspired writing. It strikes me as a cheap trick played by a storyteller who realized he was either too afraid or too incompetent to deliver a real ending. And your fans deserved better than that.

Sorry Sopranos fans. I feel your pain. I only hope the writers of my dear intriguing show, LOST, don’t pull that same crap on me.

Virginia Te...(click)

I've mentioned in the past how I don't really keep up with the news, almost make a point NOT to watch the news and trust the fact that any news worth knowing about will still be news 2 weeks later when I eventually hear about it and take the time to find out what happened. The way I see it, all news is partial or complete speculation and/or spin until at least that long anyway.

But as with most of the nation, I too have felt compelled to watch at least a few reports about this whole Virginia Tech thing. I just finished watching the local 11 o'clock news report about the video tape the killer sent to the news networks. Except they're not calling it "the video tape the killer sent to the news networks." No, they are calling it, "Murderer's 1800-word Manifesto." Christ. That's seriously all it took and now once again I am off the news. Earlier in the night as I was flipping through the channels in the 15 minutes before LOST came on, I stopped briefly on each of the Big 3 news nets and each one was palpably foaming at the mouth over their "exclusive interview" with the killer's roommate, co-worker, classmate, etc. etc. etc. Basically pick a relationship anybody could have had and the reporters were on them like jackals, each trying to get their own unique perspective so as to show up the other news shows. Each station had built their own animated graphics specifically for the killings, incorporating the killer's face, or crying students, or V-tech sweatshirts, or a combination of them all. Each had accompanying sound effects designed to draw the viewer's attention which sounded like some kind of video game. And goddamn if each reporter didn't deliver their standup, punctuating those key words just absolutely perfectly so that every viewer knew what they were saying was deep, dark, poignant, timeless... poetic even. You couldn't help but wonder if they were seeing the tears in the students' eyes, or the glitter of their own Emmy's.

And now, the "Murderer's Manifesto." Does everybody remember Columbine? Does anybody remember that the two killers in that massacre recorded a similar video telling exactly what they were going to do? Anybody? No, because you know what? Out of respect, they never released that tape to the public. They gave transcripts I believe, but even that wasn't until MONTHS after the rampage. But when this guy actually mailed his video to NBC, what choice did NBC have but to run it? Of course we all watched it. We couldn't help it. We're curious as hell. We want to know why he did it. Did we get any answers? Of course not, other than confirming that yes, this dude was in fact insane. But did we get any answers? No. But NBC sure as hell got ratings. You almost feel bad for them that this didn't take place during sweeps.

I really haven't spent much time thinking about the massacre at Virginia Tech at all because honestly if I think too deeply on it, I know I'll break down crying. But that's not the reason I'm vowing to avoid all news reports about the story until at least 2 weeks have passed. I'm avoiding the news because honestly I would rather think of this tragedy with all the due horror and sadness that it warrants. I don't want to roll my eyes and think on it with disgust. And that's just what watching even a collective 20 minutes of the garbage that passes for "news" this evening did to me. I want nothing more than to reach through my TV screen and strangle every reporter I see covering the event. And that is what this is you know... an "event". That's all these things ever are in the eyes of the media. September 11 was the lone exception to that rule. Every single report, every single reportER I saw covering that day was real and genuine, simply because they were covering something unlike anything they had ever seen before in their lives. Their shock, their horror, their sadness was real, genuine, unscripted. But with VA Tech... they KNOW how to cover this kind of stuff. Hell they've been practicing for this day ever since April 20, 1999.

I only saw the tease for this story, didn't actually watch the full "report", but apparently Simon Cowell is in some hot water because he rolled his eyes at an American Idol contestant who dedicated one of his performances to the victims of Virginia Tech. To Simon, I say, "Right on man." If ALL the contestants had collaborated on a company number for the victims, okay, I'd give you that, but the way this contestant did it, all it did was USE the deaths of 32 people to draw sympathy and votes for his own performance. I know that sounds cynical as hell, and I know this particular contestant actually was from the state of Virginia, but damn man, this wasn't a tragedy for YOU to make your own. I'd have rolled my eyes at THE CONTESTANT as well. And I'm quite certain that's what Simon was doing. He wasn't rolling his eyes at the tragedy or the victims of it. He was rolling his eyes at the contestant for USING those victims for his own benefit. Shame.

Shame. Just like the news organizations. This is nothing new. Tragedy is the bread and butter of the news industry. I accept that, though I decided tonight that if I were running the universe, big domestic tragedies like this would be assigned by lottery. Only ONE news network would be granted permission to cover any given tragedy. NBC would get dibs on VA Tech because CBS drew the lot during Reagan's death, something CBS was actually bummed about because their tragedy didn't garner nearly as many ratings as ABC pulled in during Hurricane Katrina when their number came up, and CNN is crossing their fingers for a dirty bomb in Los Angeles because it's their turn next. As far as I'm concerned, that is the ONLY way for a tragic event to be covered fairly, honestly and tactfully - eliminate the competition. That way, nobody stoops to dispicable levels trying to "scoop" the other networks with THEIR "exclusive witness", or their exclusive "expert" on this that or the other. And certainly nobody tries to grab viewers with big exciting words like "Murderer's Manifesto". Without competition, without the need for sensationalism, the story can simply be told and the dead can know that they were not merely pawns in some grand scramble for ratings...

Mind you, this rule would only apply for the first two weeks following the tragedy. Because as I previously stated, any news really worth knowing will still be news two weeks later. After that time, the other networks would be free to start airing the stuff they shot, or decide that after 14 days, nobody cares anymore and it's time to discuss the paternity results of the latest celebrity death triangle.

To anybody who was affected by the VA Tech tragedy, my deepest and sincerest condolences. I can't even begin to know what to say. But for now, I am going to leave you to cope with your grief without another intrusive eye looking in on you. I'll catch up with you in about 11 days.

Oh liberals, why are you this naive?

I GOT THIS LETTER ON MY MYSPACE BULLETIN BOARD TODAY AND READ IT WITH A FAIR AMOUNT OF INCREDULITY, SHAKING MY HEAD AT HOW SOME WELL-MEANING LIBERAL COULD BE SO NAÏVE AND CONDESCENING… AND THEN I GOT TO THE BOTTOM AND REALIZED IT WAS A LETTER FROM MICHAEL MOORE AND IT ALL MADE SENSE. SO I FELT THE NEED TO PUT IN MY OWN TWO-CENTS. MY COMMENTS IN BOLD.

November 14th, 2006

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Yes, but unlike YOU after the 2004 election, WE have not turned into whining little children stomping our feet and threatening to move to Canada just because things didn’t go our way.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what
we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Really? Because it seems like every time I actually get into a conversation with one of you people the look on your face ranges from disgust that anybody could possibly have such primitive ideas, to a look that I can only describe as pure childlike wonder or disbelief that there are even still such things as Red States and Red State voters.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

Fine, no problem here.

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.

If you say so, but then you might want to talk to such notable guys as Nancy Pelosi’s second-in-command John Murtha who has a rather pork filled history of his own. Or how about Harry Reid the Senate Minority leader who approved a bill for a bridge that allow the property value of his own house and neighborhood skyrocket. What about California Dem Diane Feinstein who threw 200 million dollars at Northrop Grauman for Katrina related efforts… just so happens that company is one of her biggest campaign supporters. Don’t tease us libs. I found these three easily after a mere five minutes on Google. I’m sure if I dug deeper I’d find more. You guys are just as guilty of wheeling and dealing for your friends as the Reps.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.

Okay, first of all, have you actually talked to the men and women who are over there fighting. If you did you’d realize a good portion of them - depending on whose polls you read of course - AGREE with the war. And so your solution is to bring them home poste haste. Great, let’s just leave a power vacuum over there for the insane president of Iran to step in and fill. That will make all our problems go away.

And really, the “war based on a lie” thing? Are we really still beating that dead fictitious horse? Okay then:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

That’s a quote from October of 2002 and made not by a Republican, but by a DEMOCRAT. And not just any democrat… Hillary Rodham Clinton herself said it.

Or what about:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

That one was made by Bill Clinton himself in 1998 while he was STILL PRESIDENT, so if there was a lie, it was more than just the right side of the room perpetuating it.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

That’s great. Government regulated health care. I’m sure that will run just as smoothly and efficiently as those other departments you run. Considering how long it takes and how many different forms I have to fill out and how many lines I have to stand in and how many rude and incompetent government employees I have to deal with just to get a DRIVERS LICENSE, I’m looking forward to the day when I need to go through you people to get chemo or a heart transplant.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

See now you all CLAIM to be pro-environment and I encourage that and I agree that the Bush administration has not been the environment’s best friend. But in multiple Google searches of appropriate keywords, I really don’t see you offering any actual SOLUTIONS to how you’re actually going to FIX things. The Kyoto Treaty and “alternative energy” are the only buzzwords I really hear you talking about, which strike me as rather vague “hooks” to lure voters and make it SEEM like you’re devoting your time to the problem without producing any actual results. But hey, I hope I’m misreading. Go to it.

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

Right, because all the terrorism in this world is being perpetuated by ONE GUY. And taking him out is going to solve all our problems. Fantastic. I look forward to seeing you apprehend the mass murderer and immediate extinction of radical Islam that is sure to follow.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

But will you start counting the seconds of my age from the instant my head pops out of the birth canal until the second the doctor punctures my skull or severs the spinal cord in my neck? I know I was only “partially born” before I was killed but still, will you be counting then?

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

Machine guns, I’m right on board with you. But you know some of us actually use handguns to defend our homes from criminals who managed to find guns in spite of the laws you want to make.

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

That’s wonderful. What a great cure-all for the poor of this country. I’m sure once that single mom starts making a full SEVEN dollars an hour, all her financial woes will be over. Maybe she’ll even be able to buy her little girl that pony she’s always wanted. And she’ll have you to thank.

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the
peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

Sure, you’ll respect our beliefs right up until the moment when one of use dares to intimate that there is bona fide evil in this world, or when we suggest that somebody’s decisions might be immoral, or when our child decides to say a personal prayer before lunch where others can hear in a public school. After that, respect stops and we become “intolerant” or “brain-washed” people who are “unable to think for themselves.”

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

Okay, seriously, ANY politician that gets as high as the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives has been bought and paid for by the rich at some point or other. Those campaign finances don’t pop out of thin air. And if you examine any politician, a good chunk of those donations are in large sums from rich people and corporations. But irrespective of money coming from outside, both the Republican AND the Democratic Parties are big money-making organizations FULL of corruption. Ever wonder why another party has yet to rise up and challenge the two standing parties? Because the Blues and the Reds have corrupted together and even though they are on opposite sides, they need each other to prop themselves up. So they force Green party candidates and independents off ballots. They make sure that no matter who wins or loses, at least one of THEM will still retain control.

You’re going to weed our your own corrupt politicians first? Seriously? Then why have you waited until now? If you were really serious about that, you would have done it already.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

We’re every bit as American as you are? That’s funny, the day after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election we found a graphic on your site indicating that we weren’t part of America all, but a condescending little place known as “Jesusland”.

Signed,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mmflint/petition.html )
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.

Hey believe me, I'm not shedding any tears over the Republicans losing both houses last week. Personally I voted Green down the line. But my god liberals, I know you’re pissed off at George Bush, but why do you keep looking to THIS GUY for guidance?

Tag, you're gone!

(deep SIGH)

First they took away Dodgeball, saying it was too violent. Then a couple of kids fell off the see-saw and monkey bars, so away they went. Soon after that, all the tall metal slides were replaced by short plastic corkscrew slides that don't allow you to pick up any speed at all. Before long somebody also said that even swings were too dangerous for playground play. Now just when you thought parents and schools couldn't get any more ridiculous and pussified than they already are, you know what some school board in Attleboro, Massachusetts decided this week? Apparently the game of Tag is no longer an appropriate game. Tag! I mean... TAG for Christ's sake! Claiming "Recess is a time when accidents happen," the Willlette Elementary School has now deemed one of the most basic, elemental and pure games of childhood to be too rough and dangerous for kids to play. What's more amazing is that there's nothing amazing about this particular decision. Apparently schools all over the country have been taking similar measures for years. In 2002 a Santa Monica school banned the game saying that it "creates self esteem issues among slower and weaker children."

I just don't even know what to say about this decision that isn't already self-evident to anybody who grew up in any previous generation, though I think George Carlin definitely said it best a few years ago when he said: "Grownups are taking all the fun out of being a kid just to save a few thousand lives. It's pathetic."

I'll skip all the remarks and comments of how stupid and moronic this decision and other decisions like it are (I'm sure all of you reading have a least a dozen comments of your own that you could insert here... and if you don't, well then you're a hopeless case anyway who should never have kids of your own) and instead skip right ahead to the big picture and its long term implications.

Every generation fears the generation that comes after it. Our grandparents were horrified by the rock-n-roll that our parents grew up listening to. Our parents were horrified by the brain-numbing MTV programming we watched like Beavis & Butthead and Singled Out. It's expected. You think your parents are prudes and you wish your kids would be into the wholesome things you used to be into. But now that my generation is stepping into the roles of parenthood a new and disturbing trend is happening. We're actually saying that all the things we loved about being a kid are no longer good and valid forms of entertainment. Instead, we claim they're damaging to the body and psyche of our frail little children. That's what we're saying, but the more I think about it, the more I think it goes deeper. Parents aren't really vilifying things that are dangerous. What they're really trying to forbid is any activity that kids can participate in without the direct supervision of a group of adults.

I never made that leap of logic until I read a short article that talked about how soccer is now the number one sport engaged in by the youth of America. And what immediately occurred to me was that the article or the study or whatever it was had left out one key word from that declaration. What it should have said was that soccer was the number one organized sport in America. Whenever you see American kids playing soccer, it's almost without exception a structured, organized event with official teams, coaches, referees, and soccer moms from the boosters club selling refreshments and car magnets in the shape of soccer balls. You almost never see a group of four or ten unsupervised kids trying to kick a soccer ball through a makeshift goal they set up using a couple backpacks. That's what kids in every other country in the world do, but not in America. No, in America I would stake my life on saying the most popular sport that kids engage in, irrespective of any kind of supervision, is basketball. Kids don't need an organized group of parents in order to play basketball. As long as they have a ball, a net and a hard surface they'll shoot hoops for hours just for the sheer joy of playing. But since there's no way to poll every pickup game on every cracked asphalt court in the country, soccer is the sport that wins the most popular title.

And that suits the parents of my generation just fine. For some reason, parents my age just can't stand the idea that their kids could be having any kind of fun in any activity that they didn't personally orchestrate and supervise. Give kids the opportunity and a rubber ball or three and they'll organize their own game of dodgeball. They'll monitor themselves, coach themselves and referee themselves. Give them the chance and they'll run around for an hour, chasing each other and tagging each other in the most unstructured game ever created. There's no need for parents. There's no need to keep score. There's no need to even determine a winner. You just play the game until you get sick of it, at which point you move on to something else. I'm not sure why, but games like that, games that we ourselves used to play, freak out the parents of my generation. It's inconceivable to them that their kids would do anything without their direct influence. And that's why things like playground equipment and unstructured games like tag and dodgeball are going away. "Safety" and "self-esteem" are just easy scapegoats for the real truth, which is today's parents are scared shitless that their kids... might not need them.

I don't know where all this insecurity originated and why it seems to be unique to the parents of my generation. Is it that we wish our own parents would have spent more time playing with us that we feel compelled to make sure our kids never spend a joyful minute outside our presence? Is it the reports of kids being stolen out of their own yards are making us too scared to let our kids leave our personal guardianship for any reason whatsoever? What is it that makes games like soccer, where literally dozens of kids can be supervised all at once, more preferable to games like tag where kids can supervise themselves? Why on earth is our generation unique in vilifying ourselves by vilifying the things we used to love? And where will it end? How much of our children's lives will we attempt to structuralize with no thought given to what we're depriving them of?

RV People

HEY EVERYBODY, THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM A MUCH LONGER ESSAY THAT I'M WORKING ON AND WILL EVENTUALLY POST (HOPEFULLY BY THIS WEEKEND) ON MY WEBSITE. BUT I JUST SPENT THE BETTER PART OF THE EVENING WORKING ON AND REWORKING THIS SECTION OF IT. AND I'M SO FILLED WITH PASSION AND IRE ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW THAT I FELT COMPELLED TO OFFER IT UP FOR APPRAISAL AND COMMENT... AND RIDICULE IF IT COMES TO THAT.


As you have probably gathered by now, I harbor quite a large reservoir of contempt for people in RV's. But more what it is, is an unbridled hatred of the people I refer to in my road trip travelogue as "interstate tourists":

These are the types of people who get annoyed that there isn't an interstate going straight through the middle of Yellowstone Park. Everywhere they go, they zoom in at 65m.p.h. and hop out of the car with the look of people who expect to see the Second Coming of Christ at every rest stop... They never stay long enough to take something in. They never actually look at anything except through the viewfinder of their camcorder. And they never spend the time seeking out those special nuances of an area that can't be described in a guidebook. They stick to the interstates where they never have to go more than thirty minutes between rest stops with bathrooms and Burger Kings.

RV people epitomize this travel ethic. Rather than looking at a road trip as an adventure, as the exploration of something new and exciting, with all the minor risks and aggravations go along with it, they prefer instead to insulate themselves inside a tin can from anything that they potentially didn't plan for. Using an RV insures that these people will never have to go out and interact with whatever environment they drive through - whether it be small town life, kitschy roadside amusement, or the great open outdoors. Instead they come to accommodating "campgrounds" by the droves where they park, hook up power and sewage lines and then spend the rest of the time sitting inside their antiseptic, air conditioned environment, watching cable TV, observing what they consider to be nature through a pane of glass, and talking about mindless idiotic jabber - primarily about the features and benefits of their RV's. When they do venture out of their Winnebago-designed ecosystem and into the out of doors, they make sure to pull out their state of the art comfy lawn chairs and extend the RV's built-in awning so that neither the heat of the sun nor the cool of the ground will disrupt the hermetically-sealed utopia they've worked so hard, and paid so much, to create.

I know what you're probably thinking: What do you care? You don't have to travel like that if you don't want to. So why are you bitching? I'm bitching because more and more I see the traveling culture leaning the way of the RV interstate tourist. More and more campgrounds clamoring for income are doing whatever they can to attract caravans of RV'ers of whom they can charge more than they would a mere family with a tent. And as more and more businesses cater to the RV crowd, more and more people begin to think that this is an acceptable form of vacationing, so they eagerly buy or rent the latest model. Without even needing to acquire a special license, they drive these lumbering, gas-guzzling behemoths down roads far too narrow for them to be traveling on (if only they would stick to the interstate), slow down traffic behind them, force oncoming traffic to ride the shoulder, make hundred-point K-turns into every parking lot they come to, then stink up perfectly good camping real estate with their gas fumes and sewage releases.

But those are just pet peeves. My real hatred comes from the fact that as I see it, RV's, RV people and RV culture are slowly but surely killing the allure and legacy of the great American Road Trip - and to a broader extent, destroying the very definition of "America" itself. The whole concept behind an RV is to be able to get to a destination as fast as you can so you can set up your temporary home away from home, then never leave its comforts unless absolutely necessary. You have no reason to go out and eat at Big Ed's Barbeque Pit because you can just boil up the spaghetti you bought at Wal Mart in your kitchen/bathroom. There's no need to buy a Coke from Mom & Pop's Roadside Convenience Store because you left home with your refrigerator-on-wheels fully stocked. In an RV, the only people you need to interact with are the ones you brought with you; other RV people who wander over to compare RV bells, whistles and penis sizes; and the occasional minimum wage amusement park worker who you'll viciously berate without pity for making the line for the roller coaster move too slow.

And as more and more people adopt this mentality, the very notion of Roadside, America will begin to die. As people stop passing through these little towns with their local fairs, attractions and colorful people, opting instead for the super-fast, super-convenient interstate, eventually there won't be any local fairs, attractions or colorful people to see. America will cease to be a vast and detailed canvas with wonderful things to see and experience everywhere you look. Instead it will become an uninspiring connect-the-dots of destinations, with busy divided highways zipping people from one dot to the next. And as the spaces in between those dots slowly languish and die, the land will be bought up by investors who will in turn build malls, condos and corporate parks, so that in time everywhere you go in this country will look exactly like everywhere else.

Already this is happening. The interstates alone - and the airlines for that matter - have helped perpetrate this slow death. Just ask anybody who traveled the famous Route 66 back in its heyday. Every little town along a major cross-country route had a name and an identity. Every hardworking person and every struggling family business had a real and genuine opportunity to carve out their own little niche in the American economy and way of life. Some accomplished this goal by providing a decent hamburger and soft-serve ice cream. Others did it by offering a cheap and cozy place to sleep. Still others did it by constructing items of a somewhat dubious nature (The World's Largest Buffalo, a giant cannon designed to shoot its creator into space, or even just a very tall pile of cans) and heralding their existence to anyone who might be interested - which they often were. Roadside, America used to define this country. It used to be one of the many definitions collectively affirming America as the land of opportunity where truly anything was possible.

These days giant corporations are ever trying to narrow down that list of definitions - preferably to ones that also contain their logo. These people deal in destinations and their very existence depends on people, hordes of people, arriving at those destinations day in and day out. They don't have time for the traveling public to poke around in Tractor Falls, Nebraska or Twineville, South Dakota. They need these people to get to their destinations, their destinations, as fast as possible and stay there for as long as possible before they race back home. And somehow they've succeeded in convincing most Americans that they also don't have time to waste between one destination and the next. Too many people have bought into the corporation-created notion of the destination reigning supreme - and nobody more so than RV people. And as more and more people adopt the mindset of the interstate tourist, the Great American Road Trip will die. And when that happens, the very definition of America, the very thing that made us great, will die along with it.

So fuck RV people and the cumbersome pieces of shit they rode in on.

Whining little maggots

Is anybody else sick of the whiny "boy rock" that's been coming out lately? Bands like Hoobastank, Sum 41 and Simple Plan. High-pitch-voiced BOYS singing and whining about their daddies, literally using the word "daddy" in their lyrics, and moaning about the fact that they're "not a perrrrfect perrrsonnn...." God I swear, if I hear another little boy bitch with a guitar whining about how he's not perfect, I'm going to punch somebody in the face. For the love of God, BE A MAN! Take a tip from your other deeper-voiced contemporaries like Nickelback, Three Doors Down or Rob Thomas. Wait until your balls drop, and your voice changes before you go making music. Nobody EXPECTS you to be perfect. Just own up to the things you've screwed up, move on, and sing about something with more substance that we might actually give a crap about. Or if the teen angst is really just too much for you to handle and you just can't help but lament over how not perfect you are, the least you could do is take a cue from the king of angst, Kurt Cobain, and deal with your problems in a constructive way.