If the military ever sells this shit, I’m buying it!

In keeping with the gay theme of my previous post, I wanted to comment on the following unintentionally hilarious report by CNN mentioning that the US military has rejected a project to develop an aphrodisiac to “spur homosexual activity among enemy troops” (and sadly enough, I didn’t even need to make that up). I would call this weapon “the Gay Bomb,” partly because I find it very à propos and also because I don’t usually get to just coin terms and darn it, it’s my blog, so I’m gonna do it! 🙂

The report goes on to state that Lt. Col. Barry Venable of the Army, a Defense Department spokesman, said: “This suggestion arose essentially from a brainstorming session, and it was rejected out of hand.” Hey, not so fast, Mr. Spokesman! Wait just a tick! Can you imagine the great marketing potential this has?!

I can envision the development of something called “G4Y SPR4Y” (hey, it rhymes, so it must be good!), which can be packaged in small aerosol cans like mace. I can imagine the following exchange:

Gay Guy: [to handsome Straight Guy] Hey, sailor!
Straight Guy: Err… I’m not gay, dude!
Gay Guy: Well, you will be for the next three hours! [sprays Straight Guy in the face] Now, here’s your Spongebob Squarepants t-shirt and a pillow to bite on: let’s go!

I’m sorry, but if they ever sell this, I’m buying it! 😉

Advertisement

Spongebob made me gay (retroactively)!

There seems to be very few things in this world in which religious nuts (or “Christian Activists,” as they call themselves presumably because “Retarded Fucking Morons” was taken) do not see the looming threat of the “gay agenda.” Really: it seems gays have nothing better to do than try to turn people’s kids gay by luring them with anthropomorphic characters that have no apparent gender and engage in nothing that even remotely ressembles a sexual relationship, homosexual or otherwise!

Proof of Christian activists’ obsession is the following CNN article where one of them denounced a cartoon featuring Spongebob Squarepants, Barney, Winnie the Pooh, the Rugrats, and other children’s characters, which was conceived to impart the concept of understanding people’s differences, as a thinly-veiled attempt to promote “celebrating homosexuality.”

I don’t know, but unless Winnie the Pooh was frenching Eeyore behind a tree or Spongebob was giving a dirty Sánchez to Barney, I find it hard to believe anyone would see any gay subtext in a children’s video! Unless, of course, they were raging closet fags.

Why is it that these “Christian groups” have to proclaim their Christianity in their names? Maybe it’s because if they didn’t, judging them solely on their actions and attitudes no one would know they’re Christian! If their behavior is to be taken as becoming of their faith, it seems the answer to the age-old question “What would Jesus do?” is “Act like an intolerant, hateful prick.” Who knew? They must have read their own Bible, titled “Jesus Loves Everyone (Except The Gays),” or perhaps “If You Are A Religous Nut, Feel Free To Judge Others.”

My favorite part is that Jerry Falwell not only “outed” the purple Teletubbie, Tinky Winky, but went further and declared him “a gay role model.” Really? Is the gay ideal to be purple, have weird antennae, carry around a purse, and have no penis? Sorry, but that hardly seems like any fun!

Yes, Céline, a baby burst forth from your poonany: get over it!

I’d like to know why is it that every artist that has a baby suddenly feels that something mystical and magical has occurred, and feel compelled to talk about it obsessively. The “miracle of life” happens countless times a day, every day: I don’t know about you, but I prefer my miracles to occur more sparingly, like someone walking on water, seeing the image of the Virgin on a grilled cheese sandwich, or the Red Sox winning the World Series.

One of the latest such artists (or artistes, as it has previously been explained by my friend César in this post) is the English-as-a-second-language Céline Dion. It seems Céline was impregnated by a man’s seed, and 9 months later, c’est un miracle!, a baby came out of her vagina. She has now written a CD about it (festooning it with a creepy collage of baby pictures), and recently even published a book (demurely titled “Miracle: A Celebration of New Life”) full of pictures of her and the baby in several gag-inducing poses. This, for your enjoyment, is the book’s cover:

Really, Céline: if we all sign an affidavit stating that your baby is the most precious baby in the world, and that its conception and birth were the most miraculous occurrences in the modern world, will you stop writing songs about your baby and force-feeding us pictures of him? If so, I know a lawyer and I’m sure he’d gladly draw up all the necessary papers!

When did this turn into a nation of pussies? (Part II)

In my last rant, I said:

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t sit in silence any longer: when did the United States turn into a nation of crybabies and pussies? I am talking, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years, about the recent fanatical political correctness craze that seems to be plaguing our country.

I used to think that in a democracy, where people have freedom of expression, citizens should be able to, you know… freely express themselves. Silly me! It seems you can only express yourself if what you’re saying doesn’t offend some constituency with political or economical clout behind it.

For instance, the show Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, where controversial topics were discussed in a frank manner, was cancelled after Bill Maher made a comment stating that he was tired of the 9/11 terrorists being called “cowardly,” since he thought it took courage to get into a plane with the purpose of crashing it into a building and killing yourself in the process, and that in fact it was more cowardly to go into a war where you could just push some buttons and bomb far away targets without getting yourself in danger (I am, of course, paraphrasing from memory, but that was the gist of it).

While I think most rational people would be able to see at least some logic in that statement, in any case the remedy is simple if you disagree with Bill Maher: change the fucking channel! It only takes one push of a button (or turn of the dial, if your TV set is ancient) to change the channel and vow to never see that show again (to which I would say: “Why in God’s name were you watching a show called Politically Incorrect if you did not want to hear politically incorrect statements, you idiot?!”).

But no, this wasn’t enough for some über-sensitive individuals: they made a stink about it, called the show’s sponsors, made a big issue out of it, until some sponsors decided to bow to the pressure and state they were no longer going to advertise themselves during the show (and thus hurt it financially); the show was eventually cancelled.

I cannot fathom how people that say they love democracy and the freedoms it provides its citizens could do something like this; it’s as though they’re saying that people can freely express themselves as long as what they’re expressing is exactly what they themselves feel. In my opinion, “freedom of expression” is only significant if it means you tolerate the existence of opinions different from your own; if everyone thought the same way, what would be the big deal? True freedom of expression is, and should be, hard for all of us; if it were easy, it wouldn’t be worthwhile.

People have a myriad of opportunities to be good Americans and demonstrate their love for democracy, but squander them by acting this way, like overly-sensitive babies crying because their feelings were hurt and trying to impose their sensibilities on the general population. Sure, the advertisers that withdrew their support of the show had every right to do so: it’s their money and they can choose to support whichever shows they like; sure, these angered viewers had every right to express their disapproval of the show to its sponsors… but why go through all that trouble, if it was just easier to change the channel, and more democratic to let opinions different from their own coexist with theirs?

Now, feel free to express your opinion on this matter… 🙂

When did this turn into a nation of pussies? (Part I)

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t sit in silence any longer: when did the United States turn into a nation of crybabies and pussies? I am talking, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years, about the recent fanatical political correctness craze that seems to be plaguing our country.

Case in point: Janet Jackson’s black booby. Who, exactly, can be that offended by a booby? Boobies nourish us when we are little, and for many it’s also the source of entertainment during adulthood. True, they usually are not wearing sun-shaped metallic pasties, as Janet’s was, but still, what’s the big deal?

The truth is, in this country, sexuality and profanity are vilified while violence is seen as commonplace; we can see Rambo (I to III, take your pick!) or any gory horror film in our TV sets, or see horrible violent images during the 6 o’clock news, but perish the thought of a naked breast or even the slightest hint of a penis tarnishing the screen! For most of us, seeing someone being beheaded, shot, or otherwise killed, is not part of our daily lives, or, if we’re lucky, not part of our lives at all. However, sexuality, nudity and profanity make up a part of almost everyone’s lives; more likely than not, you either have a penis or will get to see one within your lifetime (unless you’re an uggo); you either have breasts or will get to see some within your lifetime (unless you’re an engineer).

So why is it that it’s OK to see violence and gore on TV, but not sexuality and nudity? And don’t get me wrong, guys, I’m not arguing against having violence on TV: our parents grew up watching shows and movies where cowboys slaughtered indians for less-than-noble purposes, and few of them are out there making bloodbaths in reservation casinos.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this… make me proud. 🙂

I’m all for PETA: People for Eating Tasty Animals

I likes me some meat. I won’t deny it, and I won’t apologize for it. I don’t necessarily feel animals should be flogged just for fun; they do have a place in my heart, but also in my belly.

Some strict vegetarians make it sound like theirs is more than a dietary choice, but rather a transcendental way of life. They won’t eat “anything with a face,” yet have no trouble eating a head of lettuce! 😉

There’s also the concern of eating animals that some people consider pets (like pigs, rabbits, horses, dogs, etc.) Why should I stop enjoying a little gerbil fricasé just because some idiotic 5-year-old seems to like to keep gerbils as pets? It’s not like I’m eating my pet, anyway (not that I’d be necessarily adverse to the notion; Fido is looking rather scrumptious lately, and that cough of his doesn’t seem to be going away…)

But I digress! I propose that the only way it somehow seems “better” to eat plants instead of animals is because we can’t hear them scream. Really! People would be less gung-ho about eating salad if we discovered that whenever you crunch on a leaf of lettuce it’s actually yelling: “FOR THE LOVE OF IVY, STOP CRUSHING MY BODY WITH YOUR TEETH!!!” [Note: “Ivy” is the God of the plants, revered because no one seems to like to eat it; it is also noteworthy that lettuce is surprisingly fluent in English].

Let’s face it: we humans are meat-eaters. And it works out like that for a reason: we’re nasty motherfuckers and Mother Nature wants us out of the planet pronto! Think about it: some plants can live for decades, nourishing themselves with the soil and crapping into the air (it’s crapping if you think about it, really); they harm no one. Then come the herbivores, who are animals that last a long time because all they do is eat plants which taste like ass, but which do not raise their cholesterol level or clog their arteries; they can last a long time since they only eat plants, which can re-grow in just a few weeks.

And then there’s us, evil, resource-depleting, nuclear-bomb-building, murdering, environment-destroying humans, devouring animals that took decades of nutritional resources to grow… obviously we can’t stay around too fucking long, or we’ll eat Mother Nature out of house and home! So, we have a penchant for fatty meats, our cholesterol rises, our arteries get clogged, and we die at 40 while having a torrid extra-marital affair with a Vietnamese hooker named Bambi Nguyen who charges $5 for suckee suckee.

So, it all works out: we humans eat meat, die soon, and don’t detonate that WMD some maniac may or may not have stored somewhere, and the planet lives to see another day.

Do your part, fellow hoo-man: EAT MEAT! 🙂

Drop your kids on their heads; make ’em dumb; save thousands!

With the rising costs of higher education, parents nowadays seem to have a genuine concern regarding their ability to get their kids through college. Well, fret not, trusted reader, for I come to you with a solution (which should be evident from this post’s title, but in case you are marginally retarded, I shall now state it as though it were a big revelation): drop your kids on their head when they’re babies!

If you are lucky, brain damage will ensue and your kid will not be smart enough to even get into college (if you do it right, not even DeVry, regardless of how serious they are about success). However, a tender balance must be struck, for you do not want your kid to be so brain-damaged you have to feed him or put him in special education (thus completely missing the whole point).

It’s all about surfaces; if you drop them on cement, that’s probaby too much brain damage; on a bed, too little. Now, a berber carpet (as per my repeated experiments with as many children as I’ve been able to obtain from around the neighborhood) seems to yield the best results (let’s just say that not all my experimentation proved successful, and that some of my neighbors’ kids will be wearing padded helmets and riding the short yellow bus: my bad!).

The other trick is doing this during early infancy so that your kids won’t remember it when they grow up: no one wants to have their son remember in a therapy session how Daddy pushed him off a stool onto the floor! So, in summary: surface and timing are the most important things to remember.

Good luck!!!

————-

Disclaimer: Rafa is kidding; he has not dropped any kids on their heads in the course of a makeshift, Mengelian experiment, or at least not after his court injunction. Dropping your kids on their heads is a bad idea, which you’d know unless you yourself had been dropped as a baby, in which case you should have been chemically castrated during early childhood, or at least you should have been raised as an engineer so that no one would have sex with you and you wouldn’t reproduce.

Farewell to Clippy!

Before diving into my current rant, let me just say that I know I’ve been a lazy-ass lately and have neglected my blog. To my surprise, two of my friends (César and Omar) had apparently checked it a few times and have egged me on to write some more, so thanks for the support, guys. 🙂

Now, on to the rant!

If you have ever used Word 97, you have met Clippy. Here, in all his glory, is Clippy:

Clippy is a creepy, anthropomorphic animated paperclip (get it? paperCLIP -> Clippy? Oh! These geniuses at Microsoft, hollowed be their name!). Clippy’s job is to annoy the fuck out of you when you type, and pop up every once in a while and make inane remarks and suggestions about what you’re typing (à la “I see you are writing a letter to your baby’s mama! Do you want me to help you find nice ways of saying: Try and prove the baby’s mine, bitch!?”).

Even more unsettling was his lecherous leer and his suggestive wink, as though he were suavely saying in a thick, Banderas-like accent: “Oh, I can fix that for you. I can fix that for you gooood.” I’m sorry, but I prefer less innuendo from my office assistants.

Anyway, an article I read states that Clippy will not be on by default starting in Office XP. There were even some animations (voiced by Gilbert Gottfreid) depicting Clippy’s post-Word life, and a poll as to what he should do next. Personally, I think Clippy should be unbent and used for lock-picking, or at the very least, used to burst pus-filled boils; I’d be happy either way!

What do you think should happen to Clippy?

Political fanatics are idiots… or morons, I haven’t yet decided…

I think people who are rabidly rooting for any politician are idiots. Ok, maybe not idiots… perhaps morons. Yeah, that’s better. I’m going with “morons,” people: deal with it.

I shall elucidate. 🙂 Unless you are the candidate himself (or herself, don’t get your knickers in a twist, ladies), you were sired by the candidate, you are the lifelong spouse of the candidate, or are somehow related by blood to the candidate, there is simply no way that you could be so sure that the person isn’t some conniving scuzzbucket that isn’t lying through his teeth about everything he says, and is secretly scheming to take over the world while stroking a cat all day in his hidden evil lair?

Actually, you could even argue that if you’re related or married to the candidate you’re definitely sure that he’s a lying scuzzbucket (like that time he told you your cat Miffy had gone to a farm in the country when in reality it had been in-grained in an 18-wheeler’s tires, or like that time he told you he was working late in the office when in reality he was doing lines of coke off of the ass of a Brazilian hooker he met in Cabo).

How could people that have never met the candidate adore him so much, how can they be so sure he’s the one who’s gonna save the nation from foreign attacks and fix the economy and create jobs and make kittens crap gold and turn the Grand Canyon into a flowing river of milk and honey and convert the Everglades into a sugarplum forest full of gumdrops and candycanes? Maybe I’m just a cynic (yeah, right, “maybe”)… but how can you be so sure of any of that if you personally don’t know the guy? Or even if you do personally know the guy? Or even if you are the guy? (I mean, it’s real easy to over-estimate one’s own abilities as a creator of a sugarplum forest).

What is your own take on this topic? Is over-zealous fanatism for a political candidate reasonable? [Note that if you say it is, I will think you are a moron: you have been warned!]

I just voted!

I just came back from voting. The supermarket where I thought they had early voting polling stations did not have any (actually, one of their employees told me she herself had heard radio commercials saying there would be voting stations there, too, but their manager had told them that wasn’t so: democracy and bureaucracy working together again)! So, I ended up voting at Home Depot. Not exactly poetic, but hey, whatever.

So, the process itself was ridiculously simple, so simple in fact that even a Florida voter would not have been able to fuck it up. Everything took place on a computer screen (which looked touch-screen but wasn’t, and it was fortunate that someone explained the process to me before beginning because otherwise I would have quickly started feeling quite disenfranchised had I thought they had given me a booth with a faulty touch-screen!); there was a scroll wheel that you rolled around to change the current selection (kind of like an iPod, but more democratic), and a button you pushed to go to the next screen.

You could vote straight down party lines or choose exactly the candidates you wanted, even for some positions that I didn’t even know existed and suspect are made-up, like County Commissioner, Constable, County Tax Assessor, and Bejeweled High Priestess of the Gjórì Nôoku Order (although I might be wrong about that last one). At the end of the process it reviewed whom you chose for each position (even the ones I suspect are fake), and you hit a button that said “Submit Ballot” (Note for Florida voters: that button would submit your ballot), and voilà! (Note for Florida votes: “voilà” means roughly “that’s it”).

All in all, it was definitely worth the 5 minutes it took to vote. 🙂