Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Beyonce's Revolutionary Suggestion

In her latest hit song social revolutionary Beyonce Knowles offers a simple but profound suggestion for the young men who are attracted to "All the Single Ladies".  The song tells a story we all experience a couple times a month: having just broken up the young lad sees his ex in a club where she's dropping it as if it we high in temperature.  At the sight of his former lover writhing like a mealworm on a fishing trip, the lad becomes engorged with regret.  What's to be done?!

Here Beyonce offers a revolutionary suggestion.  "If you like it than you shoulda put a ring on it".

Young couples have been taking her suggestion to heart, and now women appear with at clubs with rings on the most attractive appendages.  Sandra J., a frequenter of clubs and avid dancer is a firm believer in Beyonce's suggestion, taking issue with those who believe the ring is in reference to marriage.  These people are trying to"force their conservative religious mindset into a song that is more relevant than any religion", says the wee lass.  "If she were trying to sing about marriage she would have like, mentioned it.  Besides, she says, like 'put a ring on it', not like 'put a ring on her'", quips the Sandra.

Sandra does offer some complaints about the suggestion however.  If a guy likes a leg, putting a ring on it is a rather simple task.  "But it is like REALLY difficult to put a ring on a butt!" she complains.  This difficulty has not stopped young couples from "putting a ring" on the ladies' derrieres, even if they have to rely on tattoos to do it.  Max Rothschild, owner of "The Gothic Circus" tattoo parlor says that ring tattoos on ladies badonkadonks has increased by 670% sing the release of "All the Single Ladies".  "It's not always pleasant, but it pays the bills", quips Max.

Even Jay Z is slowly coming around to the idea. An insider source claims that when the rapper first heard the song he cried out "Zounds!  Why did I choose only a finger!". 

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Biola Row

1 word. carpool.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

It wasn't your Do-yers hat i swear

Mr. Lopez (name changed to protect the guilty), I just wanted to apologize to you for giving you such a hard time last night. See, we only were checking out your unattended bike because we didn’t want it to be stolen. And we only chased you down because we wanted to let you know how dangerous it is to leave bikes unattended like that. It wasn’t because of your checkered shorts or your baggy white t-shirt. And of course who could possibly find your Dodgers (pronounced Do-yers by you) hat suspicious. Gang-bangers never wear such things right? Of course the egg was in our eye when you told us that you were partially deaf and thats why you didn’t hear us. How could we have known you had a hearing problem? After all you didn’t have a problem hearing our questions after we had you cuffed. See, we had also noticed that you had left a screwdriver stuck in your rear seat too. You said it was to change your tires. I wish the sheriff hadn’t carted you away so fast because I could have learned a lot about bikes from you. I never knew how to change a bike tire with just a flat head screwdriver. It looks hard. But I bet nothing is hard for you Mr. Lopez, you are truly a mexican-american jack juan of all trades.


All of us at work

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Viking Flick Tops Charts!

Attention Blogosphere!

I feel that it is my duty to take a brief cyber-moment out of my busy, busy New Media schedule to inform all of you happy information poineers out there about what is most likely the most important film to hit theaters since the remake of Godzilla featuring Matthew Broderick. Of course I am talking about Pathfinder (as if there were any other movie on your minds). While you have probably not seen this film, nor really heard much about it, nor had any real desire to see it, I am convinced that it is only a matter of time before this little gem hits the AFI top 100 list.

If you were turned off by the movie posters featuring the aprox. 16' tall, battle-axe wielding, fur-lined, horn-helmeted Viking-monster-beast-man and the diminutively foregrounded Native American man, then first of all you'd better get used to it if you're going to watch this film (and you are GOING TO WATCH THIS FILM). Secondly, it is time to question your manliness. Suck it up... do not be fooled by this movie's seemingly simple theme and its apparent lack of any distinguishable plot. This is not your grandfather's Viking v. Indians movie.

Would your grandfather watch a movie about peace-pipe smoking, peace-loving, progressively Feminist Native Americans getting slaughtered by Vikings? Would it even occur to him that such a movie could exist? The answer is no... no, he wouldn't. Your grandfather lived in the days when people still thought that "Indians" killed people for somewhat understandable reasons (such as invasion by foreign powers), and they liked making movies that simply ignored this fact and cheered for the Cowboys anyway. But now... now we know that "Indians" did not, in fact, kill people at all. They are incapable of killing people! Those nice, fun-loving, face-painting indigenous friends of ours mostly just liked collecting feathers and meeting in tents to talk about excluding Vikings from tribe membership. It is, in fact, Vikings that kill people (those dirty Vikings), and that for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Vikings do not want goods or plunder... no, they want to wear big fur coats and indulge in the "insatiable thirst for violence" that is "in their blood".

And who is the Pathfinder, you ask? Well, it's not the person you think it should be. No, that would be completely unsatisfying. The Pathfinder is, in fact, an old Native American man who kills bears with sticks (treatment of Phalocentrism, anyone?). Contrast this, if you will, with the "hero" of the movie - an Indian-raised ex-Viking who kills Vikings with swords (the opportunities for contrast between these two characters are boundless...).

Central to the movie's compelling drama is the theme of identity, as the "hero" (once again, not the Pathfinder, in case some of you silly conventionalists once again want to lump this film together with such straightforward classics as Alien v. Predator - which is actually about an Alien that fights a Predator) struggles to find his place in the world and "figure out who he is". This theme is subtle, and it takes some work to tease it out. But a careful scene-by-scene analysis of the film will bring to mind the three times that characters explicitly ask Ghost (our "hero's" name) in cinematically awkward ways and at noticeably implausible times "who he is" while he is sleeping. And who is he? Well he sure isn't the Pathfinder... I think we've beat that one into the ground.

The real answer, of course, is not easily discerned. Our hero is, in the closing words of the film, "neither Viking nor Indian", and despite the fact that the movie's climactic scene features Ghost enunciating the old avalanche-initiating-yell-to-the-tune-of-"I-know-who-I-am"-trick, our clever filmmaker is not about to tidily collapse the sharp Viking-Indian distinction just for the cheap thrill of letting our "hero" find himself! So how does one go about figuring out who one is?

Well, of course, you have to kill a whole lot of Vikings.

But not too many of them ("have you had enough revenge yet?!" asks "the Pathfinder [once again, an old Native American man... not our "hero"]... we all do well to heed this advice).

But actually, come to think of it, all of them... or else they will kill your village.

But do it with love in your heart so you don't get consumed by hate...

But not love for the Vikings... because that would be bad...

But maybe love for the tribal girl you like (come to think of it, even SHE gets to be the Pathfinder at the end of the movie)...

Have I mentioned that the "hero" is not the Pathfinder, and never was and never will be?

I think that this says just about all there is to say about this film...

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Hunger is for Idiots, PEONs rule

Things have been pretty quiet at PA lately. That is because most of us have been busy stopping world hunger.

And we (and the U.S. Department of Agriculture) have succeeded. We have completed step 1ne of the Planned Evolution Of Nutrition (PEON) that will eradicated hunger by 2016. Step 1ne consists of cognitive evolution: that is mental transcendence, or the introduction of scientific terminology that accesses the reality of our self-discerning mythos of our empirically cultural being and reality. In other words, we're calling hunger something else.

And that something else is... "very low food security!" That's right, after years of serious scientific contemplation the enlightened PEONs have realized that "hungry" is an unenlightened and scientifically bereft term. Mike Nord, a PEON and lead author of the USDA annual report explained that "hunger is clearly an important issue, but lacking a widespread consensus on what the word 'hunger' should refer to, it's difficult for research to shed meaningful light on it." Hunger is an important issue, but who can really know what issue we are talking about when your employ such a scientifically bogus term? I know I don't.

PEONs have been getting some heat from the unenlightened who think that the term is "bulky," "misleading," and "stupid." PEON has responded by saying that the feel that they cannot respond until "criticism has been levied using scientific and therefore meaningul phrases instead of adolescent adjectives. Until such time PEON cannot expect to research and change any proposed problem."

Yet the question remains, why bother to change the term? Like all other smart people, PEONs are reductionists, that is they realize that we can reduce the human aspect of our common experience to more real and important things - like referring to "pain" as "C-fibers firing", and the "soul" as "neural networks." "When we can surpass the deceptive, unscientific speech of human experience we have power over the experience" says PEON Melky Melkovovich, creator of "very low food security" who invented the term after watching Arrested Development's character Gob try to describe his feelings. Like realizing that a car is more accurately an internal combustion transport unit, you can see it for what it is: the sum of its parts. This explains the motto of PEON step 1ne: "2+2 = 2+2". By using reductionistic methods PEONs will be able to perform rigorous scientific work capable of determining how they can stop what was archaically called "hunger." And so far the progress is fantastic - PEONs now believe that hunger may be caused by a shortage of available nutrition substances, or food.

What can you do to stop world hunger? Stop using the word. For example: change "are you hungry?" to "are you very low food security?" We also advocate pulling out your Dirty Dancing soundtracks and changing the song "Hungry Eyes" to the more accurate and compelling "Very Low Food Security Eyes."


And yet the Washington Post (hotbed of EvangelRightWingConspiriFanatics) mocking us!

At least the USDA doesn't have jurisdiction over national monuments. Otherwise, just imagine it going after the inscription on the Statue of Liberty next: "Give me your energy-deficient, your financially challenged, your space-impaired masses yearning to breathe free."

In related news, the Eastern Orthodox Church has been fasting during the holiday season. What the crap? Since when do you get off not eating food during the holiday season? I mean, I'm no capitalist, but not supporting the consumeristic heart of the holiday season is just unpatriotic! I just want to throw a plate of Swedish meatballs in their face and yell at them for not eating when there's kids starving in Africa. Fasting - my vegan a**!?

Sunday, November 05, 2006

A small point about female fragility

A wise man once said "Women should never smoke cigars." I don't believe he was sexist, he was just wise. 100% of all women who have ever smoked have died. Science proves it, and has proved it again and again.

Men on the other hand, who smoke cigars, do not necessarily die. For instance, my friend Testostercone smoked a cigar yesterday, and today he is fine. Also, Elijah. He did not die, but was drawn up into heaven on a puff of smoke, and he probably enjoyed a nice pipe or two in his life.

For the latest demonstration of this time-tested principle, that the female sex, on pain of death, should not enjoy the coarser pleasures of cigars and hard liquor, my good friend, let her remain Nameless, or N. for short, yesterday smoked a cigar, against all reason and the sober counsel of friends and family. Today, she has been admitted to Wearahbouts Community Hospital for a periodontist, a burning pressure sensation in the heart.

Pray for her, lest her frail female body succomb to the same fate of all such bold and brash and, ultimately, chastised women. And let this be a lesson to all other of that fairer sex: do not smoke.

the options for the intelligent lay-scientist

How old is the Earth?

The options:

Big Bang (macroevolution)
4.5 Billion years

Old Earth Creationism
60,000 Years

Young Earth Creationism
6000-10,000 years

Really Young Earth Creationism
4,000 years

Holy Shit Look How Young That Earth Is, Seriously, Creationism
10 years plus change

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Leaning Towards Nowhere

Some keen observers claim that CRUDPEC (Christ's Reforming Unifying Diaconate of the Prebystery Episcopated Church) is a half-way house between religion and non-religion. For many of are members, our path of universal liberation from all distinctions is a way of escaping the pernicious dicotomy between those two alleged states. We do not deny either claim, because to even see a difference between the two would be the height of oppressive exclusivity!

My siblings, let me tell you how I found the presence of Christ/a here. I had been raised in a typically fundamentalist UCC parish. I was constantly bombarded with what I realized to be hurtful slogans: "Do not put a period where God puts a comma" (what harm is it to God/dess/es how I punctuate, and who are you to limit my use of such markers?) or "God is still speaking" (maintains the fundie error of affirming that godde is so distinct from anything else as to be saying anything, everything, or both.) Even the word "include" is oppressive! "Clude" is clearly from "close"! They mean to radically close everyone in! How is this any different from 19th century British Imperialism? Quite naturally, the sight of such horrors made me flee from all such religion. But what then? That is when I found CRUDPEC, and learned the joy of radical nondistinguishing. When I was recieved into their fellowship and made a bishop. Yes, while other have stumbled towards the priesthood of all believers, we hold to the bishophood of all. Truly of All, we even lay hands upon the very stones of our buildings and declare them bishops.

While I am so happy where I am, the call towards Nowhere still rings. Not my old crude desire for nonreligion. No, for the true undisitinguished Nothing, religionless religion. Nowhere fever. It calls me, but I do not know if I will ever be able enter. But if and until then, there is no shame to being Nothing outside of Nowhere...