Thought #1
Bananas are the most stress-inducing of all the fruits – green when you put them in your shopping cart, a lemon-lime hue once you hit the register, and perfectly ripe when you arrive home. From this moment, you have approximately 4 hours to ingest the whole bunch before they rot. Too much pressure.
Thought #2
Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner should pitch a Wayne’s World-style show to VH1, a light-hearted discussion of politics and ladies. Schwing.
Thought #2A
Eliot Spitzer should parlay his (theoretical) VH1 fame into a run for president, since he seems not to lend credence to the notion of bipartisanship. I don’t care if he fills the Cabinet with hookers as long as he forces rich fucks to pay taxes.
Though #2B
Anthony Weiner should parlay his (theoretical) VH1 fame into a career in porn. My only qualm is that the movie title “Weinergate” is probably already taken.
Thought #3
There’s not a person on earth who enjoys spending 40 hours every week sitting in an office. That’s a fact. Instead of continuing to torture each other and ourselves, we should take a page out of the South American drug cartels’ book, and collude. With a little teamwork, I’m sure we can work out a superior arrangement.
Thought #4
The most useful class I ever took was a typing clinic in the 7th grade. How is it that typing is not a mandatory aspect of a child’s education, but trigonometry is? Here’s how I know this is ass-backwards: I’ve never had occasion to use trigonometry outside of school, but I did just have occasion to type it.
Thought #5
I can’t quite put my finger on what it is, but there’s something about certain pieces of tacky art that is indubitably Christian. You might be looking at nothing more than a painting – or a “commemorative plate” – depicting an eagle flying over a mountain, but it just smacks of Jesus. Kind of insidious, really, considering that art of this ilk could wind up adorning the homes of non-believers, simply because they have terrible taste.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Baseless and Mean-Spirited
As you may know, a bill proposing the legalization of same-sex marriage is currently making the rounds in Albany. As you may also know, television ads produced by special interest groups are retarded. So this morning when I saw a commercial paid for by some collection of New Yorkers who oppose gay marriage – New Yorkers United to Protect Children from Butt Sex, or something – I wasn’t surprised that it was terrible. I was, however, surprised by the blatant weakness of their argument. Here are a few factoids from the commercial, designed to make me say no to same-sex marriage:
1. Kids in California (or Massachusetts, or somewhere else queer) are taught that boys can marry other boys.
2. A class in California was taken to a same-sex marriage ceremony, with the school describing the field trip as a “teachable moment.”
3. Two dudes getting married infringes upon my rights as a heterosexual.
OK, on point one, if two (or more) consenting adults believe their relationship is valid, it’s valid. To claim that you’re somehow better-equipped to gauge the legitimacy of strangers’ love lives than they are equipped to gauge the legitimacy of their own, is to display a set of monstrous, unsightly balls. Whether or not you agree with what they’re doing is irrelevant. A modern society allows its adults to choose their own romantic partners. It’s as simple as that.
As to point two, I agree that a gay wedding is an odd choice for field trip, and perhaps not as enriching for children’s minds as, say, a museum. That being said, in a litigious society such as our own, teachers and administrators are not in the business of whisking kids off school grounds without their parents’ full support. The attendees’ parents were informed of what the trip entailed, and signed off on it. Fear not. Your kid won’t be going to any gay weddings without your knowledge and approval.
Argument number three really isn’t even an argument at all. Which rights, exactly, am I losing? Marriage isn’t a scarce commodity. There’s no upper limit on the number of marriages that can occur within a given time frame, so it’s not as though two affianced dudes could be stealing a marriage that was rightfully yours. Perhaps conservatives and Christians are laboring under the belief that the legalization of same-sex marriage is synonymous with the criminalization of opposite-sex marriage. It’s not. Oh, and if marriage is so fucking sacred, don’t protest in Albany. Protest in front of a drive-thru chapel in Vegas.
This commercial was so disturbing in part because I’m desperate – DESPERATE – to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn’t ultimately boil down to, “Guys fucking guys is icky.” This issue seems so cut-and-dry that it makes me nervous, like I must be missing something. Other groups I disagree with have viewpoints I can vaguely understand. I think abortion should be legal, but I understand why people oppose it. It’s hard to pinpoint when a group of cells become a fetus, and it’s perhaps even harder to determine what rights to grant to those cells or that fetus. Similarly, I don’t support the death penalty, but I understand the instinct to rid the country of its most dangerous criminals.
The instinct to stop gays from marrying, on the other hand, is not understandable. It’s baseless and mean-spirited, and until someone is able to present a reasonable argument – something to do with our safety or our money or our quality of life – I’ll never think otherwise.
1. Kids in California (or Massachusetts, or somewhere else queer) are taught that boys can marry other boys.
2. A class in California was taken to a same-sex marriage ceremony, with the school describing the field trip as a “teachable moment.”
3. Two dudes getting married infringes upon my rights as a heterosexual.
OK, on point one, if two (or more) consenting adults believe their relationship is valid, it’s valid. To claim that you’re somehow better-equipped to gauge the legitimacy of strangers’ love lives than they are equipped to gauge the legitimacy of their own, is to display a set of monstrous, unsightly balls. Whether or not you agree with what they’re doing is irrelevant. A modern society allows its adults to choose their own romantic partners. It’s as simple as that.
As to point two, I agree that a gay wedding is an odd choice for field trip, and perhaps not as enriching for children’s minds as, say, a museum. That being said, in a litigious society such as our own, teachers and administrators are not in the business of whisking kids off school grounds without their parents’ full support. The attendees’ parents were informed of what the trip entailed, and signed off on it. Fear not. Your kid won’t be going to any gay weddings without your knowledge and approval.
Argument number three really isn’t even an argument at all. Which rights, exactly, am I losing? Marriage isn’t a scarce commodity. There’s no upper limit on the number of marriages that can occur within a given time frame, so it’s not as though two affianced dudes could be stealing a marriage that was rightfully yours. Perhaps conservatives and Christians are laboring under the belief that the legalization of same-sex marriage is synonymous with the criminalization of opposite-sex marriage. It’s not. Oh, and if marriage is so fucking sacred, don’t protest in Albany. Protest in front of a drive-thru chapel in Vegas.
This commercial was so disturbing in part because I’m desperate – DESPERATE – to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn’t ultimately boil down to, “Guys fucking guys is icky.” This issue seems so cut-and-dry that it makes me nervous, like I must be missing something. Other groups I disagree with have viewpoints I can vaguely understand. I think abortion should be legal, but I understand why people oppose it. It’s hard to pinpoint when a group of cells become a fetus, and it’s perhaps even harder to determine what rights to grant to those cells or that fetus. Similarly, I don’t support the death penalty, but I understand the instinct to rid the country of its most dangerous criminals.
The instinct to stop gays from marrying, on the other hand, is not understandable. It’s baseless and mean-spirited, and until someone is able to present a reasonable argument – something to do with our safety or our money or our quality of life – I’ll never think otherwise.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Whip it out, boys!!
Photographs of disembodied dicks are not sexy. In fact, if sexy had an opposite, it would be a random erection straining a pair of boxer briefs. I’m confident that every woman on earth is with me on this one, which leads me to wonder one thing: why do men persist in sharing such pictures with the opposite sex? After all, I don’t think women, as a whole, are sending mixed messages. There may be a few stray weirdos out there, but in the wake of Weinergate, the general female consensus has been something along the lines of, “Gross,” or, “What a gross pervert,” or, “Gross.”
I can only conclude that women are not really the intended audience for crotch shots. Just as women dress for other women – men would mostly prefer women to not dress at all – men whip out their dicks for other men. You know, to show them who’s boss. I haven’t been able to bring myself to look at the infamous pictures for any significant length of time, but I gleaned from “The Colbert Report,” that Weiner is packing, and if you’re packing, why not share it with the world?
Intriguingly, if my theory is correct, this whole business has played out perfectly. Had the girl in Seattle been the only recipient of those photos, his penis would have elicited nothing more than a stray comment, probably including the word, “gross.” She would have immediately deleted the picture, written off the Congressman as a sexual deviant, and gone on with her life. But now every American has seen Anthony Weiner’s weiner (I didn’t want to play on his name, but my inner child is a 14-year old boy) and on some level he couldn’t be happier. Any reasonable person would react to 300 million people seeing his or her genitals by moving to Peru or committing suicide; Weiner’s not going anywhere.
Which is not to say that I think he should resign; he’s a politician, so it goes without saying that he’s unreasonable. Anyway, sending pictures of your dick to other adults is inconsiderate and unsavory, but it’s not really criminal, nor is it necessarily indicative of a lack of professional judgment. That creepy bastard, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, had little choice but to resign, not because he’s a predatory asshole, but because he can’t head the IMF – or France – from prison; sexually assaulting women makes him a bad person, not a bad economist. Similarly, Anthony Weiner is manifestly a shitty husband and a slimy Facebook friend, which isn’t the same as being a bad legislator. So I say let his constituents determine his fate. If they want him to stick around, and at least for the moment they seem to, don’t rush to oust him and his penis.
A final thought: If I were registered to vote in the state of New York, I would be among Weiner’s constituents, most of whom are elderly Jews. Is my neighbors’ willingness to forgive and forget evidence that they too are fans of sexting? Super gross...
I can only conclude that women are not really the intended audience for crotch shots. Just as women dress for other women – men would mostly prefer women to not dress at all – men whip out their dicks for other men. You know, to show them who’s boss. I haven’t been able to bring myself to look at the infamous pictures for any significant length of time, but I gleaned from “The Colbert Report,” that Weiner is packing, and if you’re packing, why not share it with the world?
Intriguingly, if my theory is correct, this whole business has played out perfectly. Had the girl in Seattle been the only recipient of those photos, his penis would have elicited nothing more than a stray comment, probably including the word, “gross.” She would have immediately deleted the picture, written off the Congressman as a sexual deviant, and gone on with her life. But now every American has seen Anthony Weiner’s weiner (I didn’t want to play on his name, but my inner child is a 14-year old boy) and on some level he couldn’t be happier. Any reasonable person would react to 300 million people seeing his or her genitals by moving to Peru or committing suicide; Weiner’s not going anywhere.
Which is not to say that I think he should resign; he’s a politician, so it goes without saying that he’s unreasonable. Anyway, sending pictures of your dick to other adults is inconsiderate and unsavory, but it’s not really criminal, nor is it necessarily indicative of a lack of professional judgment. That creepy bastard, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, had little choice but to resign, not because he’s a predatory asshole, but because he can’t head the IMF – or France – from prison; sexually assaulting women makes him a bad person, not a bad economist. Similarly, Anthony Weiner is manifestly a shitty husband and a slimy Facebook friend, which isn’t the same as being a bad legislator. So I say let his constituents determine his fate. If they want him to stick around, and at least for the moment they seem to, don’t rush to oust him and his penis.
A final thought: If I were registered to vote in the state of New York, I would be among Weiner’s constituents, most of whom are elderly Jews. Is my neighbors’ willingness to forgive and forget evidence that they too are fans of sexting? Super gross...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)