-->This is 10 months ago:
This is her last Thursday:
Monday, May 11, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Another Reason To Hate People
*Yes, this picture is real . First of all, girls: the whole Mary Kate Olsen thing has just gotten really, I dont know, "heroin-y", don't you think? I can damn-near guarantee that all of you will have your first abortion by your Sophomore year at State U. But that's all I want to say about the chicks (and STOP LOOKING you fucking pervs).
Look, I'm all for people's desire for independence and expressing themselves through weird and original ways and all that other good American bullshit, but this is NOT it. This is why nobody talks about the '80's anymore, and here you are trying to fucking emulate them? Really?? Are these dudes all wearing the same thing?? Are they all wearing girl's pants?? WHAT THE FUCK?!
Gandhi himself would punch these fuckers in the throat if he had the chance. These kids look like a gay Devo cover band. And the worst part is, this is what's actually cool now. These clown-shoes jagaloons are actually the "cool kids"...
More to come as I get more pissed off...
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Atticus Finch Can Go Kick Rocks
[*DISCLAIMER: I realize this post is way too formal; and may even seem like I'm trying too hard. This post was actually a "copy/paste" job, and I only made a few minor changes to lighten the stuffiness. It's an excerpt from a college literature paper, so I apologize if it comes off as pretentious, as I am well aware that I'm a total jackass.]
I truly, truly hate To Kill A Mockingbird. I loathe it with every inch of my body. I cringe every time I hear the title; I vomit every time I hear it praised. The fact that it has become a staple in educational curriculum is a criminal travesty; and another reason why the education system can't be trusted.
In June of this past year the U.K. newspaper The Telegraph reported on a recent poll that had deemed Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird the “Greatest Novel of All Time” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2138827/To-Kill-a-Mockingbird-voted-Greatest-Novel-Of-All-Time.html). The criteria for determining a novel’s capacity for greatness, however, is rather ambiguous; and the results would not be remotely surprising if the poll were done, say, within a population of 7th graders. Yet to even momentarily entertain the idea that Harper Lee’s novel should even be considered as one the “greatest of all time” is not only extraordinarily absurd but strikingly offensive.
To Kill A Mockingbird is often read for some type of moral lesson. It strangles your brain with the notion that Good will always overcome Evil; but the muted, subtler theme of acceptance and understanding of Evil so as to harness the forces of Good, is often overlooked. It would seem that Lee sought to break down the prejudices conditioned by the institutions of justice, education and religion, as the story exposes these institutions through Scout’s continual contact with various cultural injustices. Within her portrayal of the racial tension in the antebellum South, Lee impugns her audience to recognize social evils that are perpetuated by the status quo. In that aspect, the novel is successful. But that theme is just way too easy, and Lee makes the whole story feel like Catholic school.
The novel seems to fail in almost every other regard. The narrative voice seems to be written more out of convenience than actual significance to either the story itself or the social climate of the historical period in which it was penned. Secondly, Atticus Finch is ultimately a purposeless character. Lee employs Atticus as a vessel to represent her own idealized moral standards. As the novel proves, Lee cannot even recognize that this ideal is, in fact, naturally impossible. Finally, while the Finch children will always have the advantage of Atticus’ guidance, the story says nothing to the massive number of people who never had such an instructive moral compass. In other words, the novel in no way speaks to the notion of discovering these lessons without some external—and altogether inhuman—force that nudges them in the right direction. The underlying message of To Kill A Mockingbird is never clearly delineated, and it is continually contradicted by numerous discrepancies. By novel’s end the reader is left only to trawl through the muck of ambiguities only to emerge with the nauseatingly mundane intimation that racism is evil.
Unfortunately, the narrative voice of the novel is confounding and ineffective; and worse, it is compromised by the author’s insistence on lyrical flourishes. It is impossible to portray the perspective of a child through the eyes of an educated, morally-sound adult. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe fully in the inherent innocence of Scout’s childhood self because her adult self is influencing and forming the words that transmit the story. From page one, the narrative voice is jeopardized, and in the words we see not a projection of innocence but a translation of it.
The novel, disparagingly, has come to be used as a moral guidebook: a means to aid in the formation of one’s ethical values. For this reason it is often presented to the reader in their formative years, which is perhaps why the story is so often lauded by adults, who revert back to it with fond, nostalgic memories. Resultantly, the book is viewed as a depiction of how the forces of Good always champions over the forces of Evil. However, this idea, though widely accepted, is dangerously misguided. Worse, this notion only exacerbates the misconception that humans are either inherently good or inherently evil. This perspective, much like the separate black and white cultures in Maycomb, Alabama, only causes one to think in terms of opposing division rather than coexistence.
Therefore, when reading the novel, the reader should think of it not as an exaltation of Good over Evil but one that acknowledges their unification. Rather than being either Good or being Evil, humanity is naturally sired from both.
If Atticus Finch is intended to represent a particular moral ideal, then the reader (specifically younger readers) cannot realize that such an ideal is unattainable.
There are profound reasons why To Kill A Mockingbird should be removed from the classroom altogether. The novel has the power to lead one into exalting a set of moral standards that is entirely false and impossible. If one seeks the same unblemished conscience held by Atticus, they are made more susceptible to despondency and guilt. This, in turn, potentially causes one to condemn their humanity rather than embrace it.
The narrative follows the pattern of a Bildungsroman in that the reader is supposed to be able to follow the emotional, spiritual and ethical development of Scout. Atticus, on the other hand, is as lifeless (and about as interesting) as a popped balloon. He remains unchanged by the events that unfold before him. Through the character of Atticus, Lee attempts to represent a moral and ethical exemplar. Yet, in doing so, she seems to abandon the established standards set forth by the laws of fiction. While it is not fait to say that “flat” characters cannot work as effective literary devices, it is fair to say that Atticus Finch is not one of them.
In the end, Atticus Finch—as a character—only makes those of Jem and Scout less relatable. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to wholly identify with the moral and ethical roboticism of Atticus Finch. Being that it is non-existent, the reader cannot apply that standard to any figure in their own lives. Most (if not all) people have not or will never grow up under such perfectly righteous tutelage. Atticus is not a real father, due in large part to the fact that his untarnished virtue and total lack of complexity do nothing to suggest that he could represent any real person. Every character, save for Atticus, is believable because they are multi-dimensional. Moreover, they are continually changed by the events of their lives. Though well-intentioned, Lee’s exaltation of moral idealism cannot account for the timeless capacities for lust and violence that natural human primality can impose on the individual conscience.
I truly, truly hate To Kill A Mockingbird. I loathe it with every inch of my body. I cringe every time I hear the title; I vomit every time I hear it praised. The fact that it has become a staple in educational curriculum is a criminal travesty; and another reason why the education system can't be trusted.
In June of this past year the U.K. newspaper The Telegraph reported on a recent poll that had deemed Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird the “Greatest Novel of All Time” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2138827/To-Kill-a-Mockingbird-voted-Greatest-Novel-Of-All-Time.html). The criteria for determining a novel’s capacity for greatness, however, is rather ambiguous; and the results would not be remotely surprising if the poll were done, say, within a population of 7th graders. Yet to even momentarily entertain the idea that Harper Lee’s novel should even be considered as one the “greatest of all time” is not only extraordinarily absurd but strikingly offensive.
To Kill A Mockingbird is often read for some type of moral lesson. It strangles your brain with the notion that Good will always overcome Evil; but the muted, subtler theme of acceptance and understanding of Evil so as to harness the forces of Good, is often overlooked. It would seem that Lee sought to break down the prejudices conditioned by the institutions of justice, education and religion, as the story exposes these institutions through Scout’s continual contact with various cultural injustices. Within her portrayal of the racial tension in the antebellum South, Lee impugns her audience to recognize social evils that are perpetuated by the status quo. In that aspect, the novel is successful. But that theme is just way too easy, and Lee makes the whole story feel like Catholic school.
The novel seems to fail in almost every other regard. The narrative voice seems to be written more out of convenience than actual significance to either the story itself or the social climate of the historical period in which it was penned. Secondly, Atticus Finch is ultimately a purposeless character. Lee employs Atticus as a vessel to represent her own idealized moral standards. As the novel proves, Lee cannot even recognize that this ideal is, in fact, naturally impossible. Finally, while the Finch children will always have the advantage of Atticus’ guidance, the story says nothing to the massive number of people who never had such an instructive moral compass. In other words, the novel in no way speaks to the notion of discovering these lessons without some external—and altogether inhuman—force that nudges them in the right direction. The underlying message of To Kill A Mockingbird is never clearly delineated, and it is continually contradicted by numerous discrepancies. By novel’s end the reader is left only to trawl through the muck of ambiguities only to emerge with the nauseatingly mundane intimation that racism is evil.
Unfortunately, the narrative voice of the novel is confounding and ineffective; and worse, it is compromised by the author’s insistence on lyrical flourishes. It is impossible to portray the perspective of a child through the eyes of an educated, morally-sound adult. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe fully in the inherent innocence of Scout’s childhood self because her adult self is influencing and forming the words that transmit the story. From page one, the narrative voice is jeopardized, and in the words we see not a projection of innocence but a translation of it.
The novel, disparagingly, has come to be used as a moral guidebook: a means to aid in the formation of one’s ethical values. For this reason it is often presented to the reader in their formative years, which is perhaps why the story is so often lauded by adults, who revert back to it with fond, nostalgic memories. Resultantly, the book is viewed as a depiction of how the forces of Good always champions over the forces of Evil. However, this idea, though widely accepted, is dangerously misguided. Worse, this notion only exacerbates the misconception that humans are either inherently good or inherently evil. This perspective, much like the separate black and white cultures in Maycomb, Alabama, only causes one to think in terms of opposing division rather than coexistence.
Therefore, when reading the novel, the reader should think of it not as an exaltation of Good over Evil but one that acknowledges their unification. Rather than being either Good or being Evil, humanity is naturally sired from both.
If Atticus Finch is intended to represent a particular moral ideal, then the reader (specifically younger readers) cannot realize that such an ideal is unattainable.
There are profound reasons why To Kill A Mockingbird should be removed from the classroom altogether. The novel has the power to lead one into exalting a set of moral standards that is entirely false and impossible. If one seeks the same unblemished conscience held by Atticus, they are made more susceptible to despondency and guilt. This, in turn, potentially causes one to condemn their humanity rather than embrace it.
The narrative follows the pattern of a Bildungsroman in that the reader is supposed to be able to follow the emotional, spiritual and ethical development of Scout. Atticus, on the other hand, is as lifeless (and about as interesting) as a popped balloon. He remains unchanged by the events that unfold before him. Through the character of Atticus, Lee attempts to represent a moral and ethical exemplar. Yet, in doing so, she seems to abandon the established standards set forth by the laws of fiction. While it is not fait to say that “flat” characters cannot work as effective literary devices, it is fair to say that Atticus Finch is not one of them.
In the end, Atticus Finch—as a character—only makes those of Jem and Scout less relatable. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to wholly identify with the moral and ethical roboticism of Atticus Finch. Being that it is non-existent, the reader cannot apply that standard to any figure in their own lives. Most (if not all) people have not or will never grow up under such perfectly righteous tutelage. Atticus is not a real father, due in large part to the fact that his untarnished virtue and total lack of complexity do nothing to suggest that he could represent any real person. Every character, save for Atticus, is believable because they are multi-dimensional. Moreover, they are continually changed by the events of their lives. Though well-intentioned, Lee’s exaltation of moral idealism cannot account for the timeless capacities for lust and violence that natural human primality can impose on the individual conscience.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Wrink & Sasha Grey: 1st Encounter
Those who know me are well-aware of my boundless love for porn superstar Sasha Grey. One of these days (very soon) I will post a lengthy tribute to this infallible specimen and genius phenom of the sex industry. But until then, I'll leave you with the audio recording of myself on the line with Sasha during last Friday's K&M morning show. So here it is, and if you listen closely you can almost hear her falling in love with me. Enjoy!*"Wrink and Sasha, sittin' in a tree"*
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Bill O'Reilly is a fucking Muppet
America: you are to Bill O'Reilly what Kanye West is to the "fishsticks" joke.
Come on, America--don't you get it? Please, just get it, man!
"The Hating Bill O'Reilly Game" is more popular than ever these days. It's a really fun game, too. Actually I can't think of anything more fun than expressing your pure, boiling hatred for someone to a mass audience. That's why message board-posting became a nationwide craze, like the hula hoop or the macarena or crack-cocaine.
And it's anonymous! You can tell anyone in the world to go fuck a howler monkey and there's nothing they can do about it. [*At this point you're most likely scoffing at my hypocrisy for having a blog littered with vitriol and writing under an alias. But I have principles. The alias is for entertainment purposes only. If anyone reading this forum takes personal offense at any of my diatribes and would like to speak to me directly, I implore you to send me an email to present your case. Just don't expect an apology; and I'll still probably to tell you to shit in your hat.*]
Don't get me wrong: I am NO fan of Bill O'Reilly. I will never, ever defend him in any way, so let's just make that clear. After all, he's an extremely easy man to hate for many reasons: his unhesitant willingness to "report" total misinformation; his snide arrogance; the finger-wagging, his militant Catholicism, etc.
But public hatred is exactly what he wants. America, for whatever reason, just can't seem to understand that.
O'Reilly is in actuality nothing more than a televised circus clown. He's an entertainer, and his act consists of concocting "opinions" that are ludicrous and stupid and offensive and wrong, so that the character he's created all these years can remain believable.
I just can't understand how so many liberal Americans can, at this point, seem so appalled by O'Reilly's parlor tricks. It's acting. He's created a character; and all successful characters need gimmicks. Think about it: RuPaul needs to pretend he's a woman; Carlos Mencia needs to pretend he's Mexican; and Bill O'Reilly needs to pretend that he's a soulless dickhead. Ann Coulter does the same act; and Rush Limbaugh invented it. For all practical purposes, they are fucking Muppets.
Honestly, I do not for one second think that Bill O'Reilly truly believes any of the shit that blasts from his fat yap. He needs to make offensive and retarded statements because it's the only thing that will ever sustain his career. Just look at this shameless display of douchebaggery:
So why do we still buy this routine?
Eveything that Bill says in this clip is so woefully ignorant and stupid and (deliberately) false that it makes me want to puke my testacles out through my mouth. And that's why I can't stop laughing everytime I watch it. Come on people, do you really think any man with a Harvard degree could be that senseless and misinformed and philisophically fucked up? No way. Never. Bill just knows how to capitalize off of people by defecating on their ethics.
If you're able to see people like Bill O'Reilly (or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh) for what they truly are--Muppets and circus clowns--then nothing they say can offend you ever again.
But still, The "Hating Bill O'Reilly Game" continues to be a widespread and growing trend. Pinko elitists like Keith Olbermann have capitalized on this schtick for years. There are so many exaggerated impersonations of Bill on Countdown that it sounds like a comedy act from the Camp Jabberwocky talent show.
Sorry Keith, but it's a tired act; at least on Sportscenter you actually had to keep your wits spry. Besides, everyone's doing the lambasting O'Reilly thing; but the only one who's truly succeeded in it is the masterful Stephen Colbert. And you, sir, are no Stephen Colbert...
The people who publicly condemn Bill O'Reilly are in reality his biggest supporters. He knows this. He's actually known it for years. He's not stupid, you are. Every time Bill makes some scandalous and incendiary remark, he accrues more-and-more public attention. And publicity--good or bad--always means cha-ching.
So relax, America. It's all entertainment. If Bill wasn't pretending to be an ass-faced jagaloon he'd be earnin'g minimum wage licking all the peanut-butter out of Ann Coulter's hatchet-wound.
But the schtick works; and he couldn't have done it without you, America; so give yourselves a pat on the back.
Please....just get it, man!
Come on, America--don't you get it? Please, just get it, man!
"The Hating Bill O'Reilly Game" is more popular than ever these days. It's a really fun game, too. Actually I can't think of anything more fun than expressing your pure, boiling hatred for someone to a mass audience. That's why message board-posting became a nationwide craze, like the hula hoop or the macarena or crack-cocaine.
And it's anonymous! You can tell anyone in the world to go fuck a howler monkey and there's nothing they can do about it. [*At this point you're most likely scoffing at my hypocrisy for having a blog littered with vitriol and writing under an alias. But I have principles. The alias is for entertainment purposes only. If anyone reading this forum takes personal offense at any of my diatribes and would like to speak to me directly, I implore you to send me an email to present your case. Just don't expect an apology; and I'll still probably to tell you to shit in your hat.*]
Don't get me wrong: I am NO fan of Bill O'Reilly. I will never, ever defend him in any way, so let's just make that clear. After all, he's an extremely easy man to hate for many reasons: his unhesitant willingness to "report" total misinformation; his snide arrogance; the finger-wagging, his militant Catholicism, etc.
But public hatred is exactly what he wants. America, for whatever reason, just can't seem to understand that.
O'Reilly is in actuality nothing more than a televised circus clown. He's an entertainer, and his act consists of concocting "opinions" that are ludicrous and stupid and offensive and wrong, so that the character he's created all these years can remain believable.
I just can't understand how so many liberal Americans can, at this point, seem so appalled by O'Reilly's parlor tricks. It's acting. He's created a character; and all successful characters need gimmicks. Think about it: RuPaul needs to pretend he's a woman; Carlos Mencia needs to pretend he's Mexican; and Bill O'Reilly needs to pretend that he's a soulless dickhead. Ann Coulter does the same act; and Rush Limbaugh invented it. For all practical purposes, they are fucking Muppets.
Honestly, I do not for one second think that Bill O'Reilly truly believes any of the shit that blasts from his fat yap. He needs to make offensive and retarded statements because it's the only thing that will ever sustain his career. Just look at this shameless display of douchebaggery:
So why do we still buy this routine?
Eveything that Bill says in this clip is so woefully ignorant and stupid and (deliberately) false that it makes me want to puke my testacles out through my mouth. And that's why I can't stop laughing everytime I watch it. Come on people, do you really think any man with a Harvard degree could be that senseless and misinformed and philisophically fucked up? No way. Never. Bill just knows how to capitalize off of people by defecating on their ethics.
If you're able to see people like Bill O'Reilly (or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh) for what they truly are--Muppets and circus clowns--then nothing they say can offend you ever again.
But still, The "Hating Bill O'Reilly Game" continues to be a widespread and growing trend. Pinko elitists like Keith Olbermann have capitalized on this schtick for years. There are so many exaggerated impersonations of Bill on Countdown that it sounds like a comedy act from the Camp Jabberwocky talent show.
Sorry Keith, but it's a tired act; at least on Sportscenter you actually had to keep your wits spry. Besides, everyone's doing the lambasting O'Reilly thing; but the only one who's truly succeeded in it is the masterful Stephen Colbert. And you, sir, are no Stephen Colbert...
The people who publicly condemn Bill O'Reilly are in reality his biggest supporters. He knows this. He's actually known it for years. He's not stupid, you are. Every time Bill makes some scandalous and incendiary remark, he accrues more-and-more public attention. And publicity--good or bad--always means cha-ching.
So relax, America. It's all entertainment. If Bill wasn't pretending to be an ass-faced jagaloon he'd be earnin'g minimum wage licking all the peanut-butter out of Ann Coulter's hatchet-wound.
But the schtick works; and he couldn't have done it without you, America; so give yourselves a pat on the back.
Please....just get it, man!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
