You Are What You Eat

I’m getting more and more confused by the “liberal media”—now referred to (interchangeably) as the “mainstream media”. You hear that term thrown around a lot on TV and radio these days. The Internet is flush with articles and blogs decrying the liberal bias of the “mainstream media”. I did a Google Search on the exact phrase “Mainstream Media”: Results 1 - 10 of about 4,880,000. So there are at least 4.8 million links to articles about this menace not including the Drudge Report. It’s almost gotten to the point where you can’t watch, listen or read anything in the media these days without hearing something about how the media is liberally biased.

My confusion surrounds the insidious and conspiratorial nature of this plague of liberal misinformation and how they let the cat of the bag about their own existence. I am constantly bombarded with news about how “effective” they are at brainwashing Americans and how they work hand-in-hand with the all-powerful Federal Government to foist their leftist/socialist/communist/fascist/Kenyan agenda on us. But these supposedly near-omnipotent controllers of the mainstream media can’t seem to keep their own dirty little secret.

We all recall the terrible liberal media bias of the 2008 Presidential campaign. Oh, “They” try to cover it up with reports by The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) who found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. “They” are, no doubt, just another liberal mouthpiece for the left wing. Even the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor. You didn’t hear about that study? No? Hmmm. It must not have been widely reported in the media.

While the three major network’s evening news broadcasts still garner a larger share of the audience during that time slot, Bill O’Reilly has claimed that he has bested at least one of them on occasion. But that’s not the whole story. The important statistic here is not the total numbers who watch during a given time-slot, but rather the total number of hours of news watched. When speaking in those terms, the network evening news programs aren’t even a blip on the screen when compared to the 24x7 cable news channels. Here we see continued shrinking of the major network news audience while MSNBC is growing and CNN is standing pat. Basically, Fox news has three times the viewers of their next closest rival. And with around-the-clock broadcasting it’s downright pervasive.

“Fox News, which launched in 1996, will finish out 2009 with the network's best ratings in its history, averaging 2.2 million Total Viewers in primetime. Compared to the same timeslot in 2008, Glenn Beck is up 96% in total viewers (averaging 2.3 million). Bill O'Reilly, who now makes it 10 years as the top cable news program, was up 13% in Total Viewers with 3.3 million tuning in.” - Kevin Allocca, Mediabistro.com (Data by Nielsen Media Research)

So I guess I have some bad news for the “alternative” media out there — like Rush Limbaugh (the most listened-to radio program in the U.S.) — who seem to fret so much over the liberal bias of the “mainstream media”. You ARE the mainstream media. You are “They”. So what do you have to say for yourselves?

Pants on Fire

When Representative Joe Wilson shouted out the words: “You Lie” to the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress. He did three things. First, he violated Congressional rules, second he demonstrated a lack of common civility and finally, he lied. What the President had just said was, in fact, not a lie at all. Joe just didn’t like it. As time moves forward, Americans are becoming more and more disillusioned with their new President. The expectations may be too high here. I don’t ask for much, I just ask that I not be lied to. That’s pretty much it. I don’t expect my President to tell me the whole truth, just try to avoid directly and blatantly lying to me. So it got me to thinking... what are some of my favorite all-time Presidential lies of the last 30 years?

"In England, if a criminal carried a gun, even though he didn't use it, he was tried for first-degree murder and hung if he was found guilty.” – Ronald Reagan, April 1982. He repeated this lie to The New York Times 4 years later on March 21, 1986.

What makes this lie so wonderful is the fact that he repeated it 4 years after the initial telling. Although, most people would be offended by being told an obviously transparent lie, somehow (maybe because it’s Reagan) the act of repeating it 4 years later and the bald-faced obstinacy he had about it makes the whole thing kind of endearing.

“We did not—repeat, did not—trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we,” - Ronald Reagan, November 1986. Four months later, on March 4, 1987, Reagan admitted in a televised national address, “A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”

This gem of a lie is notable for the liar’s wondrous ability to tell the lie, admit it was a lie, then deny the lie’s existence. This lie sets the stage for future Presidents who may now claim that the facts and data notwithstanding, the truth is how I choose perceive it. Simply brilliant. As Nietzsche, wrote: "'I have done that,' says my memory. 'I cannot have done that,' says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually, memory yields."

“Read my lips: no new taxes!” – George H.W. Bush 1988 Republican National Convention.

So this wasn’t really a lie per se. I mean, at the time it was told, he hadn’t actually approved or signed off on a tax increase. Although, he should have known he would—everyone else did. It’s sort of a retro-active lie. This lie is special because it pretty much sealed the deal for both his election and (four years later) his defeat. In that way this lie is self-correcting.

"Since I was a little boy, I've heard about the Iowa caucuses." – Bill Clinton, who was a graduate student at Oxford when the first Iowa caucus was held in 1972.

This is the kind of little white lie that makes me just want to say “awwww shucks.” I include it here because although it speaks to the man’s instinct to lie, it’s just about the most harmless, adorable little lie I’ve ever heard a sitting President utter.

"I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." – Bill Clinton.

In the grand scheme of things, and in retrospect, this lie seems fairly harmless to everyone but Hillary Clinton. But there’s some context to the lie that the quote doesn’t capture. I remember when he told this lie. He did so on TV—addressing the camera (me) directly. He looked me in the eye, and he pointed his finger at me in an accusing fashion when he lied to me. That kind of pissed me off. It’s one thing to tell a lie, it’s quite another to wag your finger at me when you do it.

Now we come to George W. Bush. I hesitate to comment on or list out all these lies because; for the most part they are still fresh wounds. So here are just two that require no explanation:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." --State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” May 29, 2003.

G.W. Bush wins the award for my all-time favorite presidential lie. It's an entirely new kind of compound lie, meaning that it requires two separate statements to make the lie the true classic that it is. Both statements are by themselves lies, but together they create a third, magnificent lie. In this respect, G.W. Bush has actually invented a new form of lying and it is for this innovation that I place the lie at the top of my list:

Lie 1: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

Lie 2: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Magical. 

The Only Thing We Have To Fear.

Throughout the Bush Presidency (either Bush will do) there seemed to be this ethos that Republicans and conservatives were “real men”. Manly men. Not those “girly men” Schwartzeneger always talked about. Republicans were tough. Not just strong on defense, but also strong on offense. They did manly things like hunting and clearing brush. They were the ones with the big ideas—living up to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, another tough-guy, “give ‘em hell”, “win one for the Gipper” hero of the Silver screen and the White house. He had the vision and machismo it took to defeat communism, lower taxes and usher in a new age of prosperity for his beleaguered people. He dissected the world with a broad sword, not a scalpel. Now that’s manly. Hell, Sarah Palin was shooting moose from a helicopter back when Joe Biden was riding the Amtrak to the office. To put it bluntly, Republicans had balls. Conversely, Democrats were whiney little wimps who were afraid of their own shadows and complained about carpel tunnel syndrome. But since the election of President Obama this has all changed. I don’t know how else to say this…

Conservatives are cowards.

You can’t tune to Fox News, or talk radio or the floor of the House of Representatives without hearing about how “afraid” they all are. As Glenn Beck tearfully put it: “I just love my country… and I fear for it.” Conservative bloggers are terrified of health care reform and claim the government is out to kill all the old people and take our children away. How often does a Fox News anchor or commentator start a segment with the words: “Scary news coming out of the White House today…”? More often than you’d think I suspect. I heard Rush Limbaugh say “scary stuff folks”, “it’s frightening”, “this is a nightmare”, “you should be afraid” or some variant on that theme at least a dozen times in a little over an hour. We’ve got right-wing pundits and politicians all over the media talking about how they are “under siege” and struggling to find the strength to “fight back”.

What a bunch of pussies.

If you’re offended by that then you are one of two things: You are either a feminist (in which case you are correct to be offended), or a conservative (in which case you are just being a huge pussy). C’mon… grow a pair guys (that includes you Palin). For some reason as soon as Obama took office you became “afraid” of everything. What happened to that good ol’ big idea mentality? That down-to-earth, man of the people, “real American” optimism and confidence? Where’s your unapologetic, righteous swagger when we need it most? This is America damn it! We are the big-dog, ass-kickin’, war-winnin’, 4-wheelin’ bad asses of the world. What the hell can you possibly be so damned afraid of? I mean, you’ve become so cowardly that your terrified of things that haven’t even happened. In reality, Obama hasn’t actually done anything yet. It’s become a pathological cycle of terror. No one is killing grandma. Homosexuals aren’t going door-to-door and destroying your marriage. Your children aren’t being forced into pagan sex cults.

The complete and total absence of any sort of oppression combined with your perverse belief in some giant tyrannical conspiracy can only be explained by the fact that you must be tremendous cowards. The only other possible explanation would be that you are intentionally attempting to terrorize the American electorate to the point where they become a frightened, unthinking, reactionary mob of mindless automatons that senselessly parrot your ideology so that no actual progress for the benefit of the country can take place, thereby solidifying your chances of an empty political victory in the next election so that you can maintain your power base by capitalizing on the ingrained fear and racism of an ignorant public terrified of the notion of a black man as President… oh wait.

Ohhhhhh. Okay. I get it now. Never mind. Nice move.

Global Drying

In light of the release of several emails from renowned scientists regarding global climate change, and the resulting cries of conspiracy and fraud, I thought I’d take a moment to address environmental issues. Whether or not you subscribe to the belief that climate change is man-made or not, there is really no doubt that the planet’s climate is changing. Some places are getting colder, some hotter, some drier and some wetter. Ice caps are melting. Now I don’t know if this is all the result of increased solar activity combined with a reduction in the ozone layer or if particulate matter is actually causing global dimming to occur that is offsetting human activity. I don’t know if people are to blame. But I suspect that we’re not helping. Let me get directly to my main, important point:

Why the fuck do you need fourteen goddamned square feet of paper towels to dry your hands in the men’s room? Granted only about 50% of men actually wash their hands after using the facilities, but apparently that half of the male population really, really likes to make sure that their hands are dry. You know what I am talking about—the guy who pulls the little paper towel lever in rapid succession about 8 times, dries his hands, then repeats the process. The resulting basketball-sized wad of spent paper is then unceremoniously tossed onto (not into) the overflowing garbage can where it rolls gently onto the floor until, eventually, some underpaid janitor will stuff it into a big, non-biodegradable plastic bag and have it trucked to the landfill where it will spend the next thousand years.

As I write this, I can hear the noise of that little lever: “ka-chunk, ka-chunk, ka-chunk, ka-chunk…”. What’s the thought process here? “I better make sure I get enough paper towels while they’re still free.” Maybe all men are simply OCD. “I CAN’T GET DRY!” Listen, just take one pull from the machine and end it. This isn’t a slot tournament guys. But even worse than the lever-style is the new electronic dispensers, they are already set to deliver five times the required amount of paper towel needed to dry Andre the Giant’s hands, but you still see dudes waving their (already arid) hands over the little sensor to get more. Are they expecting candy or money to come pouring out of that dispenser? I feel like I’m watching a hamster with electrodes hooked up to its neural pleasure center tapping furiously at a little electro-shock switch to get more.

Aside from just plain wastefulness and the lack of concern about conserving something that’s free, I think there’s a mental component to this. If you watch real closely, you can see that the aggressive manner in which the device is activated corresponds to an expression of satisfaction on the user’s face. Like he’s finally in control of something. He’s going show that paper towel dispenser who’s boss. It’s more than the typical (and very manly) tactile joy we get from interacting with a mechanical device… it’s almost domineering. As if to say: “My life is out of control, I don’t know what the hell I am doing, my wife is a tyrannical nag and my boss controls my every move. But here… here in the men’s room, I am in control. Take that you fucking paper towel dispenser! Yeah, that’s right bitch, you’ll give me all the paper towels I want!” Watch for it next time you’re it the men’s room—watch how they approach the machine with a cocky sense of contempt then rip that towel from the grips of the machine with a satisfied flourish.

The bottom line here guys is this... if you need more than 12 square inches of paper towel to dry your hands, you have a medical problem. Oh, and by the way, thanks so much for running through the entire day’s supply of paper towels in the men’s room by 4pm. I guess I’ll just dry my hands on my pants again you inconsiderate prick.

That Which Does Not Kill Us... Someday Will

I have noticed that I have an instant and complete contempt for authority figures. Whereas most people (I suspect) are cautious around police officers and have an innate tendency to follow their commands, I have an overwhelming urge to confront them about why I’m being told to do or not do something or ordered around in general. I’m not sure where this comes from. For the most part my interactions with authority figures have been relatively pleasant. The one cop I actually know is probably one of the nicest guys I’ve ever met. So what is it about cops, security guards, bouncers, high school lunch ladies and other figures of tyranny that ramps up my hostility index?

I think it stems from the fact that I don’t break the law. Well not the ones that matter. I mean, I don’t hurt anyone, get into fist-fights, steal anything or vandalize property. I don’t spit on the sidewalk, throw my garbage in the street or play loud, thumping music in my car. I help people stranded on the side of the road, I hold the door open for them as they walk by and give up my seat for little old ladies on the bus. That is not to say I’ve never been in trouble. It’s just that when I have been in trouble it’s for no good fucking reason. And that’s where this comes from. It’s always some stupid, self-defeating rule contrary to the good of the whole that I get in trouble for violating.

I have absolutely no patience for officious bureaucratic red tape and meaningless rules. “So tell me Mr. Bus Driver, why can’t I bring a half empty can of soda onto a bus, but I can bring a 64 ounce Big Gulp.” “Well, we only allow beverages with lids.” “But wait, think about it for a second. If I drop my can of Sprite on the bus floor, only a little part of the top of the can will let liquid out. I’ll probably spill a few ounces at most before retrieving it. But if I drop a big, giant paper cup with a little plastic lid, it’s guaranteed to explode like Vesuvius, pouring the entire 64 ounces all over the bus.” I tried to explain that to the driver, but he appeared nonplussed and just pointed to the little sign that read: “Covered Beverages Only”.

That kind of stuff drives me crazy. I become positively apoplectic over this shit, and one day it will kill me. When the aneurysm or hail of bullets shuffles loose my mortal coil, they’ll find my lifeless, contorted body on the floor of the DMV.

Right of the Living Dead

Something happened. I don’t know what it was precisely that set it off, but for some reason or another the politically conservative in the United States have gone absolutely bat-shit fucking crazy. Not the normal kind of crazy we’ve come to expect. No this is a special, new mutant crazy that is as contagious as the Swine Flu but much more dangerous.  I can hear the drum beats of a hundred million screaming barbarians pouring out of the gates of Mordor into our streets, office parks and shopping malls. The really scary part is these people have been walking among us and we didn’t even know it. Sure we saw the occasional nut-job jumping up and down, frothing at the mouth and stammering about some global conspiracy. But these people were few and far between and easy to recognize. For the most part we saw our fellow citizens as something else. Maybe a little off-kilter, but for the most part seemingly normal, harmless people going about the daily business of being… well, humans. We were wrong.

They are zombies.

That’s right. The zombies have arrived. They were infected by the Zombie King and have now become zombies themselves. They have a single-minded sense of purpose. You can’t argue with them, debate them or reason with them. You can’t change their perspective or show them another way to look at things. You can’t simply amicably agree to disagree or expect compromise of any kind. No, all you can do is put on a helmet, grab a baseball bat and run for your life, because they care about one thing and one thing only—eating your brain. Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean this figuratively. This is not my attempt at metaphor. These people are real, brain-eating zombies and they are out to fucking get you.

So how did this happen? What could have stirred the cauldron of conservative craziness to the point where we would actually become infested with brain-eating zombies? You may ask: “Who is this Zombie King of which you speak?”

Sarah Palin.

Yep. That’s it. That’s what happened. Sarah Palin happened. That’s how this started. At some point she infected the Republican party and together with their werewolf counterparts (Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck) have created a zombie super-virus that can be spread just by hearing their vitriolic ranting. It’s a powerful virus that infects the weakest and most vulnerable among us; the un-educated, the rural poor, Wal-Mart shoppers.  All this virus requires to infect these people is a little ignorance and a little fear. It’s the time-tested breeding ground for zombie-based pathogens throughout history. Why do you think they always end up in Texas? Sarah Palin showed these people that even if you’ve already eaten your own brain, there are still plenty of others out there that can be consumed by conflated logic.

You heard me right, I said "Zombie King". What... you thought Sarah Palin was a woman?

No Apology Necessary

Have you ever been in a heated debate when suddenly the person opposite you crosses the line and says something so egregiously offensive that you simply can no longer tolerate it? Well I have, and usually I’m the offensive asshole. But in those instances when I’m not, I’ll often hear the words: “Well… I’m sorry if you’re offended.” As if this makes it okay. Is this supposed to be some sort of apology? Because it isn’t. It’s their way of saying: “You’re a huge pussy and I feel sorry for you because you’re simply too stupid to agree with me.” But it works like some fucked-up Jedi mind-trick on people. The receiver of this back-handed apology almost always accepts it as they want to hear it… as an actual apology. Whereas the giver of said not-an-apology gets away with not actually apologizing. Everybody wins right? Wrong.

You can’t let these people get away with this shit.

There are only two correct ways to respond to someone who apologizes “if they have offended you”. The first is to say: “Well, you DID actually offend me. So the question now becomes, are you apologizing for the fact that I am offended, or are you apologizing for that outrageously shitty thing you just said or did that caused me to be offended? One of those apologies I will accept, the other I will not.” Oh, they will act all outraged at your belligerence, pretending that they did, in fact, apologize and now you’re somehow the jerk who is without any sense of civility. Ignore this. They’re busted and they know it. They are now confronted with the reality of not only the initial offense, but the more embarrassing act of attempting to manipulate you into believing yet another of their lies. Chances are they will act offended… this is your opportunity to say: “Well… I’m sorry if you feel offended.”.

The only other appropriate response when receiving a not-an-apology is to take a moment of silence, look them in the eye, extend your left hand for a handshake and then use your right hand to punch them in the throat as hard as you can. When they are lying prostrate on the ground, gasping for air, simply bend over and tell them: “I’m sorry if you’re having trouble breathing.”

Oh, and don’t get me started on the whole “No offense, but…” prefix to a sentence. The next words about to come out of that douche bag’s mouth are guaranteed to be intentionally and purposefully offensive. When you hear that phrase, just re-scramble the words in your head so that you instead hear what they actually mean: “I’m a complete asshole who realizes I have absolutely no fucking idea what I am talking about, but my narcissistic, bullshit opinion must be heard regardless of how racist, ignorant or cruel it is.”

“Hey, no offense, but you’re ugly, your children are stupid and you’re wife is a two-dollar truck-stop whore. But ya know… no offense.”

Evil is as Evil Does

Well it finally happened. Our benevolent Internet Overlords have finally gone rogue. I am, of course, talking about Google. Welcome to the Dark Side Google... we've been expecting you. You may or may not know that I am an Internet marketing consultant. You'd never guess it from my blog, but I actually work with companies to make their online efforts more effective and useful. That includes websites.

Google has a long-held (well since the 2004 IPO) informal motto of: "Don't Be Evil". This stems from a letter from its founders stating: ". . . Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company."

OK. Cool. I like that. I can get on board with not being evil, just as much as I can get on board with being against Bubonic Plague or airline food. But something has gone terribly wrong. Recently, Google unveiled "Side Wiki" as part of the Google Toolbar plug-in for your browser. This nifty little tool essentially allows anyone to post a comment about the website they are currently visiting allowing users who are also viewing that website to see said comments. So where's the harm in that you ask? What sinister plot does this seemingly helpful little widget reveal?

Let me put it this way. People spend a lot of effort and money on their websites, sometimes millions of dollars. Often it is the core marketing and sales vehicle for their company. In some cases these are regulated companies like pharmaceutical companies. What Google has done here is to provide an effective tool designed to wipe out the investment made by organizations trying to present their products or company the way they want. In other words, companies have spent money to build a site that they feel best represents their interests to their potential customers on the open marketplace of ideas. If there is a differing opinion, other sites are welcome to make their case as well. But if I've spent millions driving traffic to my site... say Microsoft.com, and some competitor pays a college kid to write something terrible about Microsoft Internet Explorer and that everyone should use Google Chrome as their browser... then I am paying for my competitors to advertise against me, right on my own Web property.

It's like allowing General Motors to go to every Toyota dealership and spray-paint the side of the building with: "Toyota Cars Kill Americans!"

"But wait," you say, "There is review of these posts. It is designed to provide helpful feedback and improve the quality of life for everyone not evil marketing practices." Well, you know where you CAN'T post a comment? The download page of Google's toolbar. But you can sure as hell post one on Microsoft's home page:

So I guess now, Microsoft is lucky enough to have helpful tips on their own home page like: "My hope is one day Microsoft with stop trying to make-up web standards and instead jump on board the current and future standards which Opera, Google Chrome, Safari and Firefox have embraced from the beginning."

Did I catch that right? On Microsoft's home page there is now an option to see content that tells users that they should use Google Chrome. Nice.

So what does this mean? Well, it means that now Google is forcing everyone who has any stake in a company's website to first, use the Google Toolbar on their browser so they can at least see all the crap people are saying about them on their own website, second, it forces companies which are regulated, like pharmaceutical companies to report any claims made against their products (true or not) to the FDA and possibly hold off clinical trials for drugs and medical devices that could be saving lives, and finally, it creates a chilling effect whereby companies are now better served by hiding content and indeed their entire websites under login structures and secure socket layers to avoid having their own brand investment used against them by competitors, thereby making the majority of useful content online harder to access for everyone. Gee, thanks Google!

This is just plain irresponsible of Google. But is it evil? I am sure it is well intentioned. The goals are for the common good, designed to help and protect us all. Therefore I can definitively state that it is evil of the highest order.

But more importantly, it's stupid. I control the online advertising budgets for several companies. I'll be damned if I am going to pay Google to send users to my site, and then allow Google to encourage some knock-off third rate competitor to use that traffic against me. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. 

And just in case you don't happen to be a Google shareholder, don't worry this will cost you too. You see, now every company needs to spend time and money essentially writing a blog to repudiate or answer possibly erroneous commentary. That costs money. Money that gets charged back to consumers. In essence, now every company has to have a blog whether they want to or not. But don't worry, the blog is monitored... by Google.

"Run Forrest! Run!"

Fair and Balanced

I’ve been watching a lot of Fox News lately. Well, let me re-phrase that… I’ve been watching programs that appear on a channel that is called Fox News. One must be careful with language here because the name of the channel is a misnomer. The name is purposefully designed to imply that the programming contained on the channel is news, when in fact, it isn’t exactly news that they are providing. It’s like having a channel called “Comedy Central” and airing Police Academy 4. It makes people think that it is actually comedy they are watching, when in fact, it’s clearly nothing of the sort.

This is a common tactic of liars and con-artists… or put another way, politicians and pundits. It’s a form of double-speak that is at once subtle and blatant. It floats on top of the substance of things and envelopes them in a fog of convoluted logic creating a false premise for the delivery of information that would otherwise be considered inconsistent with people’s perception of reality. But make no mistake, it is intentional and it is effective. It is the simplest form of double-speak. I illustrate this as a prelude to a much more complex and insidious tactic commonly used by people who may have no idea they are doing it. The process goes something like this:

1. Accuse your opponent of trying to do something terrible.

2. Explain your opponent’s tactics to achieving that terrible goal.

3. Do that terrible thing you accused you opponent of planning on doing, using the tactics you explained your opponent would use.

4. Be outraged at the hypocrisy of your opponent when they accuse you of doing what you had previously accused them of wanting to do.

5. Use that outrage to focus attention on the outrage itself, rather than the terrible thing you just did.

It’s so simple, a caveman could do it… or even Glenn Beck.

I’d like to come up with a name for this tactic, something like: “A Reverse Reality Logic Bomb” but with a little more zing to it. Maybe I’ll call it Fox News. The point is, this tactic is most effective when the outrage is genuine. In other words, the perpetrator of this lie needs to be so overwhelmingly ignorant of reality that they actually believe they have been victimized. Of course, the liar would never call himself a victim. Instead he would accuse his opponents of having a “victim mentality” and trying to use that to make themselves rich, so they are able to gang up on him, attack him and deny him his rights, which is why you should listen to him thereby make him rich. Perfect.

You may ask: “How can I protect myself against falling victim to this ingenious ploy?”.  It’s very simple. Any time you hear someone upset, yelling, screaming or in any way demonstrably declaring outrage, you know that you are either dealing with a liar or watching Fox News... but most likely you are doing both.

If We Can Put a Man on the Moon...

Why can't we blow it up?

I was recently asked this question: "If the whole world worked together, how long would it take us to blow up the Moon?" Well, the answer is obvious... more than a week.

Let's first assume we're talking about nukes here. And we're not talking about moving it out of its orbit and crashing it into the Sun, or drilling a big hole and using some sort of resonance sound wave to destabilize the core, or any other clever bullshit science fiction trick. No... we're talking about blowing that big white fucking orb in the sky to kingdom come.

OK.

First, the diameter of the Moon is approximately 3,474 Kilometers, or since I am in the U.S. and therefore irrationally opposed to the Metric System, we're looking at 2,159 Miles. One of the largest craters from a nuclear blast was about 106 ft. deep or .02 miles. This was caused by a 15 megaton bomb. We currently have about 30,000 warheads in the world. Most of which we couldn't convert to high yield bombs, but for the sake of argument, lets say we have access to 20,000. So with a little math here we can assume that with a nominal yield of 15 megatons it would take approximately 20,000 bombs just to make a hole 400 miles deep. We're not even close.

But hold on there just a damn minute... man. The Soviets created a 100 megaton bomb back in the 60's or 70's (40 years ago folks). And, at one point, they had amassed around 45,000 nukes and the U.S. had a paltry 30,000. Add some Chinese, French, English, Pakistani and hell, maybe even an Iranian nuke or two and we've got the proven ability to build upwards of 100,000 bombs at any given point. If we worked those centrifuges 24X7 I bet we could crank out 20,000 one hundred megaton nukes in no time.

That changes everything.

If one 15 megaton nuke blasts a hole .02 miles deep, then a 100 megaton nuke would likely make a hole 6.6 times deeper, or .132 miles deep. Multiply .132 times 20,000 nukes and we get one big fucking 2,640 mile-deep crater... which is, of course, about 600 miles deeper than we would need to blow a hole clean through that bad boy.

So how long would it take us, if everyone on the planet worked together to make this happen? Like I said, longer than a week. Maybe even a couple of months.

Dear God...

I've read the bible. The New Testament, the Old Testament, the Catholic version of each. I've read the Koran or Qur'an depending on how technical you want to be about it. Now you may be asking yourself: "Is he really going to take on religion now?"

No.

Well, yes, I guess I am -- in a way. I just want to tackle some basics of Christianity for a moment. Play along with me because it's a little game I think we can all appreciate. There are, of course the "Seven Deadly Sins", but there are also the seven "Heavenly Virtues". Here's the game, read through the "Virtues" and give yourself (be honest now) 1 point for each that you really... REALLY think you have. So, there are seven, a good score is, I guess 5, a bad score being 2.

Here they are -- in case you need help, there are wikipedia links to guide you (you should read them before you decide how you answer: 


 - Chastity
 - Temperance
 - Charity
 - Diligence
 - Patience
 - Kindness
 - Humility

So out of a total score of seven, I rated myself as a five out of seven. "Not bad Malaprop! Good for you!" Oh contraire my friend -- because remember, we must then subtract our score on the religious paradigm of the righteous by the "Seven DEADLY Sins" which counteract these virtues.

They are: 


 - Lust
  - Gluttony
 - Greed
 - Sloth

 - Wrath
 - Envy
 - Pride

So do it. Yep, give yourself a "minus one" on each of those bad boys.

Sucks huh?

I'm going to assume that, as a bare minimum, one's ticket to heaven must have at least a zero stamped on the back.

My ticket? - 1

Shit.

1.21 Gigawatts !!!!

OK, so I’ve pretty much abandoned this thing. But let me explain why. When I took a brief break, I asked if anyone who reads this would send me their email so I could notify them when I started up again. I received exactly zero emails. So I inferred that the interest level is not really high. However, every now and then I get a little post asking me when I’ll start up again, so here goes…


Facebook.


This little social networking application has grown from the domain of college and high school kids to the primary tool for coordinating 20 year reunions. I should know, I’m being recruited to facilitate just that. It seems that every week people from my past are crawling out of the woodwork discovering this “new” technology. “Isn’t this great!?!?” “So glad to see you on FB!!!” “Here’s an embarrassing picture of you puking in your underwear in the school bathroom at the Prom 20 years ago… hope your prospective employers see it!”


I won’t deny that there is a small segment of the population that have tracked me down that I actually wanted to hear from, but in the end, they could have much more easily Googled me. I mean, if it’s someone I really wanted to keep in touch with, I would have found them by now or more likely (being anti-social myself) they would have found me. I am, after all, easy to find. So what do I get? Thirty “Friend Requests” from people I don’t know -- or worse, don’t like. It’s getting to the point where I am actually getting “Friend Requests” from people whom I consider enemies.


It’s the online equivalent of a DeLorean fitted with a flux capacitor that is fueled entirely by painful memories. “Hey remember that time when I spray-painted the word ‘FAG!’ on the side of your car? Ha Ha Ha -- will you be my friend?” Fuck You McFly!


The amazing thing is, that for the most part these people haven’t really changed. Instead of taking their senior photo with their 1987 Nissan Sentra and forcing those little wallet-sized photos into my hand, they now post annoying pictures of their kids dressed up for Halloween as a drooling bumble bee. Should I feel bad that I’m only number eleven on the list of coolest people? Jesus, it’s like they all aged backward. It’s the Curious Case of Benjamin Beavis and Butthead.


To all you people new to this whole thing, I’ve got some advice. You see, the rest of us have been living in the 21st century for nine years now. Take your “25 Things I don’t Want to Fucking Know About You” list, shove it up your ass and when you finally pass it back out, use at as fertilizer for your “Little Green Patch“.


Oh and here’s a big FYI for you, if we weren’t actually friends before… we still aren’t.