Okay everyone; I'm taking an extended hiatus while I visit some family up north. Sadly, during such time I will be completely lacking in Internet connectivity (unless a neighbor has an unprotected wi-fi connection). I shall return on Sunday, hopefully with a bunch of new material. 'Til then, dance!
Government Wants Your Family’s Money
By Jimbo
Jimbo News Network
The country is in shock today as the government announces a new effort in decreasing the national deficit. For the first time in history, all money earned through Christmas and birthday cards will be subject to a tax rate of five-percent. The official press release pointed out the promise to never raise taxes, but also points out the absence of a promise to never create new ones. “We believe that the people of this country will be fine with it,” said a government spokesman. “We consider this a certain form of income and should be subject to similar income taxes.” All income collected from these holiday cards will need to be listed when all remaining taxes are filed.
Already livid crowds, thirsty for more to protest about, have taken to the streets against this new levy. “This is utterly ridiculous,” says a New Jersey resident. “How can they take money away from my eight-year-old grandson? He’s not even old enough to hold a job, and he’s being taxed!?” Many Christian groups are voicing their opinions as well, stating that taxing Christmas money is a violation of the church-state separation. They think that America, being the Christian nation that they believe it is, should not tax Christmas money, but is willing to consider taxes on other holidays.
Groups of government apologists are defending the move. “The question is where do we draw the line,” a DC resident explains. “These protestors are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. They’re fine with taxing their work income, but all of a sudden they protest taxing gift income? They have to learn where not to draw the line.” Already, government officials are considering new taxes for childhood lemonade stands and money found on the sidewalk. The DOW drops over 500 points on the news, which should come as a surprise to no one.
I'll be honest, I don't like kids. Whenever I see them, my brain automatically applies every negative stereotype it can get its hands on. To me, all kids are loud, tactless, smelly, and addicted to rap music. Nevertheless, they are the future generation, and I do want to take care of them (if only so they'll take care of me when I'm no longer competent). That's why I like the Toys for Tots program. It allows me to help children enjoy Christmas without having to actually see them (a big plus). I'm a bit poor, but I still stopped at a toy store to pick up these three things:
Each represents a special lesson to the children who receive them. Monopoly teaches them the glory of capitalism. It teaches them that if you want to succeed, you need to be tough. The Game of Life teaches another important life lesson. Specifically, it teaches that some of you may be lucky enough to win at life, but the vast majority of you will be losers. Lastly, the lightsabers teach that violence is always an acceptable solution to any and all problems. Also, it shows that everything is a black and white issue, where you are either for or against an issue. I'm glad I could help.
While I was sitting in the library waiting for class to begin, I was thinking about words (because I have a very fruitful sex life). Specifically, I was wondering what ever happened to the word “gruntled”. I mean, it should technically exist. The word “disgruntled” is often used (especially around my office), and it is my assumption that the dis- prefix just means the opposite of the word it’s attached to (please, don’t correct me if I’m wrong). For example, you have discontented negating contented (another common one around the office), dishonesty negating honesty (again, my office), and disobey negating obey (will be occurring in my office very shortly). The logical conclusion would be that disgruntled simply negates gruntled. But, as WinWord is so kindly pointing out, the word doesn’t exist. I checked my dictionary, and it appears that somebody silenced Webster too. What is it about this word that makes it taboo? Am I dooming the world to destruction just by questioning it? No! I refuse to accept such a fate for an innocent word. I propose… a multinational Coalition of the Willing™ to bring back the word gruntled (we need a cool acronym, too). We shall face the angry fates head on and demand the return of this valued word. Who cares if it sounds less like a contented adjective and more like the sounds you make first thing in the morning? We cannot allow the destruction of words to continue. Dieu li volt!
According to my sources, yesterday was supposedly World Philosophy Day (or is it!?). I’ll admit, I’m not much of a philosophical thinker. I’m more of a how-can-I-change-this-idea-into-a-fart-joke thinker. That’s not to say I don’t think deep thoughts, mind. A recent article on the BBC posed “four philosophical questions to make your brain hurt”. Being the masochist that I am, I couldn’t resist the temptation to give myself a huge headache. Here are some of my thoughts on these deeply philosophical doohickeys.
1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
The basic premise of this question is whether it is right to kill one lonely guy and use his organs to help five others, and how this scenario is any different from a hostage situation where the death of one saves everyone else. In response to this first scenario, my answer is no. We should let those five suckers die. Why would we kill one guy for his organs when we can more easily let five schmucks die for five nearly complete sets of organs? Hey, they’re going to die anyway, so why take out the healthy guy. I know what you’re thinking now. “But if we are only going to let unhealthy people die, why collect the organs in the first place?” Duh, because they’re delicious. Try to stick with me here people.
2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
It seems the thought behind this question is an attempt to muddle the idea of being. This idea sort of reminds me of the movie The Fly in which Jeff Goldblum continues to be awesome even as his humanity is slowly disappearing in favor of an insect. Your being is all linked into one body, so if your mind is moved into another, your previous self is null and void. You become someone different. If, however, a copy of your mind is pasted into a clone of yourself, then you have just become capable of being in two places at the same time. The only logical next step would be to immediately make out with yourself (because I know that is what everybody wants to do).
3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
I mean, is it really? No, really, can you tell me? I’ve forgotten. You see, there could potentially be a computer screen in front of me, but at the same time I could’ve been sedated, placed into a very expensive VR machine, and led to believe that it is a computer screen through sensory manipulation. For all I know, it could very well be an edible wafer that is shaped like a computer screen with an image of what I am typing projected on to it from an invisible source a few micrometers in front of it. I would attempt to test this hypothesis, but the idea of having spent several hundred dollars on a wafer would seriously depress me. I prefer my blissful ignorance, thank you very much. (edit: it was the most expensive wafer ever, but darn was it tasty)
4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
No, I did not. The BBC is quite powerful enough to control my mind. Considering how many documentaries they air, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve already mapped how every single particle interacts with every other and determined exactly how to manipulate them. You see, they are forcing me to type this, knowing that you all will read it (all three of you). They also know that if any of you try to raise a stink about it, they can readily have you killed by turning your lungs into a low viscosity liquid. John Bull is watching you.
I'm sure all of you have done this at some point. You would have some free time, go to Wikipedia, and just start browsing through. You'd see a link that interested you, and read more into it, only to find another link. It just keeps going on in a chain. I was at work and decided to list all of the links I followed. I will not alter my browsing in any way (i.e. I won't browse just to look good for this post). I'll just follow what looks interesting. I started with the seed "hubris", just because I wanted to look up the technical definition of the word and its history.
At this point, my day at work was done and I had to stop. I somehow managed to jump from ancient Greek mythology to Japanese culture. Ah… the fun involved in letting your mind wander. Maybe I should try this experiment again with Conservapedia.
You may remember a while ago that I made a post regarding comments left on a CNN ticker article. Today, I'm going to do the same thing… just because it's interesting. Hubris also plays a large part, so try to bear with me. This post deals with the possibility of repealing "Don't ask, don't tell". Some of the comments were oodles of fun. Once again, I will post the actual comment followed by my own thoughts in blue.
"shiii,my brudas and sistas rather beeb collecting a welfare chex .let dem queers serve in da army.shiii, out in dem cold trenches a bruda might need toob git his snuggle on or maybe even need toob play hide da monkey.shiii dat don't mean heeb beeb gay just on da down low."
… Wha? I'm used to Internet comments having poor grammar, but… just wow. Interesting theory he presents, though.
"sorry, but gays should not be serving openly in the military. It makes people uncomfortable and they will face segregation."
You should apologize, but for different reasons. This is what basic training is supposed to be about: teaching people how to work together as a team (among other things). If history has taught us anything, it's that the military can and will rise above segregation.
"The main issue is that the LORD said that being gay is morally wrong and people will not fight their temptations so instead of doing what is right in the eyes of God they choose to fight to make their sins acceptable. It is only right in their mind, it is still morally wrong and a still a sin in the eyes of the LORD your God. Repent and be saved. Those who choose to make sin ok for society will still answer to the LORD and end up in the fires of Hell. Just because you choose to ignore God does not mean that you won't be judged for your sin and your punishment will still fit the sins that you have not acknowlaged and asked for forgiveness."
I knew God would have to be mentioned at some point. I like the way this comment doesn't go anywhere.
"It is never a person's choice to be gay. God creates a person as gay. Those who would seek to ridicule or hurt those individuals are casting judgment on what God hath made, and that seems sinful to me. That does not give a gay person free license not to be responsible people or to force their orientation on others. I have known gays and lesbians in my lifetime that were outstanding people, who never forced their orientation on me. Some of these people were the best friends anyone could ask for, very loyal, honest, educated, good citizens, fine character, and some served or now serve with honor in the U.S. Military. So get over it - Iraq tested the waters shoring up with the Brits proving that sexual orientation does not make a difference. Again, to correct a prior post, being gay is not a choice, it is way the God created people. To imply otherwise, or to torture these people mentally or try to change them driving them to suicide in some cases - well, God help you who engage in such abuse. You may find yourself shaking on judgment day before your Maker."
Once again, God makes an appearance, but it appears to be in a good way. It's good to see someone who doesn't describe God as a big prick (sort of). If God really does have a hand in all things, then the first two sentences of that comment make a good point. Not that any of the anti-gay crowd would admit to it, of course.
"Gays serving openly in the military: Stupid idea then, stupid idea now. Don't ask, don't tell works. Why subvert military discipline by allowing disruptive behavior of any kind? […]"
Once again, isn't basic training supposed to create military discipline. Besides, how is homosexuality disruptive behavior?
"I am an active duty service member, i have had to chapter soldiers out because they were gay - true he was probably using it as an excuse to not go to Iraq but thats on him. with the DADT lifted that can no longer be used as an excuse to not serve this great nation."
Last one for the day. This one actually seems more logical than ideological. If you're in the military, that's one less excuse for not doing what you signed up for. I'm waiting for the time when it's perfectly legal to avoid war by saying, "I just signed up for the benefits."
While my favorite mode of time wasting will always be playing video games and watching anime, I still consider myself a bookish person. I enjoy reading and try (with little success) to get others around me to read. Here are some of the books I have been reading over this past year. Not many, I know, but, well... see the beginning of the first sentence.
Books I have read so far this year (as in, I have read for the first time):
Books I am Currently Reading:
Books I have in my possession and plan to, at some point, get around to reading:
Hey, you're here early.
Yeah, I had some loose ends to tie up this morning.
Like what?
<faux accent="Eastern European"> I needed to acquire some merchandise. </faux>
Gone shopping? What did you buy?
The new Animal Crossing game.
Sigh, you're such a child
'Ey, 'ey, 'ey… Know your place. This is a hierarchical world, and that hierarchy is well defined. On the bottom is most of humanity. Next up is myself, and then comes Animal Crossing. I will not have you speaking ill of my superior.
Whatever.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I have the new Animal Crossing game. The only problem arises with the fact that I simply do not have the time to play it, and likely will not for a while. Hrn… Minor inconveniences can be so… inconvenient.
Just because I like taking pictures of my comic book collection.
(Not picture: Yotsuba&, simply because it was on the bottom shelf and got cut off. Many apologies)
Recent Comments