Saturday, December 18, 2010

It's Been So Very Long

Pardon my absence. I was preparing for my stand-up performance, and I think I did pretty well, for what it's worth.



That's not exactly why I wanted to post. My main reason is that I've come across an incredibly awful thing this morning. A man, if you want to call him that, violates a woman on a New York subway by rubbing his condom-sheathed dick against her. It was all on camera, and she stood up and took him to police. Duh. That's what you do; you don't need to be recognized as some sort of hero because you did what anyone should have done. Not only that, but she's a New York woman. Of course she has the brass balls to do something about it.

I don't like to generalize, and I really hate to sound as though I'm intolerant, but I guess you could say I truly am. Illegal immigrants are by far some of my least favorite people. I feel no sympathy when there are stories about the children going into college, then being removed because their parents from Mexico couldn't study for citizenship in the United States. I really don't care about our country's issues much, but when it comes down to people who have to clutter up our shit just because they want to live free or whatever the reason, I'm strongly against it. I'm tired of their inability to speak English, I can't stand the way they act, and I'm certainly not going to tolerate a guy on a subway with his covered prick pressing up against a woman.

One of my most favorite intellectuals of our time, one who goes by the name "Maddox," stated his opinion about wages for illegal immigrants. His argument is that if immigrants are given the same wages as a legal citizen, it "eliminates the incentive these companies have had to hire illegal immigrants in the first place." Truly, it's not the immigrants' faults that jobs are being taken. They're there to do the work, after all. The reason why this shit is still around is because companies hire them for less to do the shitty work we wouldn't want to do anyway. It's a great big way of saying "We don't give a shit about you, unless you save us money."

Anyway, I'm ending it here. I'm tired and hungry.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

I Didn't Vote. I Can Still Live Here, Right?

So I didn't vote.

I didn't.

There's no point. It's just a bunch of liars and scoundrels that have similar motives. Neither one of both parties are ever going to do what they promise you. No one's going to speak for you when you have a voice. So, instead of choosing which liar I like best, I decided that neither of them would get my vote.

Now here's where you come in. You, the "democratic patron to society." You're a gambler. You have no idea of what will happen after the elections. The choices made won't be similar to the ones you thought they would. You argue that if you DON'T vote, you're not utilizing your rights. That's just the thing, though: Being that this is a country where my ideas and opinions won't get me shot, I should also have the right to not cast a ballot. If you tell me that what I did was wrong, you haven't seen the right aspects about it, nor will you ever understand that in the end, it won't make a difference. Only once in a blue moon will your guy get elected and save the world. I'd pay to see that happen.

I can't be coaxed into choosing a side. I was recently put into an attempted guilt trip from someone who was trying to force me to vote Democrat. Then I was told by someone else that if I voted Democrat, I'd be a scoundrel to America, and that "I should be shot." Listen to that. People who think that this country has liberties and the respect for opinion, and then contradicting it by literally threatening the people they disagree with. That's patriotism for you. There's your American right; just pretend you're on their side and listen to the filth they have to say about the other end. The hypocrisy between the people only shows our true colors. We're too afraid to be at peace with each other.

So fuck 'em. I don't vote, and neither does George Carlin.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Election Derp

I am a libertarian. A man with and without judgment that assigns importance with matters that interest me. I especially don't like being lied to, as that insults me as a person with half a mind to decide fates with the press of a button. Even if I DO offer my services, I'm one in 307,006,550 Americans with an opinion, most of which are made by selfish, gullible degenerates with very little in common with me. That being said, let me get on with my point.

Soon it's election day for governors and representatives, two words that don't match me with the individual at all. First of all, they govern what they're applying for. They're making decisions that don't represent my opinions whatsoever. Why would I vote for someone who doesn't think like I do, hasn't lived like I have, isn't poor like I am, or gone through the same problems as an American as I have? I take the bus, they take a limo. I drink soda when I can afford it, they drink champagne daily. This does not reflect my interests, this defies them.

What's worse is the door-to-door assholes who think by visiting once, they automatically understand the people. See them in-person another week later, and they'll call security if you even attempt to approach them. For someone who's representing me and governing my way of life, you would think they would be a bit more thankful for a visit, let alone have the courtesy to remember who I am. It's like when you pet a cat and give it food, and then it turns around and bites your knuckles off. What kind of gratitude is that? Why make a commitment to an animal that disapproves of your presence? Maybe it's a cat owner thing, I don't know.

They make all the decisions, make all of the money, pay hardly any taxes, kind of like church; The Catholic church as earned itself $422.098 billion. What does the church need for that much money? What are the hardships the Catholics have to endure that they can't spare a little extra change for the homeless? Politics, religion, same thing to my eyes. You're counting on something that may or may not be the truth, putting your interests and your money into believing, and in the end if you're proven wrong, you suffer the consequences. You only have such a small amount of faith before it gets completely twisted around and fucked in the ass with a representative's microphone in the shape of the holy cross. By voting, you're limiting yourself to trusting in someone who hasn't made their decisions widely known until it's too late to reverse them. Everyone makes mistakes, but politicians do nothing to correct them. They can't be bothered to do that, they need to refill their glass of wine.

So I'm afraid I won't be joining your little campaign this year. I'll only come along if there's free candy and sex being thrown in my direction, but until then, you get to pick your poison.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

This Is Why I Can't Comment on YouTube

So recently, via YouTube, I watched the ever-brutal "Passion of the Christ" for the first time. The entire movie was SAW in the format of biblical scripting. Throughout the whole thing, I glanced down at some of the comments left by other YouTube users. Granted I shouldn't do that, simply due to the fact that there's an overabundance of incompetent children who aren't open to look into things deeper than their current perspective. There's nothing wrong with believing in Jesus and everything, but the responses typically have nothing to support their ideals in faith, hence why there are internet "trolls," or bullies, who target these individuals and create an intense rage for the user. I can't help it myself, sometimes.

I decided to step outside my boundaries and comment on the video, because you can't watch a religious movie without asking some questions, at least I can't. Here's my comment verbatim:
Pretty sure this never happened, at least not in the way it's depicted. This movie's just a violent attempt to show people the light, but really it's just a violent exaggeration of some passages in a book. It's more disgusting than spiritual. Why should his death, and not his life, be more important?

Looking back on it, I realize it's a harsh way to deliver my input. I felt like it was a reasonable response. One disagreed, however.

@Snoofalah his death is more important bcuzz of the way he died for us

This all turned into a tennis match of me giving reasons for my argument, and their inability to do the same. The entire "debate" consisted of me offering theories and possibilities and the other saying "wat r u talking abot?" Then they shared with me a fact that further made me feel like a bully:

@Snoofalah look im just 12 i dont know wat ur talking about but i do kno that jesus lovz us all n tht he is king of everything




My face. My expression, my emotion, represented in the picture above resembles everything I felt when I read that. First off, if you're going to offer a rebuttal, back it up with something that doesn't just sound like "I'm right because I'm right." Second, you're a child. This movie isn't meant to be seen by your virgin eyes, considering the whole movie is about the Romans beating the living shit out of your messiah. They want to believe that his getting turned into hamburger is more important than the things he taught his followers? If he hadn't said anything prior to being nailed to the cross, why would anyone bother about it? You don't just convince people you're the son of god by getting yourself beaten senseless, you have to try hard to-

Oh yeah, you're 12. Nevermind.

Who else is 12 on YouTube? There's too much of a chance I'll be arguing with another one if I comment anywhere else. Granted they're easy targets with little to no defensive qualities, but I'm not going to waste my fingers away by typing my side of the argument. Leave that to someone who cares about mentally warping a child's brain through the internet. That's just the way it goes there. Read the comments of some videos and you'll see that there is no shame or pity in these people. On a documentary segment I watched about insects with chemical, biological weapons, there were comments like "BUSH CAUSED 9/11, U FUCKER GO DIE." Why does this belong? Is there something I'm missing? Did I completely skip over something in the video that suggests insects flew planes into the two buildings, or something? What is the matter with this place?

I don't know. I'm going to drown my sorrows in root beer.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Relationships, And Why I Don't Like Them

Relationship, in this sense, being love interests. Not to be confused with friendships and all that. I like friends.

Throughout the years, I've liked a lot of women. I've tried hard every time to try and satisfy their desires, but each time has been a fail. Except once, but I don't think we need to go into detail about that. I stopped believing the problem was me, because I had only been following failing advice and not being who I truly was. Women are more interested with guys who don't lie to themselves, so I'm led to understand.

Why, then, do I not abide by this logic? Because although I am a women's rights advocate, women can suck pretty hard sometimes. My problem is that I'm too nice of a person. If I were a little more of a dick, that apparently would draw them closer. Don't take my word for it, just read the facts. Science, even if it's studied mostly for the wrong reasons, has given a little insight as to why things "don't work out," and one of the reasons, according to these studies, is that women appreciate when men ignore them. That's pretty fun. The girl you want to date is the one you have to give the cold shoulder to, or at least make her feel like the fat protection friend at the bar who won't let you talk to her more attractive girl buddy.

To be fair, guys are pretty shit at staying stable in a relationship. Nothing makes me not care less than to hear how a thing didn't work out because the guy was "such a jerk, and I don't know why I ever blah blah blah blah rabble rabble." I've listened to story after story after story, and it's all been the same song, the same menu, different names. Guys typically aren't known for being compassionate lovers and all that, because it's a primordial instinct that we seem to get cursed with.

I've taken note of human behavior, and I've found that no matter how complex a person is, they have traits that mirror cavemen and cavewomen. Men are typically hunters, women are gatherers. Have you ever been to a mall with a group of girls? You literally stop in every store, looking at stupid clothes they never wear. Guys, on the other hand, usually go straight towards where they intend to be, which is usually the LEGO section for me. Another unrefined idea of mine is in video games, though girls play them as well, making this argument rather hard to defend. Usually the games men tend to buy are first person shooters, or things to make people or creatures bleed or blow up. This isn't always true, but it's a pretty popular choice. I'm tired of hearing them talk about HALO all the time.

I need to cut this short because I'm unfocused currently. I woke up at 3 this morning, and I'm a little fuzzy about writing too in-depth. My whole point in this is that I'm sick of hearing about relationship issues and how they typically nosedive, and I wish that if people had a problem that they don't talk to me about it or ask for advice. That sounds cold-hearted, but truthfully, it's old and not very interesting. If it doesn't work out, that's that. Now excuse me while I play Minecraft.

God damn, I like Minecraft.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Not Review-Related (A Personal Message)

For years, I was taught how not to forgive or how to let my past wither away like the dream it's supposed to be. I was never shown how to give affection, or how to build. I was shown how to destroy, and it's taken this long for me to understand the consequences of my actions. While I try to move forward and strengthen my new self, I find it impossible to continue without feeling the ever-present weight of guilt and remorse. My lamentations increase with everyday that I haven't resolved my previous actions.

Back when I was a child, transitioning into a new school and a new way of life, I remember destroying a peer's life by issuing constant torment and physical aggression. He was smaller than I was. He was frail and had no control over what others thought of him. I focused the pain from old "friendships," the ones where things were thrown at me, I was beaten, abused, and shown no mercy. I still went back, only because I was alone otherwise. To relieve those terrible acts of violence, I passed it onto another individual, who truthfully wasn't much different from me. Now I understand that his abilities today, more so than they were before, are greatly limited. I was told he twitches, and that he has developed some sort of mental sickness.

I can't fully describe what this pain entails. Psychologically, I was ruthless against someone who told me I was worthless in high school. Granted this is to be expected, I took it so personally, the actions of this girl that didn't understand what kind of a monster I was. Over all those years, I had learned nothing, and after that year had finished, I issued forth an email that brought her parents great fear, and her to tears. I had been punished in some form or another, but it hadn't changed my behavior in the least. I was still unforgiving, no regret or conscience resisting my inability to let the past be gone. I brought grief on her for the next two years, until finally she cracked from being coerced and signed my yearbook with "I love you." I almost broke in half.

It wasn't until a few years later that I attempted suicide due to the strain that my conscience had developed. I felt so much guilt and a great hatred for myself that it felt like my brain was preventing me from performing the simple actions of day-to-day life. My skin was open from the self-inflicted wounds, and my heart slowed to a soft beat, so much that I couldn't feel it any longer. I downed the canister of medications and awaited my fate, only to have called the paramedics at the last moment. When I was placed in the hospital, my perception was plagued with the chemicals taking their effect.

All around me there were voices of people watching me. Everything was shrouded with a domineering darkness, only so much that I couldn't perceive what was fully in my surroundings. The little television blared silently from the ceiling, and then the visions truly began. A hand reached for my chest, tugging at the hospital gown I was forced to attire. A little girl appeared on the window sill, and as soon as I turned to see her, she frowned and instantly disappeared. My heart raced. I distinctly heard the words, "What's happening to my baby boy" in a broken voice, issuing forth the greatest sound of anguish that only a mother could speak it, but she wasn't there. All around me, these visions and callings echoed throughout the night, and from the fear of it all, I succumbed to the horror and disappeared from consciousness.

For days I was alone. I felt so outcast from the life I had created, and the burning in my heart was at its greatest peak of depression. My sorrows had known no end, and it rained all throughout my treatment. There was no more hope, and I had regretted calling them in the first place. Then, an epiphany occurred. Something happened while I laid in my tears, in complete helplessness. I realized that I alone could not possibly cause the downfall of the two lives I sought to destroy. The fact that they were still alive was proof enough that I did not greatly force them into the eternal void which I had so effortlessly tried to enter. There was no pain nor unpleasantness I'd made that ended lives. The things said about me in the past weren't true either, as the opinions of me were those of children. I understood, by myself, that the lessons that weren't taught by my family to me then would come from experience, and I only had to become willing to learn them.

I was born again, and now that I aim to change what once was, there is nothing that can stop me. I withstood trials and tribulations beyond what the human body is capable of in the circumstances I had enforced on myself, and I would march on and destroy those demons I had created. Should there be a day I cross those I've hurt, I will offer to them a sacrifice in which they can return the favors on me abusively. I will allow them to either hurt me in any way possible, or to forgive me and let me continue my quest of enlightenment. Until those days come, I will remain vigilant, and I will not victimize anyone ever again.

Because of this, I am the phoenix. I have risen from the dead, and now I have come to conquer my guilt once and for all. To Michael and Alexi: I am truly sorry, and I will allow you to unleash the furies I have brought you upon me.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Financial Crisis, Or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Debt"


My family wasn't raised rich, that's for sure. We've had our great deals of negative numbers, but we've always pulled through. It hasn't been until recently that I've discovered that we are strangely less funded than before. This, of course, is unfortunate, and it got me thinking a bit.

I've wondered about the real start of "money." The concept, and how we based its wealth. It was so important, apparently, that it bought out Judas and forced him to betray Jesus, and then Jesus used his lightsaber or something. I didn't read that far into the story to know what happened, but I'm straying from the point. The point is that whatever Judas was offered was seemingly a fair amount of coin, but what made that so important or so much more wealthy than his friend's life? Well, it's supposed to be a symbol of greed and treachery, and how the two join together and create terrible deeds. It's a symbol of how human Judas was in that he was sold out to a meaningless amount of blood money.

Human has one great weakness: greed. Greed is the state of mind in which an individual feels they deserve something over another. If one person is ill-keeping and consuming, they basically rob others the joys and necessities that they deserve. If that person is ill-spending and hoards their money, they don't provide enough wealth for the rest of us to use in order to share. I've looked at these two opposing wills, and I've made the observation that both are like political parties: Liberals and Republicans. Liberals spend, Republicans store. Neither of these two groups advances us much farther into the future, because they constantly debate about things we should have agreed on decades ago. If there's one thing that brings the two groups together, it's that both manage their richness in poor ways.

The insatiable desire to want more and more devours a person's concepts of fairness and life-worth. They glance over the things that bring us together and focus more on those that tear us apart. It's not money's fault, either; before the recorded point when gold and silver was the sweet shit, there was trading, and it was fair, at least to those who practiced it. It consisted of one thing transacted for something of equal worth, as according to those who agree to the bargain. There were thieves and bandits that robbed others of these goods, thus devastating families and shattering order. I think currency might have been made in order to try and prevent that from happening, and if that's the case, it sure sucks to know that it didn't work too well.

Since things are rising in price, it's about time we all stopped buying things for a second and took a breath, to look at all we've got and evaluate what we need instead of what we want. Free trade, in my opinion, is useless and time-consuming. Window-shopping is a ridiculous way to go about spending your day. If businesses sold the same things for the same price, neither business in theory would go broke, because there would be no difference in value. Everyone could have everything without the trouble of running around looking for the same thing with different price tags. I'm sure there's something about it that I don't know, but honestly, I don't think I'm far from the truth.

I guess this is all one big post asking people if they can help me via PayPal. Life is hard, and I don't expect to see anyone donating, but hopefully in the future I can afford things like internet and other such things. I'm hoping you're enjoying my reviews, those of you who read them, and know that I appreciate your following along.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Games Not To Play: Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

Seriously, what the bitch did I just waste my time with? Anyone familiar with the "Silent Hill" franchise knows that the games are intentionally made to perform twisting mindfucks that throw the player off in any way possible, even if it means breaking what seems like reality to do it. Basically, an attempted interactive nightmare. I'm cool with that sometimes.

Sometimes. Not every single god damn time. I don't really follow the series too closely, mainly because it just looks like the same game 7 times in a row. This one, however, offered even less than that. The whole time you're playing, you're supposed to believe that the game learns about you psychologically, and then integrates gameplay based off of choices you've made to make it "the ultimate nightmare." Not once did I see any of that. The whole time you just run around being chased by the same monsters over and over again, and then just look for shit in the dark. That's it. The whole game. The plot's a little more intricate than that, but honestly, the story itself is such cocksuck that it blows, much like the rest of the game.

Harry Mason and his 7-year old daughter get in a car crash. Harry rolls out of the driver's seat, and when he comes to, he notices Cheryl's gone. He then runs into the town of Silent Hill looking everywhere for her, and he rarely crosses people to help him due to a snow storm that forces everyone to take shelter at home. Along the way, Harry receives strange phone calls and messages on his cellphone, and then the town freezes in ice, and he is chased by monsters, otherwise known as "nightmares." When day breaks or some shit, the ice goes away, and the monsters no longer chase him. Slowly Harry realizes that Cheryl is getting increasingly distant, and has somehow grown up. I'm not going to explain the whole thing, because it would be a waste of time to do so (lol, "waste of time," says the guy writing a review). Also in various segments, a psychologist reviews you about the incidents, and he asks you to do certain things that will evaluate you mentally so that the game can be more relative to your personality.

The plot is, to say the least, weird. I understand that's the whole point, but it becomes so abstract that it's impossible to make sense of it. Usually you need logical answers as to why things happen, BUT I GUESS NOT IN THIS CASE. Turns out Harry's a ghost, but somehow people are able to communicate to him and physically interact with him. Since this is true, why doesn't Harry tell them about all the shit that's been happening, and the "nightmares" that keep chasing him? I don't know about anyone else, but if I were being chased by naked monsters without faces and everything turns into ice and blocks my path, I wouldn't hesitate to ask for a little clarification. I'm sure this isn't what Harry does all the time. I've never heard of anyone who just took a paranormal incident as a given and walked it off without telling anyone about it.

Oh, and it's for the Wii. Yeah, you're supposed to be convinced that you're in the game because you have to shine a flashlight around and pick up objects and shit. Horror games that are interactive with the player bother me. It's not MY story. It's the character's. I want to believe I'm the character in the game, but if the game starts psychologically analyzing me, at least use the info given to present me with something to be scared about. It's just monsters and item finding, and then subtle references from the psychiatrist sessions. For a game that claims it takes your personality and uses it to make new situations, it sure doesn't cut it.


That's the warning label it gives you at the beginning. It's implying the game has the ability to read into your fears and create situations based off of those fears. Not only does this warning flat-out lie to you, it's only there to draw your attention in and make you feel like you're actually being "played by the game itself." That sons my bitch. It's like when movies use the line "based on true events." It's not a REAL event. It's loosely tied to something that happened, but isn't fully parallel to the actual event it's based on. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was supposed to be based on Edward Gein, the man who killed, dismembered, and displayed his victims like furniture. Ed wasn't a chainsaw-wielding retard; the chainsaw was put in to make the movie more interesting. So, just like that, when you see this warning for the game, it's automatically telling you, "Guess what, this isn't 100% true. Only about 20% of this message is relevant to what's going to happen in the game. Just thought I'd tell you that so it will scare you."

So play it or don't, your choice. Silent Hill can only be so creative.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Because People On YouTube Don't Like You

Yeah, I figured I'd start this one out as an answer to a question rather than beginning with one and THEN explaining it. The question is:

"Why don't more people subscribe to my videos?"

That's what a lot of people are concerned about these days on the internet. Ever since programs like Tosh.0 have come up, people have been awaiting their 15 seconds of fame, only to be met with the disappointment of finding only 53 people have watched their video in the past two months. It's not all their faults, you know. The people who go to YouTube look to be entertained, not to watch you hold your shitty digital cum-corder while your friends make inside jokes and dance around like monkeys first discovering tools.

"Gee whilikers, Mr. Waack," you might say, "What about people who are always on the front page? They seem to get a lot of views." It's simple, really: YouTube is like a big television set that values quantity over quality. The more you can fill up a website like YouTube with video blogs, "Let's Plays," shitty reviews (unlike mine) and so forth, the more chances there's going to be a commercial interest going for them. That means company advertisements will look for the videos with the most views and host their nonfunctional products on them, which, in turn, will pay the user some minimal amount of money. THAT'S the real reason people want to be famous on YouTube. Greed and attention. That's the gist of it.

About those people on the front page: Have you ever taken a look at the usernames? They look pretty familiar, don't they? Yeah, they do, because those are the video makers YouPube is looking for to market their shit. "Fred" is the top of my hatelist on that website. It just goes to prove my point about quantity being more important. For those of you who don't like wasting your precious brains away, "Fred" is a character some kid made up years ago, who edits his videos in fast motion so that it makes his character sound like a kid, or some sort of hyperactive little shit that should have been aborted upon arrival. ANYTIME he puts up a video, it's a big hit. People are simple and love funny noises and actions, so this makes Fred the ultimate breath-waste jester of our time. Other names like these are "Shaytards," "CTFxC," "JLovesMac1," and so on and so forth. Talentless hacks that look partly good on camera but get too much spotlight.

Comment, rate and subscribe is by far my least favorite string of words put together now. That's all you see from these shitty videos. Why do you have to ask people to follow you? If you were good, wouldn't they do that already? I mean, it's not so hard for people to make their own decisions in life. I don't think you have to demand that people continuously watch your stupid antics onscreen regularly, so long as they might want to in the first place. YouPube should be used as a place where you go to find certain things you wouldn't find anywhere else, but now they're making it even harder to do just that. When someone wanted to find a clip from a commercial or a movie, they'd search and it would be right there. Now, copyrights from film productions and other sources, it's considered "stealing their material," then taken down for no one to enjoy. Fuck that, now I can't watch Gilbert Gottfried roast Bob Saget. That was the best performance.

Well, I've answered a lot in a short amount of space. If you're just starting and you REALLY want to become a hit, don't try so hard. Seriously, you shouldn't need to plea that people subscribe to you. If you've got a talent, or if you have something new to provide to the world of arts, people will recognize it, and it'll be a success. For those of you who keep on doing the wrong things, the title's the answer to your burning question.

On a side note,
people are relentless on that website. Seriously, read some of the comments people post. It's awful.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

"Happy Aniversary."


That's what they're going to call 9/11 from now on. It's never going to be a normal day. Instead, it will be a marked event on a calendar, like it's some sort of holiday.

9/11 was a tragic event which devastated many people in 2001. I remember when I was in 7th grade, in literature class. Immediately the teacher was alerted to turn on the news, and there we had seen, before our very young eyes, a national tragedy unfolding. We didn't understand. Nobody did, and then finally we found out that the planes which crashed into the towers were hijacked and purposefully flown at them. Fortunately, I lost no one on that day. Those who did still feel the effect, and it almost seems like whenever 9/11 rolls around every year, somebody's got to step up and say something about it. I'm aggravated by it, personally. Not because it was a catastrophic event, but because they won't let it go. Pearl Harbor happened once long ago, but we don't really talk about that much on the day it happened, do we?

As for this mosque business; Honestly, who do these self-righteous "Americans" think they are? What will they prove by forcefully rejecting a building because it's owned by Muslims? If they hadn't noticed, New York City is a pretty cultural, colorful spot. Chances are, more than likely, some Islam believers were caught underneath the chaos as well, before any accusation was made against them. Nations always need someone to blame, and I haven't heard anyone make such ridiculous claims as America has. Don't get me wrong, I love my country, but I just hate pretty much everyone in it, especially those who simply can't get along with others because of their beliefs or skin color. That's some 1700's bullshit right there.

The thing is that I won't interject with all this commotion. There's no point for me to involve myself in a fight no one will win. People feel like they need to be so political and so involved about things. No one's listening to them in the big ol' grand scheme of things. The regular civilian opinion is worthless, and no matter how many people you can find that agree, there's a pretty small chance anything is going to be done about it. Not here, anyway. In South Africa, not long ago, they made it legal for gay marriages to take place. South fucking Africa. Africa, which is well-known for disease, starvation, and third-world ideals, has already moved past an argument Americans have been in constant debate for years and years and years. I think the problem is that people are afraid that if gays get married, then something will happen to them, causing THEM to be gay. Something along those lines. It's like when some priests come out of the closet, but prior to their doing so they advocate against homosexuality. Sometimes the more passionate against something you are, the more likely you will change because of it.

So happy "anniversary," everybody. Go out and complain about how things are so horrible and that the government owes you some kind of apology. Meanwhile, I'm going to take a nap, play Team Fortress 2 and be overall merry.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Load Already, Damn It

People are always talking about how the "future is now." We've got all sorts of new trinkets, gadgets, and electronic goodies. So much, in fact, that we forget how it used to be. I don't like sounding all old-timey, but I seriously think we had it made in the 80's and 90's. People are very fascinated with all this new technology, when really it's less convenient than we tend to think.

Let me start off with my favorite example. When I was growing up, the big thing to have was the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). It was sleek, had unforgettable games, new buttons were introduced, and overall, a pretty kick-ass machine that said it all in it's name: Super. There were no loading screens, nothing to wait for, no problems that you couldn't fix with a brief dust blow in the cartridge. It was sweet, simple, and it would be 50% better if it had a sex hole on the side. The SNES certainly had its pros, and it's hard for me to think of its cons, other than that there were some really shitty games, which is just the norm for any console. The only effect that's made the SNES hard to use has been time itself. It still works, but the games aren't as high quality as they used to be when I was a kid.

Compare that to my newest console, the XBOX 360. It's a good console, and it certainly has its fair share of good things, however I can easily, EASILY tell where it lost its paddle going up Shit Creek. First off, Xbox Live costs $50 a month. Other consoles have online multiplayer for free, but even those share the next problem: Loading times. Deep fried Jesus on a stick, does loading time piss me off. I'm convinced that you spend a majority of your life waiting for things. It's been true throughout the ages, but in today's terms, it's more evident than ever before. When you put a CD in the 360, you turn on the console, wait for the menu screen to pop up, choose to play the game, wait for 6 minutes for the game to load, press start, wait 3 more minutes, choose a character, wait 5 more minutes... By the time you get to play the game, it's already been a week since you turned it on.
Why does so much time have to be wasted on shit that was immediate in the 90's?

To put it in easier terms for those who don't play video games: Imagine you're planning on seeing a movie with your friends at a theater. You wait in line, buy a ticket, wait for each other to get done buying snacks and drinks, walk down a huge hallway, go to the second-last screen, find a seat, and wait for the movie to start. That waiting period is understandable, as it provides time for people to come a little later before the movie begins, but imagine if there wasn't a movie. What if you just had to do all that just to watch the previews and go home, would you say it was worth all the effort and money spent? So you buy a movie on DVD and watch it at home. Then what happens? The DVD glitches up, and scenes start skipping. "What the bitch," you say to each other as Scarface eternally does a line of cocaine onscreen, forced to be frozen in that spot until you either clean the DVD or pronounce it broken and shoot each other's heads in frustration.

"Future is now" my ass. The future was in the 90's. That's when things did well enough to stand on its own instead of requiring constant recalls due to errors in the technology. This was back when phones called people instead of acted as hand-held sensory overload. Back when things did what they needed to do and nothing else. So who tells us we "need" the shit we've got these days? Is it so important that you're able to check your Twatter accounts every 10 seconds on the road going at 60 mph? Is it a requirement that you wait 50 years to play "Nazi Zombies?" So fuck it, I've lost hope in technological advancement. We forgot how important it was to live, and now we're all just asking for a faster way to go to our graves. In revolt, I suggest we all do a little self-righteousness. Find one piece of modern technology you own, or something that you absolutely don't require, and trash it. Don't litter or anything, just destroy it and make it sad it existed in the first place. It's your choice what stays or goes.

Goodbye, phone.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Mac vs PC: A Fight No One Gives A Shit About


This is what the typical computer master-debater looks like.

How many times, people? How many times must I log onto some program, where I'm forced to be surrounded by ignorance and failure, to be mocked for the choice of computer I use?

The endless bickering between computer users of Microsoft and Macintosh has gone on ever since both were introduced to the public. Constantly there are comparisons being made with one another, and each argument fails to convince the other of switching their brands. This battle has gone on literally my entire life, though I had not known it at the time. 4 years before I was born, the first Macintosh was released. The first PC was released a year later. 26 years have passed by, and neither side has gone forward far enough to convince me that one is better than the other.

Instead of focusing on the positives first, I'd like to focus on the many, many negatives between the two models. I'm not going into too much detail, because I don't enjoy nitpicking. Let's start off with Microsoft, as that seems to be the computer most people like to brag about:

The Microsoft computer was initially the same project as Macintosh back in the glorious days when internet was restricted to military use only. Bill Gates, owner of Microsoft, and Steve Jobs, owner of Macintosh, actually worked on the project together, impressing IBM with their progress. I'm not sure about the details with the split between Jobs and Gates, but if I had to guess, it was a quarrel about who shot first: Han Solo or Greedo. Gates developed computers differently from Jobs, in the sense that Microsoft is relatively customizable. What that means, in essence, is that users are able to use this technology to a sinister advantage, creating viruses and worms to destroy other computers. So there's one problem with owning a PC: if you happen to go to the wrong website, whether you know it or not, harmful shit will start to fry your hardware, causing you to either buy software to locate and delete said harmful shit or teach yourself how to manually remove it. There are other ways too, but that's not the point. Another problem is that there are hundreds of files that make things complicated to search for. There's a search option, but rarely I'm ever able to find the ONE file I'm looking for due to all the similar-sounding shit that barrages the tiny window.

Mac's turn. Macintosh has become increasingly popular in the past decade, due to the iPod bringing light to MP3s and convenient size. It also brought innovation through unique design and interpretation. Artistically, Macs are impressive. Functionally, they're cockballoons full of fart gas and the helium from airhead customers. Macs are not known for an extensive library of games, nor are they known for convenience in tech support, considering you have to BRING YOUR CRAP TO THE STORE EVERY TIME THERE'S A PROBLEM. They have a "Genius Bar" where total dweebs tell you what's wrong with your shit, as if you didn't already know. The waiting lines are atrocious, and usually they give a misdiagnosis, like doctors do. Also like doctors, Macs are overpriced for tiny little advancements in technology. It's complete dickery.

Here's what sons my bitch: It's time to talk about what the arguments are about both computers, according to the users. Let's start with what PC says about Mac.

PC users argue that "Mac has no games." Who cares? They're games. Do you realize how much of a nerdy concept it is to even consider arguing about that? Games don't define a computer's functionality, because if it did, it would be a gaming console and not necessarily a computer. Another argument entails that "Mac isn't customizable." To what degree? What defines "customization?" There aren't many products for Mac users to install inside their computers, because Mac likes to be all "super secret kool kid'z klub" about their shit, but what needs to be put into a Mac that it doesn't have already? Graphics cards? Again, that would only be important, truthfully, if it were a computer solely meant for gaming. The last argument I'll put here: "Macs don't have a right click mouse." Shoot yourself. Get a mouse that has it, and it won't be a problem.

Mac about PC: "Microsoft computers crash easily." Computers tend to do that due to age or poor materials used. It's not a big inconvenience to get up and go get a part that's been damaged in the computer, and it's easy to install by yourself, granted you know what you're doing. "PCs get viruses." So do Macs, albeit not as many due to Macs having different coding than PC. Those viruses made for Macs tend to be pretty bad, too. They'd have to be, if you spent a lot of time developing something on a computer different than the others. "There's more stuff in a Mac to start with than a PC." Like what, "Widgits?" Those stupid little gadgets on your computer that do nothing but clutter your hard drive full of more shit you don't need? GarageBand, the dmub music-making program that's overused in commercials and movies as filler music? What does it come with that you absolutely require? If you can explain it to me, please do, otherwise I'm sure it doesn't affect the way you live in the slightest. "Macs have less blinking lights." That's a real argument, and it's fucking stupid. If you can't handle lights that indicate what's working and what isn't working, you're shit out of luck.

What computer do I prefer? Neither, and both. If a computer prints documents, reads emails, and finds porn, it's good enough for me. What I don't need are endless suggestions about what I should get to make it run faster or more efficiently. What I don't need are add-ons that give me better optimization. I don't want to spend a lot of money on shit that expires or is a mandatory replacement within the course of a year. Most of all, I don't need to be told what kind of a person I am for choosing what kind of computer I use. I happen to own a Mac, and I don't tend to think I'm an "elitist, snobby, money-wasting fag." I can also work with Windows, and I don't tend to think I'm an "elitist, snobby, money-wasting fag." That's the middle ground between users. That's the way they view each other. Not everyone, mind you, but the ones who have all the time in the world to study every component of their crappy crap, their shitty shit, their assy asses... I'm running out of things to call both these shitbags.

My advice: Choose what works for you. What's easiest for you to figure out, what components you want, and fits your kind of personality.Don't be fooled by what other people tell you if they start talking about what's better than what, because ultimately, you'll hear about the negatives of the other option. When you find something you like, you don't need to brag, you don't need to show off. You'll be happy, and you won't have people ready to stab your back. You will if you play Team Fortress 2, but literally you won't need to worry.

Gates and Jobs should hang.

Friday, September 3, 2010

I Promised Myself I Wouldn't Do This: Jostin Beeburr


"Hate" is a strong word, and I tend to use it quite a bit out of its original meaning. For instance, I like to say "I hate people," when really I dislike most of you. I use "hate" loosely, as well as other words which I probably can't say here, lest I get kicked out for even daring to type the same letters together in a sentence. However, I cannot possibly use "hate" to describe my disapproval of Justin Bieber. No, such a simple way of saying it would feel like it didn't have value, since I blurt it out so often. So what words could I say to describe Bieber?

Well, I glanced in a thesaurus to look up possible terms I could use, and this is what I got: He is repugnant. He is bad blood. I loathe him. I despise every fabric of his being. He is anathema to my taste in music. Never, and I mean NEVER before in my life have I ever wanted someone to melt in some freak chemical-related accident as much as Justin Bieber. His fame is unfathomably enormous, and his stupid haircut makes me want to vomit bats.

"But Mr. Waack," you would ponder, "Why do you spite him so? What has he done to cause such grief in your heart?" I'll tell you what he's done to me. He's reminded me that even the least talented kind of person is able to be bought out, sold, mass-distributed, and greedily attention-whoring. His kind of people belittle the public by making them feel like he is some sort of supreme being. His fans are completely brain numb, focusing on him rather than their own lives. They obsess over his premature build, his high-pitched voice, his preppy Ken doll clothing, and his ability to not really sing while fake music is played over his filthy lip-syncing mouth. It's a disgrace to the music industry.

He's not alone when it comes to my passionate detestation of fake artists. This whole new "auto tune" bullshit has made people believe that there's talent behind a robotic voice synthesizer. T-Pain, Kanye West, blah-de-blah-de-blah, I could go on and on with the lists of talentless hacks who utilize this little goldmine of shit. What happened to real music? You know, the kind that had history behind it, with real voices and character? People just discovered they absolutely suck at singing, which is easily one of the most sought-after talents in the world. Count how many times on shows like America's Got Talent people go on stage, attempting to sing popular songs. Then, count how many fail. It's usually somewhere around 70% of what they put on-air. I'm sure my math is wrong, considering they don't show all the acts, so if I had to guess, it's somewhere around 90% or more.

Justin Dweeber. That inexperienced flit. There's footage of him crashing into a glass door and getting a water bottle thrown at him, only to react like any total pussy would by saying "Ow, that didn't feel good." You know what else doesn't feel good? Listening to absolute shit with electronic drumbeats added behind a voice that only 14-year-old girls can make. That's what hurts, Justin, not a half-water water bottle. Seriously, how long is this shit going to go on? How many more times am I going to turn on my computer and open my web browser, only to find Justin "No Talent" Bieber in headlines again? HOW MANY MORE TIMES, DAMN YOU?

Probably about as fast as you can say "puberty."

Thank you, website I found picture from.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

The Next Hitler: Everyone, Apparently



Few can deny that Adolf Hitler was one of the most insidious, ruthless rulers the world has ever known. His plights against humanity still leave a scar on the earth, and the Second World War is referenced commonly to compare battles and motives of current events. Few can match the level of complete evil and power that the man had used against humankind. Needless to say, Hitler was shit (lol, Shitler).

Here's why I've posted the world's smallest biography about Hitler: these days, his name means nothing. Don't get me wrong, he remains one of history's greatest nemeses, but his name and his political stance in Germany is being dealt out in debate like a breadline during the Great Depression. I call it "Hitler's Hump:" If you can't find a reasonable explanation for why you dislike a politician, a popular figure in media, or your run-of-the-mill citizen of your country, you compare them unjustly to Hitler. That's like playing the race card, only instead of winning arguments with guilt, it's making the user of Hitler's Hump look like a complete shit-for-fuck.

Recently, during Michael Ian Black's stand-up performance in Ohio, a member of the audience randomly blurted out a Hitler's Hump about Obama, comparing America's president with Germany's dictator. Black was enraged, and being the brilliant mind he is, tore that audience member a new one using logic. I imagine that guy didn't learn anything of course, because who goes to stand-up shows to learn? If people went to performances to learn, we'd have a lot less hecklers. Personally, this is the first time I've heard of Michael Ian Black doing something serious, and I was pleased.

When people want to try to win an argument about politicians, they like to draw Hitler's trademark "Dirty Sanchez" mustache on a picture of the opponent. How does this add to a debate? What are they trying to prove, other than that they have absolutely no prior knowledge to WWII? It's inconceivable that people go so low just to try and get a pat on the back for "being creative." Whenever I hear someone using Hitler's Hump, I want to unleash my inner-chimpanzee and throw lumps of butt waste at them, screeching loudly and swinging back and forth on a tire swing. Hell, that's about the same level of advocacy in the argument. The way Nazism has been defined these days has completely changed the aspect of their beliefs. Now people question whether the person's "really a Nazi, or are they just sayin' that 'cause he's a jerk?"

So the next time you decide to compare someone to Hitler, take this into consideration: How many people has this person killed, and if so, how many were Jewish? Did they develop a new order for their country, forcing its people to bow down and submit to his/her dictatorship? Were several secret attempts made on his/her life from superior officers because they feared the decline of the nation due to their sinister motives? No? No? Not entirely so? Then kindly sit down and read a book, and don't add anything to the conversation ever again.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Shit you don't need: PS3 Slim and Other Toys

Here's what sons my bitch: There's a new toy out there for all of you who just can't get enough of holding big, hard joysticks in your hands. It's the "PS3 Slim," and it supposedly replaces the original console. I know nothing about it, nor do I truly care, but here's a question for those who do: Other than size and the new placements of ports and wi-fi and all that, what's the difference? Are people really going to have both consoles? Would the original be sold, or given away, or what?

I shouldn't even suggest "giving it away," because if there's one thing that people have a pretty hard time with, it's giving expensive things away for free. We're in a place now where every dollar counts, or so we're always told. Money itself means nothing. It's paper with men drawn on the cover. We give it value and importance, when truly it does nothing other than sit in your pocket, waiting to be exchanged again and again through filthy hands and back. I have a feeling that's how most germs spread. Not because of door handles or food, but because we just can't get enough green, but I digress.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is that we're spending a good amount on things we don't need, especially right when they're at their priciest. As a society, we rarely have the patience to wait and see how things will turn out. Instead, we claw our way to the top, trying to get in on whatever seems to be the next big thing. While this new gadget (PS3 Slim) is priced currently at $299, in a few months, probably after the holidays, the price will drop by a significant percentage. Not only that, but they will find bugs in the system and work those out in due course. Basically, if you buy things immediately when they're announced public, you might as well buy a cricket bat too, so you can constantly beat yourself senseless for spending so much on what will turn out to be an obsolete toy.

It's all material goods. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes, but truthfully, if it exceeds what I am able to afford, I allow time to take its toll on the price and see if it decreases in value. Like the pen I just ordered awhile ago; it's a butterfly knife-style pen that you can do cool tricks with. Some people bought it immediately, when it was $30. I got mine for literally half the price, which included shipping costs. It's not something I absolutely need, but it's nice to have things that you want when it's reasonable. Not when it's SOMETHING YOU ALREADY FUCKING OWN.

I can't tell you what to buy or when to buy it. That would be rude of me. What I'm saying is that we need to evaluate the current circumstances before we hop aboard the Greed Train. What people fail to understand is that things don't cease to exist if we don't get them right away. They can become out-of-stock, but they don't completely disappear off the face of the earth. Wait for someone to be disappointed with their product and decides to sell it online for cheaper. That, or maybe your friend has it, and they invite you over to play it for free. Whatever the situation, you don't HAVE to have all this electronic butt-sludge adding to your piles of worthless garbage. You can afford to wait, but there's a media-induced illusion that you can't. Trust me on this one, you can wait.

So for the sake of your own benefit and your budget, think before you spend. What you see isn't always what you get. Computers, gaming consoles, phones, and other toys are diversions to what's really going on. You're forgetting how excitingly difficult living is, and how fun it is to make your own adventures rather than play someone else's. Life is a challenge, like a console game. Don't let it pass you by and wonder what you did with your time.

"Congraturation
This post is happy end.
Thank you."


Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The Good, The Bad, and the Stupid: 4Chan

As long as there is a group of friends, there will be an inside joke among them. Whether it's a strange sound or something that was said, the humor will limit itself to that particular group of friends. Sometimes others get it and laugh along, other times people laugh awkwardly as to avoid ridicule that they don't understand the source. One thing's for sure: if you're outside of the loop, chances are you don't get the full idea.

One group in particular has gone from a small community to an entire nation by itself. Universally, thousands of people gather to one website to discuss current events, not-so current events, and plain old weirdness. This website is known as 4chan, and only recently has it become so popular that the media has jumped on the bandwagon, not to mention all those outside the circle who don't fully grasp the concept, but laugh along because of its absurd nature. 4chan has gone from a simple image hosting forum to a world wide phenomenon, which has spread its influence outside of the virtual realm. Usually the spread isn't necessarily for benefit of humankind, but they have grown in such numbers that they are able to completely turn current events in their favor.

The church of Scientology, a massive religious group of people who believe in aliens or something, was known for its influence on celebrities and the practice of law. It was a large culmination of like-minded individuals that sought solace in the form of praise to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. Throughout its existence, there had been rumors and records of mysterious disappearances, deaths, and differences in behavior among those who attended the religion. 4chan, particularly upset with the rumors, rallied into a large force which was called "Anonymous," particularly because you don't need an account to post or reply, ending up giving you the neutral name "Anonymous." Dressed in Guy Fawkes masks and parading outside Scientology churches, Anonymous was not only able to cause the church considerable worry, but due to 4chan's widespread hacker base, proceeded to infiltrate Scientology tech and alter whatever they saw fit. Illegal, but damn, it did the job.

Finally, the media got involved, as did law enforcement. Soon, one by one, celebrities and ex-believers started coming out and declaring foul play. Anonymous reigned victorious, although their job is not completely finished. Their plan is to completely wipe out the church once and for all.

Funny, sort of. Effective, very. 4chan isn't always known to provide justice for the people, as it also heckles and diminishes them. Chat sites, forums, programs, and websites were all subject to 4chan's might. When one hacker is caught, another one takes his place. It continues on and on until interest fades and a new target is sought. It's a cruel design, one of which has caused several lawsuits filed against it. How does 4chan gain so much popularity? The inside jokes. Like in any group, some people get it, other people weakly laugh along due to popularity. There is humor in 4chan in the form of "memes," or repeated inside jokes that have taken the interest of the userbase. In the right set of mind, many people can laugh along at the absurdity of it, but for the most part, it's immature imagery that people tend to become upset over.

In any group, you need to evaluate your role. Whether the group respects you or casts you out depends on how you approach it and if you can match their interests. 4chan, as popular as it has become, is not for everyone. Personally, I find most of their memes pretty humorous. I don't advocate some of the actions they take, but I think behind the Guy Fawkes masks there is more than hackers, nerds and rudeness. Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Behind this mask there is an idea.

And ideas are bulletproof.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Disney: The Crappiest Place on Earth

So as I was waltzing around the internet, as I often do when there's no alcohol to drown in, I happened upon this rather disturbing and despicable video:



Throughout the entirety of its duration, my chest began to tighten and my stomach started to turn. It was from the sheer discomfort of hearing the narrator ruin any possible humor from the Donald Duck cartoon. This brings me back to the days of yore when Bob Saget hosted "America's Funniest Home Videos," and how he would pepper clips with poorly done puns and atrocious voice acting. In comparison, this makes America's Funniest Home Videos look like Arrested Development. It's an abomination to all cartoons, and it poisons the very soul to those unfortunate enough to listen. It also goes to show how actors who take these positions in programs can completely change their audience due to poor quality.

The one line I laughed at: "HOW'S THAT RUG TASTE, DONALD?" I didn't laugh because it was relevant to Donald's situation, but rather for a more immature purpose. Yes, I thought of lesbianism and "carpet munching," but can you blame me? I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that was a questionable line. The rest of the segment's cheese factor completely ruined the moment for me shortly after. This isn't meant for kids. It isn't meant for anyone. The reason that segment exists is because Disney is out of ideas, and it was easy writing. There's something nasty that can be said about taking old clips of classic cartoons and brutalizing them with cheap "humor." It's almost like making a beautiful wedding cake, and before people can begin to eat it, the baker runs in at the last second and pisses all over the little bride and groom topper, then proceeds to viciously beat and claw at it using a hockey stick.

Disney. What an awful corporation. They forgot what makes a cartoon funny. Explaining a joke is like reading the ingredients list on the side of a root beer can; you enjoy drinking root beer without needing to know what's in it, and then some asshole comes by and tells you every single ingredient on the list, one-by-one in a snotty tone. The enjoyment is gone immediately when they tell you how fat you'll become if you drink too much of it. A good joke doesn't need explanation. A GOOD program wouldn't make their old gems into wastes of glorious minutes, but we're not talking about good programming. We're talking about god damn Disney. The last time Disney made something that touched our hearts, our global climate was still relatively intact.

So fuck it. This officially ruins all the good things I remember as a kid when it came to these cartoons. This strangles my inner child and tells it to "grow up." I never thought I'd be so livid about television, but this boils my balls. You better be proud of yourself, Disney, because now you just made a terrible enemy, and now you're in MY small world.

I didn't sleep well/Facebook crap

I woke up at 4 in the morning, so I figured instead of giving sleep another try, I'd wake up and play around on my Fackintosh computer. After seeing that there was nothing to do, no one to talk to, no games to play, I decided to check my Facebook page. Facebook's a total waste of time, but it's good to hear from the cool people I knew from way back when. I almost feel like I'm helping to feed a corporate monster that's been eating us all one-by-one, but it isn't like they've been making businesses and replacing old Mom & Pop stores... right?

Something has always bothered me about the website, though. I can look past all the "application requests" from my friends, because Facebook likes to hack people's accounts and spread its shenanigans like a virus. I'm not mad about that, and I'm also not mad about the way everything gets changed constantly, and I'm told what I should download and add to my pages. No, it hasn't got anything to do with Facebook at all, other than stupid, poetic statuses made by loosely-connected friends; people you hang onto because you feel guilty if you dump them. I only have about 3 or so, but they nonstop put up little cutesy quotes that mean absolutely nothing when taken out of their original context.

Here's a quote word-for-word, without changing the grammar:

"stand in what you believe in even if it means standing alone. if more people thought this way true friendships would be formed instead of fake ones!"

Okay, an admirable quote, but what does this have to do with "true friendships" if you stand alone? Do they have to stand alone with you, even if their opinions might not be the same? What exactly is the message being portrayed here? Well, here's what this person believes in: all men are cheating, lying scum that don't matter, and this is all because they got in a little fight and broke up, and she's so angry that she hates all men for about a week or less. So if she runs into other people who hate men so much, is it a true friendship? If all her male friends are cheating, lying scum, why hasn't she left them all behind? I think it's all a total lie. In fact, judging from the way this status is spelled and the other ones are linguistically butchered, I'd say this was a copy/pasta message.

Quotes shouldn't be used if they contradict the person's way of life. Someone who uses another person's quote should make it be applicable to their beliefs. They're mantras that show who the person really is, not because it sounds intelligent. Words have the power to have an effect so great that people can change their lives to make it true for them. After drawing some crappy little cartoons that had a message about how I didn't approve of certain things, I've had several hundreds of messages talking about how people had completely turned from liking something stupid to disliking it. I didn't mean to make them change their opinions, but sometimes when you say something you're passionate about and truly believe in, then some others will follow 100%, as long as there isn't a stupid reason for believing in it.

So overall, if you really believe in what you quote, follow through with it. Don't say it because it's poetic or partly true for what's currently going on in your world. To reference a quote is to present what you feel in a way that you couldn't describe in your own words. For me that means,

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” -Mark Twain


Shit, I might be a fool...

A VERY related post

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Assburgers and the Tale of the Boring Tanks


This particular rant is a personal matter, as I have been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome at the age of 2 or 3.

Now, more than ever, there's a lot of talk about Aspergers Syndrome. What is it? Supposedly it's a form of autism, although not as intensely afflicting. Autism has an interesting effect; it's almost like being a part of the "X-Men." For example, those with Aspergers tend to excel in a specific type of interest. Mostly it's been associated with mathematics or science, but mine happens to be writing and acting, and I seem to be pretty damn good at both (so I'm told). Aspergers has that going for it, and then there's "Idiot Savant," which is a kind of autism where a person's memory is rote and completely accurate, but this takes the place of social networking skills and other factors. Gotta take the bad with the good, I guess.

Sounds kind of cool, right? Well, it sounds like a good book idea, but the problem is that there are already so many god damn books about the disorders that it's all the same story in the words of other aspies (Yeah, that's what they're called for short. Aspie. Doesn't that make you sick?). Everything that's in these books is supposed to have some clever little detail in it that separates itself from other books. In "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" written by Mark Haddon, all the chapters ascend by prime numbers. How confusing is it that when you're reading this book, you skip from chapter one to chapter three? Given it's a new concept, what's wrong with keeping things straight-forward and understandable? Why does every page sound like he's an ignorant dope without a conscience, and why do people give a shit?

Here's something that always sons my bitch: why do there have to be so many "support groups" for these people? They're not incapable of learning social skills, it's just that they just choose not to acknowledge responsibility for the most part. On top of it all, when I was in school, I was forced to be a part of their mess. I wasted a whole summer by being commanded to find the stupid electricity museum alone, unattended. Then they took us to all sorts of places without telling me where specifically they were off to, so I never had enough money with me to join them in their stupid endeavors. I'd end up sitting outside buildings most of the time after being kicked out of them due to "loitering" laws. As a kid, this was all incredibly frustrating and shit-diculous.

My main point is: why force people to attend something they don't want to attend? Just because we were born with a questionable affliction that's been debated for years now, it doesn't mean that we automatically connect. You don't throw a freshwater fish into saltwater, thinking it's the same environment. If you do, you're a sick dick. If someone objects to being a part of something they feel they don't belong in, then adhere to their individuality. Isn't that the whole reason it's a group? To belong? By separating themselves from these groups, do they all of the sudden become outcasts to society, or are they self-advocates that have confidence in their ability to adapt? I'm not saying I abhor to these groups, as some of them are actually really helpful for people, but quit jamming agendas and unrelated documents down the individual's throats.

As for books, write something that doesn't have to go "in-depth" to all your little aspie theories that don't make sense. Readers of these books are interested in them because they feel like they're learning something about the disorder, but they're not. What they're reading is a list of things that the author focuses on or likes to talk about. It rarely has anything to do with plot or autobiographical facts. If you've ever talked to someone with intense Aspergers syndrome, you've no doubt heard a 10-minute long conversation about something mundane and unrelated to current happenings. I spent 25 minutes, I timed it, 25 wasted minutes listening to someone babble on and on about tanks and guns in previous world wars. Honestly, where did I give off the impression that I was supposed to care at all? I didn't go to school wearing an army helmet or driving a tank into the parking lot, although that would have been great. What a shitty story that would make, and what a boring disorder it is in full context.

Where are my pills?

Photo courtesy of marriedtothesea.com

Rant about Rooney

I don't watch very much television these days. I don't know, I guess it has something to do with how the news has made everything seem so horrible, and all the programs from my youth have come and gone. However there have been some programs that have lasted for what feels like centuries; The Simpson's, Law & Order, COPS, and so on. One show has exceeded those in length, starting in 1978 and continuing to the current date of this post: "60 Minutes" and Andy Rooney's segment. Andy Rooney, for those of you who don't watch absolute shit, is a senile old man that rants about literally nothing at all. It's like listening to your grandpa sitting in his favorite chair on the front porch, complaining about everything that happens to exist. Personally, it makes me sick.

Andy Rooney was born in 1919, giving you an idea of how ancient he is. His career started in 1949 with CBS, and it's been a complete spiral down, down, down ever since. He's literally ranted about watches several times, each of which has consisted of him saying that "people own too many watches," giving a ridiculous number. He's also ranted about having shoes that don't fit him, and he still holds onto them. I can't say I'm half-surprised; the old guy has so much shit in his office (studio office, I'm guessing) that if it was all shipped to Ethiopia, everyone would have some of his crap in their possession. He's a pack-rat to the fucking extreme.





If that wasn't enough, wait until you hear how much he gets paid to do this segment: $8,000/week. You can work your ass off for two weeks, slaving over a paycheck of $200 at a warehouse job, and this guy makes $7,800 more than you, without lifting a finger. Tell me how this is fair. Tell me why he continues to have problems and complaints. He won't stop, and do you know why? Because his kind are worthless; he's the kind of person who can take any positive in life, anything at all, and find negativity in it. He's an old, inconsiderate bigot that's had a history of saying some raunchy things about Native Americans and the suicide of Kurt Cobain, two topics of which he knows absolutely nothing about.

It pisses me off.

I'm not going to sit back while assholes like him get what they don't deserve. He gets $32,000 a month, a number I couldn't possibly match with all the money I've ever earned in my life. That would pay for a new apartment, paying my hospital bill, buying the essentials like groceries and toiletries, and a new computer, and I'd still have enough left over to go see about 2,000 movies in theaters made out of platinum. This guy most likely spends it on more watches or shoes that don't fit. I know it's just money. I don't consider myself to be a greedy person with money, as long as I know where it's going. With Rooney, I'm sure his hand towels are made of lion hides and his coats made out of dodo bird feathers. Yes, he pays science to bring the dodo back, then he orders it murdered and made into a coat. Bullfuck.

I could take Rooney's place. I could make $8,000 a week, and I wouldn't be stingy with it either. So, if I follow through with my plans of going into television or performing the arts in other ways, I'll aim my interests towards CBS and "60 Minutes." I'll take his jorb, make him retire, and hopefully get rid of all his useless trinkets. Rooney's an old stain on the mattress, and it's time he gets another job.

Photo courtesy of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Greetings/First Review: Zombie Films

Why hello there. Welcome to the place where I can freely talk about things that I randomly come across or have usually felt passionate about but haven't publicly expressed in a review. To start, I think I'll hop right in to what scares the shit out of me most: Zombies.

For as long as human record has listed, there have been stories, tales and fears of the undead. Ghost, demons, or otherworldly incidents were common among those who truly believed that those who had once lived continued to roam the earth to haunt or contact the living. Mixed with this fear that most of us share, there is another fear that is taboo, and to us that don't practice the methods, we find it grotesque and odd: cannibalism. A misunderstood way of life which people tend to have a particularly morbid curiosity about, cannibalism entails the consumption of a same-species being, whether it's for survival or sexual preferences. That's right, some people get off on eating others.

Combining these two horrors together gives us what many, if not all, would call a "zombie." Technically, a zombie is a mindless being that is driven through either a parasite or hypnosis, and is often associated with unexplainable, cannibalistic aggression. If that's not bad enough, if you're bitten by a zombie, you become one shortly thereafter. Through this process, it's a continuous chain reaction that spreads until all humans are infected. It's a pretty complex structure which many film makers, authors and monster-lovers have built upon ever since its first recordings, around the 1920's. Among these artists of horror, there is one in particular whose name stands out like a billboard: George A. Romero.




George has made many films about zombies and the way the living deal with them. Partly the terror is within ourselves. Greed and fear drive some humans to stay alive longer than the others, which is disruptive and often times the worst choice you can make. Romero's films are horror films just as much as they are political. In one of the most notable films of his, "Dawn of the Dead," created in 1978, there is a message he tries to convey about how we're all zombies in shopping centers. In all of his films, he holds no boundaries as to how graphic some scenes can be. When a person is being eaten alive, you can't help but feel uncomfortable, considering the effects are so realistic and believable. I won't go much into the plot of his films, because I mainly want to mention the similarities between all of them.

It's hard to point out the bad spots in things you really enjoy, but I can't help but feel that whenever I watch a Romero film, I could have sworn I've seen it before. The truth is, many zombies are very, very similar to each other. It's typically an unexplained sickness that plagues the world, and the movie follows a group of people who fight to stay alive. They end up secluding themselves in a place where they can hold off the hordes, but while they're stuck in the make-shift shelters, the group has internal quarrels that prevents them from going any further. Then there's a quick scare moment where a zombie pops up out of nowhere and tries to eat them. The movies are mainly there for the entertainment value, but sometimes I have to enjoy the plot more than the action. I get pretty tired of seeing people arguing over the same issues, like sharing food or pointing out each other's flaws, and I can usually figure out when a zombie's about to come into frame. After seeing as many of these films as I have, you get accustomed to some of the freak-out moments.

Another thing I'm particularly not fond of: Sometimes Romero's messages and political standpoints are too evident and don't give you enough time to think about them. He really likes to stress the point that our government abandons us when they're threatened, which is commonly stated by... everyone who dislikes the government. It's also a hint that if the people overwhelm the people in charge, they lose their power and are forced to change their policies based on current events. A harsh way to learn that lesson, but when you're in danger of being eaten alive, wouldn't you have to break a few laws in order to survive?

That's all I can really think to say about the films for now. Like I said, it's hard to look for all the negatives when you enjoy so much of the genre. If you haven't seen a good zombie film, look into the past before searching for the newer ones. My personal favorite is "Day of the Dead" made in 1985, so when Halloween comes around, you've got something to scare the candy out of your system.