Commuting - Part Three - Drivers, you suck!

Posted by Pariahjane

Sometimes I'm amazed that I even champion for my fellow human beings after spending about four hours a day commuting with them. In the nearly two years that I have been commuting from Jersey to New York City I have seen countless acts of ignorance, arrogance, depravity and straight up douchebaggery. Normally, I endeavor to keep my rants to a minimum but this time, my fellow commuters, I cannot keep silent. I have previously complained about people's inability to practice simple acts of hygienics and common decency but there has been a recent rash of events that I feel compelled to point out to you.

Your driving absolutely sucks and this, sadly, makes you an asshole.

I am a pedestrian. I know, I walk much slower than you can drive and I am peskily in your way when you driving to, and more importantly, from work. I get it, I really do. I was a driver myself for eleven long, tedious years. I remember the frustration of sitting in bumper to bumper traffic. Regardless, just because your commute sucks does not give you the right to be a total psychotic twat behind the wheel.

It may be different in other states but in NJ driving laws are arbitrary and should only be followed when a cop is near by. The goal is to get home as fast as humanly possible which is difficult since we are packed like sardines and our major thoroughfares are often turn into parking lots. I can only assume this is the reason why hopefully everyday normal people turn into relentless sociopaths once they put that key in the ignition.

First off, to the Honkers - Fuck you, thanks. I have the right of way. See that silly little electric sign over there? The one with the glowing stick figure of a non-gendered person walking? That means that I get to walk across the street. I can see the seething indignation on your face as you impatiently wait for me to cross so you can make your right hand turn. I know that the three seconds it takes me to cross the street is absolutely ruining your day but seriously, don't honk at me.

This is what will happen when you honk at me. I will stop moving. You see, it will take me a split second to ascertain where that honk came from and I will mostly likely stop moving briefly, in case there is an automobile that I am somehow unaware of careening toward me. Because you honked at me, Mr. Impatience-pants, I have further delayed you by at least a half second. Now I have enraged you so completely that you will probably go home, beat your wife and kick the family dog. I find this funny and quietly congratulate myself on having wrecked your ride home because you clearly don't understand the concept of 'sharing the road' and I don't like you.

When I am crossing a side street I always look behind me to see if there is a car with it's turn signal on. I learned that many of you do not know what a turn signal is. It's a blinky light on the side of the car that lets people know you want to go 'that way'. It even makes a nice little tick, tick, tick sound in the car so you know it's doing it's job. Anyway, I look behind me because I know what raging, vicious animals you all are behind the wheel. I generally don't carry my 'reading your thoughts' helmet when I'm commuting so the only way I know you're making a turn is if you have your blinker on. Therefore, when I step directly in front of your car do not scream at me or honk your horn - you didn't have your turn signal on and therefore I had no idea you wanted to go 'that way'. I don't appreciate almost getting annihilated just as you don't appreciate me delaying your very important drive to or from work. If you scream or honk at me, I will stop, smile and wave back. I'd much rather take a baseball bat to your headlights but bats are kind of heavy and I carry enough stuff anyway. I only smile and wave because I know it will piss you off.

I'm always somewhat baffled by the people who scream things at me as they whip past me at 50 mph. Hollering 'I'm going to kick your ass' or 'I'm going to tap that ass' is really ineffectual, in my opinion, and both elicit the same reaction from me - amused derision. In the second it takes me to register that you have screamed something at me you are already in the next town. Therefore your threats are useless and you are a coward. To be honest I tend to find these people (usually teenage boys but occasionally an older guy) somewhat amusing and they break up the tedium of walking over a mile along a major through way. There are certainly far more diabolical people tooling around out there.

The Splashers fall into the diabolical category. These asshats find it amusing to attempt to splash pedestrians after a rainfall. If I ever get my hands on a splasher it won't be a pretty sight, that's for sure. It'll be even uglier than my dress after you've splashed muddy filthy water on me with your pick-up truck, you fucktard. I want to kill you and you are one of the few who actually does ruin my day since I will now have to sit at my desk in a dirty dress looking like a homeless drowned rat. There are also the people who like to blast their horn and scare the bejeezus out of people walking on the side of the road. This is a Falling Down moment for me because I hate getting the crap scared out of me for some douchebag's rush hour amusement.

It never occurred to me that walking could be dangerous but I've been nearly run down by maniacal bikers, have been pelted with... stuff, called various names that I won't even repeat here and have been propositioned more times than a hooker at a frat house. 'It's a jungle out there' suddenly seems fitting.

I Can't Understand Belief in God

Posted by Pariahjane

I just don't get it - this belief in god. I never have. I grew up in a household where god was non-existent. Religion simply didn't exist for me as a child. The only thing I knew was that Sundays were terribly boring because all the other kids in my neighborhood had to go to school on Sunday. I understood that people believed in this guy God and he was a good guy as long as you followed all his rules so I went along with it. If you had asked me when I was seven if I believed in god I would have replied 'hell, yes!' despite the fact that I had never stepped inside a church before. That's just what people did; they believed in god. So I did too.

But not really. I never really believed there was an actual god or supernatural being. And boy did I try! I tried my hand at Christianity, Judaism, Paganism and Buddhism when I was a teenager and I felt just as silly praying to god as I did casting a spell. I was looking for something and I thought god might be the answer but... I just could not buy into it. There was nothing there.

I had an epiphany, if you will, at the age of 18. I was hiking in the Adirondacks, hot, tired, soaked to the gills and very, very cranky. When we finally(!) reached the top of that mountain all the tiredness went away. There before me was a beautifully breathtaking scene. Rolling mountains, trees as far as the eye could see, it was just stunning and that's when it hit me. This is what I was looking for. This earth, this life - the here and now. And it had been in front of me this whole time.

I missed it because I was looking for what everyone around me was looking for - god, eternity, a reason for our lives. The reason for our lives is our life. This idea of something or someone who gave us a reason to live and therefore we owed him our lives is ludicrous. My friends were still looking toward the afterlife - this life was merely a temporary pit stop on the way to eternal salvation. Yet I couldn't accept that - it didn't make sense. Why waste this life looking forward to one that you can't even be sure exists?

The more I researched and read about religions the more I disliked them. Religion is just a club that separates people into good and bad based on a set of guidelines that are more exclusive than inclusive. It's dogmatic and unyielding. Religion is a replacement for 'I don't know'. The problem with that is once you accept it, you stop looking. Why bother trying to find out why something exists if you already know 'god did it'? It doesn't encourage learning, it encourages accepting what you are told without questions. My mother once told me 'the moment you stop learning is the moment you stop living' and I think it's the best advice anyone has ever given me. What's wrong with 'I don't know'? I happen to like 'I don't know' because that is the first step on the path to learning and understanding. Religion, on the other hand, takes the easy way out - it's all god(s) doing.

Yet I still found myself trying to understand how a person can believe in god when there is no evidence of his existence. How can seemingly educated people think they were created by some omniscient omnipotent being? Even more baffling to me is the fact that people believe the Bible really, honestly, truly, absolutely is the unerring word of god. These people think that the earth is only 6000 years old, contrary to overwhelming evidence that it is, in fact, far older than that. There are people who deny science because it simply does not fit into their perfect little religious box. They deny it even when faced with mountains of evidence, of proof. What is so powerful about religion that would make a person so deluded? Is it fear of death? The unknown? I just don't understand it. But I'll keep trying.

JCE and I had a conversation recently in which we decided that atheists probably talk more about religion than the religious do. Perhaps it's because we just happen to be curious folk but most likely I suspect that we focus on it because our society is do entrenched in religiosity. For non-believers I think it's a bit jarring. We can see the issues religion creates because we're not involved in it. We can view it from an objective standpoint, pick it apart, and see the good from the bad. I have to wonder - if a religious person was capable of seeing the hypocrisy's of their own faith would they still believe? I'm sure that some would continue to believe while others would turn away.

I guess I do understand the reasons why a person might believe in god. The hope of an afterlife, eternal life. Perhaps a little bit of it is fear. Or hope. Yet it doesn't make sense to me why a person would believe in something they can't know exists just to make themselves feel a little better about their own lives.

I know that people are going to tell me that I don't 'get it' because I'm not looking hard enough, or I don't have faith or I'm just plain stupid. I've heard those arguments countless times before and I've read, very seriously, others' accounts of 'finding god' but the holes in the story, the questions that arise from their accounts, make it impossible for me to find any proof of a god.

Muslims Mad about Puppy Advertisement

Posted by Pariahjane

(This post has been updated)

Once again a Muslim community has shown outrage over something so trivial it's almost comical. If it weren't so pathetic.

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat
advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage
from Muslims.
Tayside Police’s new non-emergency phone number has prompted
complaints from members of the Islamic community.

Give...me...a...break. Really. Please. Aren't there far more pressing issues that these people should be worrying about? Like, say, Islamic terrorists?

It's a picture of a puppy and it is being displayed in a public window. Because of the complaints some store owners are refusing to display the advertisement which means that the information on the advert is not being distributed. It's just ridiculous. I'm sure the police force has more important things to do than smooth some ruffled feathers of the Muslim community. Yet some folks want to waste other people's time by complaining that they've been insulted somehow by a picture of a fucking dog. It's a picture. Of a puppy.

Cards featuring police dog-in-training Rebel have been distributed to
communities throughout the area to advertise the single number point of contact
for non-emergency calls to the police. A spokesman for Tayside Police said: ‘Trainee police dog Rebel has proved extremely popular with children and adults since being introduced to the public, aged six weeks old, as Tayside Police’s newest canine recruit.
‘His incredible world-wide popularity - he has attracted record visitor numbers to our website - led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number.

Perhaps cat lovers should start complaining about this as well. Or how about the folks that are allergic to dogs? Perhaps they should cry afoul also - but they don't. Want to know why? Because it's a really really stupid thing to get worked up over, that's why. The puppy was popular with the majority of the population the police were trying to reach. If the Muslims don't like it - too bad. Get over it.

I don't care what you beliefs are - if you think dogs are dirty, that's fine. Then don't own one but don't waste a police force's time because you feel you've been insulted by a picture of a puppy. Get over it. This is not pornography, it's not a swastika, it's not an anti-Muslim symbol. It's a fucking puppy.

As we love to say over and over again - no one has a right NOT to be offended. But to demand that a community take your religious beliefs into consideration is just ridiculous.

Update - According to this article there is, in fact, no outrage over the advertisement. It appears that some Muslims may have expressed displeasure over the advert but, according to a Musim leader in the area, this is untrue. I hope that is the case.

I always try to endeavor to post as accurately as possible and when new information is provided to the contrary of what I write I feel it's important to include it.

You've got more stains on that dress than I've spilled in my whole life...

Posted by Pariahjane

...proclaims John Gleason, singer of the Jersey based indie folk rock band the Roadside Graves. These are the lyrics from one of my favorite songs, titled "Family and Friends." I caught this band's infamous live act this weekend and, trust me on this, one is guaranteed a damn good time at a Roadside Graves show.

Without fail, this band is gritty and grand at the same time. The shows are always packed and the whiskey is always flowing. Raucous one moment and slyly sweet the next, the Graves manage to wrangle together the old South and dirty Jersey into a sound that is reminiscent of Townes Van Zandt and Born to Run.

The Roadside Graves are taking their act on the road this July and I highly recommend stopping in to share a little music and libation with the guys of the band. By the end of the show you'll be feeling like you're part of the band's group of 'family and friends' (minus the stains... unless you want them, of course).

Below is a list of their tour dates and if any of you are in the area, please check them out.

Check out their myspace page for updates.

07/09 - Philadelphia, PA (TBA)
07/10 - Washington, DC @ The Velvet Lounge
07/11 - Carborro, NC @ The Cave
07/12 - Sylva, NC @ Guadalupe Cafe and Bar
07/13 - Charlotte, NC @ Snug Harbor
07/14 - Knoxville, TN @ The Birdhouse
07/16 - Memphis, TN @ P and H Cafe
07/17 - St. Louis, Missouri @ LEMP Center for the Performing Arts
07/19 - Longview, TX @ The West End
07/21 - Portsmouth, NH @ The Red Door
07/22 - Portland, ME @ Slainte
07/23 - Somerville, MA @ The Abbey Lounge
07/24 - Burlington, VT @ Skinny Pancake
07/26 - Williamsburg, Brooklyn, NY @ The Trash Bar
08/13 - New Brunswick, NJ @ The Court Tavern
08/20 - New York, NY @ Lit Lounge
08/28 - Metuchen Cultural Arts Commission Summer Music Festival

Check out these links for reviews and MP3's.

Stereogum
Check out the MP3 of Ruby, a new song off of their upcoming album.

Pitchfork Media

...But their sweet-tempered country-rock is far more slippery than it might first appear, buffered as it is by rich Jayhawks vocal harmonies, Benson's quicksilver guitar leads, and frequent detours that can occasionally conjure images of a roadhouse Bad Seeds.

(Thanks to Dave and Izzy for input and advice)

There is Nothing Wrong with Same Sex Marriage

Posted by Pariahjane

There are lots of religious issues that cause my blood pressure to rise at an alarming rate. I'm exhausted of hearing about how the US is a 'Christian nation' (hint- it's not). I can barely control the eye twitch when I hear someone extolling the virtues of abstinence only sex education (has been proven over and over again that it is not effective) but the one issue that makes me get twitchy all over is same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage has always been a hot button topic but since it was legalized recently in California it's even hotter. This, of course, has some religious folks' panties in a self-righteous knot and they are clamoring for the state to overturn it.

It's time for religious folks to realize that they should not have the right to govern our private lives with laws based on their religious beliefs. If you don't like gay marriage that's your prerogative. You can clamor and crow about how immoral homosexuality is all you want but this country should not pass laws of discrimination and bigotry because of your beliefs.

Banning same sex marriage is indeed discrimination. Not allowing homosexual couples the right to be recognized by the state as a union and enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples is discriminatory. There is simply no other way to describe it. Marriage is a contract between two people that is recognized by the state. No one is asking religious leaders to become involved nor should they be required to perform marriages that are contrary to their religious position. Religion belongs in the home or community or church. It does not belong in our government and certainly should have no bearing on our laws.

Homosexuals are human beings and deserve the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. These relationships are between consenting adults and carry with them the same pros and cons as heterosexual couples. As fellow humans, they deserve the right to marry.


I find it sad that Christians are often crying about how discriminated there are in this country but fail to see just how bigoted their beliefs are. I hear so often how loving and tolerant Christianity is but I fail to see it and trust me, I've looked. The opposition to same sex marriage is just another bigoted facet of Christianity.

Associated Press Sues Bloggers for Linking Articles

Posted by Pariahjane

Not quite sure why AP would think this is a good idea but... original article:

And, now, it's expanding its target list. Rather than just going after the
big aggregators (surprisingly, Google settled), it appears that the Associated Press is going after bloggers for merely posting a linked headline and a tiny snippet of text from the article. In this case, Rogers Cadenhead informs us that the AP sent 7 DMCA takedown notices last week to his site, the Drudge Retort (a site that mocks the Drudge Report). In six cases, a blog post on the site quoted just a small snippet of text from an AP article (between 33 and 79 words -- nowhere near the full length of the article). In every case, they also contained links back to the original AP article. Five of the six used a different headline than the original AP article. The other complaint was about a comment to a blog post, which also included a very short snippet and a link. (Emphasis added).

Admittedly, I am certainly not a lawyer but I fail to see how this violates 'fair use' if the bloggers are acknowledging that the excerpt came from an Associated Press article AND linking directly to said article. AP is merely getting greedy and wants bloggers to pay for using snippets of their articles. I see nothing wrong with a blog quoting an article from Associated Press with a link attached. It's not as if these bloggers were taking the material and claiming it as their own. Most bloggers out there don't do this for the money and are merely passing on information to their readers. Hell, this is beneficial to AP but apparently they have their heads lodged too far up their rear ends to realize this. If a successful, popular blog links to an AP article it will drive up traffic for AP. By suing bloggers for linking articles or using snippets of articles AP is effectively cutting off its own traffic.

The blogging community is huge and I think it's far more powerful than many of the news companies out there think it is. I think Associated Press is attempting to strong arm individual sites and has taken on the role of bully rather than news source. To show solidarity with my fellow bloggers I will personally no longer link or utilize any article from Associated Press. As Michael Arrington puts it:

So here's our new policy on A.P. stories: they don't exist. We don't see
them, we don't quote them, we don't link to them. They're banned until they
abandon this new strategy, and I encourage others to do the same until they back
down from these ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the
Internet.

Associated Press... who?

(Go to this site to sign a petition boycotting Associated Press)

Islam - the Absurdity of it All

Posted by Pariahjane

Not too long ago BGH wrote an article regarding an Islamic push for an international blasphemy law. It appears that some in the Muslim community feel that no one has the right to criticize their religion.

However, they don't seem to have a problem with inciting violence against non-Muslims on their own websites and forums.

Muslimyouth.net carries dozens of rants by fanatics on its “support group”
site.
One member wrote of suicide missions: “If you can blow dozens of
people up at the same time, great, absolutely great.”

First off, let's note the actual name of the website - Muslim youth. Nice, really nice. Let's teach them from a young age that violence is acceptable against non-Muslims (well, anyone who disagrees with them, Muslim or not) so they grow up into killing machines.

I just find it baffling that a religious group can feel so strongly about people's negative opinions of them that they either attempt to squelch the other's free speech (see BGH's article) or they react with extreme violence, which I've written about here.

And in another vile message a member PRAISED a beheading video of British
hostage Ken Bigley.
It said: “I like the beheading videos of the prisoners
of war – especially the Daniel Pearl and Ken Bigley one.”

You can't have it both ways. Freedom of speech should not be given to one group of people and denied by everyone else. As disgusting at the two quotes above are these people still have the right to say it. It's a different story if someone acts upon it.

I have said time and again that I believe everyone has a right to believe and worship how they see fit. HOWEVER, if those beliefs begin to affect the rights and lives of others then they must be stopped. No one has the right to infringe on another human being just because their beliefs differ.

NOTE - The intent of the original article was to focus on the fact that this site received a grant from the British government to film a documentary about Muslims in the UK and the problems they face. I realize that's not what I've gleaned from the article for my post here but I felt that the hypocrisy of many of the Islamic faith was too great to ignore.

Apologize or We'll Blow You Up!!!

Posted by Pariahjane

I am always amazed at the self righteous indignation of religious groups but the hardcore Islamic zealots take the cake. Not only are they calling for an International Blasphemy Law, other factions have decided that killing people is the only answer for insulting their religion.

Al-Qaeda Wednesday claimed in Internet statements to have carried out a suicide attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad which left at least six dead, SITE monitoring services said.

Monday's attack was said to be in revenge for the publication in Danish newspapers of cartoons insulting the Prophet Mohammed according to statements posted on Islamic militant forums, SITE
said.

Unsurprisingly, the irony of their actions are lost on Al-Qaeda. They are up in arms (literally) over a cartoon depiction of Muhammad (still?) and deeply offended by it but can easily justify murdering people and apparently see nothing wrong with that in the least. I fail to see how the punishment fits the crime. Frankly, I fail to see any crime in penning a cartoon in the first place but that's just me.

The attack was "in revenge against the state of infidelity, called
'Denmark', that posted cartoons hostile to the messenger of Allah," he added,
according to an English translation provided by the SITE intelligence group.

"This operation is a warning to the infidel state and those who
ride with it, so that they are deterred from their sin... and so that they
apologize for what they did," Yazid added. (Emphasis added)

Of all the arrogance! The cartoon didn't kill anybody, it didn't hurt anybody and nobody has the right NOT to be offended. Rather than voice their hurt feelings though, these zealots kill innocent people who had nothing to do with the damn cartoon. It's akin to setting someone on fire for making fun of you.

Here's the deal - Denmark has a wonderful thing called freedom of speech (which is also under threat from Muslim groups). If you don't like it too bad for you. You also have freedom of speech. You want to protest the cartoon, that's fine. Write a letter to the editor condemning it is fine too. Blowing people up in retaliation is not fine. It's murder and reprehensible.

I have to wonder why these zealots seem so insecure of their religion that they must defend it with such brutal action. Cowards, really. Rather than come up with some civilized way to discuss the matter they just resort to violence and wonder why much the West looks at them like evil murdering monsters.

People often ask me why I have a problem with religion. I think this is a pretty good reason, don't you?

Does our Society Create This Reprehensible Behavior?

Posted by Pariahjane

Here's the premise of the story - two teenage girls see a nine year old Girl Scout selling cookies and they swipe her envelope of money. Afterwards they confess, no, they gloat, about their crime and are completely unapologetic about it.




'Money is money' says the one girl, 'there was $150.00 in that envelope and I wanted it.' Oh, and they were really pissed that they had to give the money back because they got charged for their crime.

The thing is, I see this behavior on the street all the time. Rather, I see this attitude all the time in people of this generation. I'm not saying ALL kids this age act like these two girls but from my observations a fair amount do. It's a lack of empathy for those around them that's appalling - it's the absolute and complete utter selfishness that makes me shake my head in dismayed astonishment. The sense of entitlement that these girls display is outrageous. Frankly, they almost seem sociopathic.

It seems to me that these girls are part of a generation of selfish, socially stunted individuals.

I don't know what generation these girls belong to since I don't know exactly how old they are and I hesitate to label them with a particular generation name.

What is it with this generation? Why do they walk around as if they are entitled to everything and anything that the rest of us have had to work hard for. I see it at my job, I see it on the streets and in the malls. I watched as a group of teenage boys simply shoved through a gaggle of old ladies, nearly knocking one down without so much as an apology or backward glance. What happened to respect?

These are the ones who sit all day at their cubicles playing video games and are positively enraged when their job performance comes into question. These are the 20 somethings who can't take criticism without breaking down and must be coddled on the job as well as at home.

These are the kids who are shooting up their schools, engaging in risky behavior and not particularly caring about their fellow human beings in the least.

The question that comes to my mind is 'how did this happen?' We seem to be raising a generation of adults who have had everything taken care of them to the point that they are simply unable to take care of themselves. Who is to blame for the lack of empathy, the grandiose sense of entitlement that many kids seem to have? Is this a societal problem and what can we do to stop it? Have the values of this country become skewed or is this a universal problem?

I suspect that many of these children have had their entire lives mapped out for them. These are the kids that our society has coddled and kept safe from the big bad messy life that was awaiting them. Teachers could no longer punish students because it would single them out; make them feel bad about themselves. No more kickball or tag because that would make someone 'out' and possibly damage their psyche. These children have the world (internet) at their disposal and are connected 24/7 with their cellphones, iPods and video games - they no longer need other kids to entertain them. These kids were bussed from ballet to piano to French lessons and had their 'play' scheduled and closely monitored by caretakers (not necessarily their parents). Have we espoused individualism as a necessary trait so much that our children no longer see themselves as part of a community?

Perhaps the parents are to blame but I think it goes much deeper than that - this is becoming acceptable behavior in our culture. We as a society have nurtured their parents just as we are nurturing these children. Every generation looks on the next generation with dismay. Our parents did it to us and theirs to them and each generation comes with it's own problems. It's important to note that older people have the same attitude as these girls did (Enron, anyone?) and that their behavior can be found across the board, from young to old.

I realize that not every person in this particular age group acts this way and it would be unfair to clump everyone together under the same negative umbrella. The video above may just be an extreme example but this kind of behavior has become too commonplace not to question it.

This Guy is A-Ok

Posted by Pariahjane

I've been reading Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes for awhile now and figured I would pass this gem on to all of you. He's funny, quirky, snarky as hell and a damn good writer.

I found him on the Atheist Blogroll but it was really the rejection letters series that got me hooked (great sense of humor, that one). Anyway, please check him out if you get a chance.

Oh, and he just introduced to me April Winchell so if you don't hear from me for a long time that's why. She's amassed a huge amount of MP3's that are bizarre and great at the same time. I highly recommend 'Stayin' Alive' the Pan Flute version.

This guy deserves NOTHING

Posted by Pariahjane

Of all the ridiculous lawsuits I've heard of this one takes the cake.

But in 2001 Mr Mustapha noticed one whole fly and another half fly in an unopened bottle as he was loading it onto his cooler.

Ok, that's pretty gross. I don't think I would have been very happy either. However, I wouldn't have sued the company because of it. I would merely have called them, explained the situation and requested a new bottle for the cooler. Perhaps I would have called over whoever was around so they could partake in the whole 'ewww, that's gross' game. At the end of the day however, dead flies really aren't that serious. He didn't find one in his drink, after all.

But not Mr. Mustapha, no. Mr. Mustapha apparently suffered 'extreme depression' from this incident.

After this, he began to feel nauseous and depressed, and developed a phobia for water, only being able to take showers with his head down, so the water did not strike his face.
Justice John Brockenshire found in the original damages case in 2005 that Mr Mustapha suffered a "major depressive disorder".
In his ruling, he said: "He pictures flies walking on animal
faeces or rotten food and then being in his supposedly pure drinking water."

Give...me...a...break. Has this guy ever had a picnic outside on a hot sunny day? There are flies everywhere. People don't get nauseous and suddenly become afraid of food. They wave the flies off the food. Hell, I've tipped back a soda can only to find a bee crawling out instead of sweet sugary goodness. Freaked me out, sure. But I didn't suddenly become afraid of soda cans and have nightmares of bees pouring out of soda bottles.

I'm going to make a guess here: Mr. Mustapha either had a pre-existing mental imbalance or he was just trying to get rich quick. I'm going to go for the latter. Here was Mr. Mustapha's chance to make some money off an unfortunate incident in which no one really got hurt. I simply cannot buy that any reasonable person would have such a reaction to a fly in a water bottle. This man was just trying to take advantage of a minor situation and blew the whole thing out of proportion. Shame on him.

For the sake of argument, even if this incident did trigger depression in Mr. Mustapha I highly doubt that it was the intention of the water company to do so. If the depression was pre-existing, the company is still blameless. I still think that Mr. Mustapha saw an opportunity to sue and he jumped on it.

There are so many people out there who LOVE to sue. They sue for everything (which is why we have stupidly obvious warnings on everything). These people either feel they are somehow entitled or victimized or just plain greedy. Suing costs insurance companies a lot of money - premiums go up. So every time some dumb jackass sues over a dead fly in a bottle of water someone else pays the price. Way to go, jackass.

Waddah Mustapha had been awarded $341,775 in damages in 2005, but the
Supreme Court of Canada has now overturned that award.

What the hell were they thinking to reward him anything in the first place, let alone that much money? Thankfully it was overturned.

Mr. Mustapha - get over it. It was just a fly.

'Full-blooded' Candidates Only, Please

Posted by Pariahjane

A friend of mine brought to my attention an opinion piece written by Kathleen Parker that was published in the Asbury Park Press. This article is so full of racism, nativism and American elitist snobbery that I was incredulous after reading it.

"A full-blooded American." That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia
described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't
racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a
full-blooded American as president."

Isn't Mr. Obama an American citizen? I thought that was a prerequisite to being a president - you had to be a citizen of the country first. What Mr. Fry is saying isn't that Obama is not an American, he's just not American enough because of his Kenyan father. But don't we all have immigrants somewhere in our families? Remember the Pilgrims? They didn't just sprout from American soil - the came here from another country. And that is the crux of Ms. Parker's argument. It isn't our actions that make us American. It's how long our families have lived on this land.

How can we even define who is a 'full-blooded American'? Is it someone who has Native American blood coursing through their veins or is a 'full-blood' defined by how long a person's family has resided in this country?

The one thing Ms. Parker seems to overlook when she talks about full-blooded Americans is the fact that McCain was not born in America. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Mr. Fry based his ignorant preference on a man who wasn't even born in America and Ms. Parker ran with it. Granted, McCain was born on an American military base so it is safe to say that at least one, if not both, his parents were American citizens. But who decides who is more 'American'? It's semantics; a word game designed to hit Obama, and all those who are immigrants or children of recent immigrants, right in the gut.

We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But
there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back
through generations of sacrifice.

Ah, I see now. Apparently Ms. Parker feels that those citizens who have recently come to this country do not deserve the title 'American'. Only those whose family ventured to these lands a hundred years ago or earlier deserve the title of 'full-blooded American' (I'm sure the Native Americans are getting a kick out of this since all these 'full-blooded' ancestors were the ones who destroyed their tribes and cultures and huddled them onto reservations to rot). I hope everyone else can see how ridiculous this is. I, for example, am a second generation American in some ways - both my Grandma and Oma were born and raised in Germany. So, Ms. Parker, which category do I fall into? If I were to trace my bloodline back through history I would end up in Germany or England rather quickly. Do I not deserve the right to call myself American?

I don't think being American should rest on how long your family has been living on this soil. America is more than just a piece of land; it is an ideal, a culture and a way of thought. Did it ever occur to Ms. Parker that perhaps those that recently came to this country did so because they share the ideas that American represents; they desire that freedom and are willing to work for it and defend it?

Who "gets" America? And who doesn't?
The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It's also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

If Ms. Parker had her way being patriotic to this country no longer would mean defending or supporting it. It simply means 'having been here longest'.

If you're an immigrant soldier, or if you're family has only resided here for a short time, according to Ms. Parker you are fighting for a country that you do not belong to, nor do you deserve to belong. You are not an American, not 'full-blooded'. This alone is an insult to all the immigrants, first generations, etc. that are in Iraq fighting while Ms. Parker is dismissing their courage and patriotism because they aren't American enough to suit her.

Yet, white Americans primarily — and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially — have been put on the defensive for their throwback concerns with "guns, God and gays," as Howard Dean put it in 2003. And more recently, for clinging to "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as Obama described white, working-class Pennsylvanians who preferred his opponent. (emphasis added)

That's right. That's what Ms. Parker is trying to skirt around. You're American only if you're white because only white people can really boast having generations of citizens living in this country. Most of the 'new' immigrants today are not from Europe. They are from South America, India and Asia. I have to wonder that, if these immigrants were coming from Ireland, Germany or England, Ms. Parker would be singing the same tune. I highly doubt it.

Republicans more than Democrats seem to get this, though Hillary Clinton has
figured it out. And, the truth is, Clinton's own DNA is cobbled with many of the
same values that rural and small-town Americans cling to. She understands
viscerally what Obama has to study.

Of course she's figured it out, Ms. Parker. She's white. Why is it that Obama cannot share the same value that 'rural and small-town Americans' cling to? Is it because he hasn't had generations of family living here?

That God, for instance, isn't something that comes and goes out of
fashion. That clinging to religion isn't a knee-jerk response to nativist
paranoia, but is the hard work of constant faith.

No, clinging to religion is willful ignorance. I imagine it must be very hard work to force yourself to turn a blind eye to science, reality and rationalism and cling to the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that humans fell from grace thanks to a dumb broad and a talking snake.

Shame on you, Ms. Parker. I hope that whoever does become president does not share your views of racism or elitism. I find it ironic that you accuse Obama of being an elitist when it is clear that you are the one who holds such views.

America is the land of the free, home of the brave. I don't care where you came from before but as long as you support this country and work to make it a better place than you're an American.

Books, books and more books

Posted by Pariahjane

I found this list while surfing along the good ol' world wide web. Even though the title of the article claims that these books are a 'must have' for a man's library I think that both genders would benefit from reading these. Well, perhaps not ALL of them but certainly most.

I will be the first to admit that I don't read nearly as much as I should and I definitely plan on bookmarking this article the next time I head over to the local library or bookstore. The guys over at The Art of Manliness did a really good job compiling this list, which ranges from the classics to, well, The Boy Scouts Handbook. Plus, they give a nod to Tom Robbins' Another Roadside Attraction as well as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged so I trust their taste in books.

Another point of interest for me was their blurb about reading the Bible:

Despite being one of the most religious Industrialized nations,
America’s religious literacy is horrible. If asked to name one of the Ten
Commandments or one of Jesus’ apostles, many Americans wouldn’t be able to do
it. The problem is half the books on these lists make Biblical references that
must be known by the reader for them to understand the message of that book. If
a Western man desires to understand the culture that surrounds him, he needs to
have a thorough understanding of the Book that has shaped that culture.
In addition, the Bible is full of ancient counsel and advice that is applicable to
today’s man, whether you’re a believer in God or not.

They are absolutely correct. It doesn't matter whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or a bunch of bunk it's writings have certainly influenced our culture and, consequently, our literature. Frankly, I have a hunch that if there were more people who actually read the Bible there would be more atheists out there.

I was thinking about making myself a summer reading list and will certainly include some of the books recommended. There is something about a good book that beats any TV program, movie or video game any day. One of the last books I read, The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova had me so enthralled I couldn't put it down while driving across Washington state on vacation. (I wasn't the one driving, obviously) I was told I missed some really beautiful views but I just couldn't take my eyes off the page.

There is something about the written word that evokes more emotion in me than watching a storyline unfold on the screen. Perhaps it's because more of my imagination is required when reading - I become part of the book, in a sense.

I miss reading and I know I don't have an excuse not to read; I tend to get my information and entertainment online. I'm not necessarily saying there is a problem with. There are times that I feel I'm not retaining the information. After all; if I need it again I can just look it up with a few keystrokes. Retrieving information from a book is different. At times I find it harder to concentrate on a novel or non-fiction piece and I suspect that it may be because of my heavy Internet usage. The constant surfing and distractions have brought out my inner ADD. That, I suppose, is for an entirely different post.

If anyone has other 'must reads', please let me know. It would be great to pass along that information. Especially if the novels are from lesser known (or unknown) authors. I'm sure there are more than a few gems that have fallen through the cracks.

I Love Liars!!!

Posted by Pariahjane

The band, that is. These guys are great and incredibly talented. From time to time I like to post about bands that I think deserve more coverage than they are receiving. There are too many untalented groups out there that are getting air play while those that are really making amazing music get pushed to the wayside.

From Pitchfork Media (http://www.pitchfork.media.com/), this review is of their latest album Liars and probably could do them more justice than I ever could.

Much of Liars is rhythmically simplistic-- even brutish-- giving it an unexpected caveman thrill after the more cerebral Drum. In some ways, it hearkens back to the beefy punk-funk of the band's earliest material, where they bulked up the skinny-legged skronk of the Gang of Four and James Chance on a meat-and-potatoes diet. But in other ways this heft feels totally new-- classic rock moves melted into a noisy reduction. "Clear Island" and "Plaster Casts of Everything" both throb to the kind of riffs and howling keyboards that go right for the American rock fan's lizard brain.

It's hard for me to pick a favorite album but I do have to say that Drums Not Dead would be a great first time album for someone who is new to Liars eclectic beats and raw sounds.


Check out the video for Houseclouds from their album Liars. Hope you enjoy!

The Idiocy of Banning Books

Posted by Pariahjane

Books have probably been banned since the first one was written - and it's something that is still done today in some countries. According to this article, Tango Makes Three has once again been awarded the top slot for objectionable books. The story is about a penguin who has two fathers and some parents feel this book might give kids the idea that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable. Forget about promoting the idea of understanding with children that what makes up a family may be different from what they know. Just ban it because the content conflicts with their beliefs or they are too scared to face their own homophobia, not to mention complete ignorance. On a side note, having two fathers does not necessarily mean the parents are homosexual…but, again, understanding is not at the top of the agenda for these people.

Other books on the ALA's top 10 list include Maya Angelou's memoir "I Know
Why the Caged Bird Sings," in which the author writes of being raped as a young
girl; Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," long attacked for
alleged racism; and Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass," an anti-religious
work in which a former nun says: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and
convincing mistake."

I don't see anything wrong with parents objecting to books but I do think some people go too far when they call for a book to be banned. If you don't feel a book is acceptable to your children that's your opinion and you have a right not to allow your child to read the book. Calling for a ban of the book so no one can read it goes beyond that.

There is nothing wrong with parents monitoring what their OWN children read, in fact, I think it is the responsibility of a parent to be educated and aware of what their child is up to, including which books they are reading. Objecting to books because their content is violent, such as 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings' is just plain ridiculous in my opinion. I understand that parents want their children to be protected from darker aspects of life; unfortunately that isn't going to change the fact that violence, such as rape, happens. Use novels like these to teach your children about life. Let them learn from it.

Same goes for 'Huckleberry Finn'. This novel is set in an American era where racism was still rampant. Rather than try to bury a dark part of American history, use this book to explain to your children that at one time racism was acceptable and then show them why that kind of thinking is wrong and leads to ignorance and hatred.

The literature that is chosen for schools is chosen because it provides a learning experience for your kid. Books are a safe way to introduce children to ideas, different cultures, different lifestyles... even different worlds. Schools have more pressing issues to deal with than whether or not the context of a novel is deemed violent of offensive.

Engineer's Guide to Cats

Posted by Pariahjane

Well, it's Friday and the weekend is almost here (finally!) I just received this link from a friend and thought it was incredibly clever and very, very funny.



I'm not exactly a huge fan of cats, mainly because I break into hives and can't breathe when I'm around them but these cats are hysterical. I couldn't tell if they engineer was making some of those cat sounds or if that was really a cat!

Hope you all enjoy!

UK wants to ban kinky porn

Posted by Pariahjane

Thought police, anyone? It appears that the UK is intent on rushing through a bill that would ban violent or 'extreme' pornography.

According to the article, violent or extreme porn could be:

As defined by the new Criminal Justice Bill
An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

First off, I can't take issue