easy solution to don imus problem

so don imus, a privileged white male, insulted black females on his show, right? fire him and hire a black female to replace him, and have the same radio network, cbs radio, carry it, on all the same radio stations, and have msnbc show it on tv, just like before. i know just who would be perfect for the role. cynthia mckinney. it would be instant karma. she would bring some fairness and balance to the situation, all right. she alone could probably take on 20 right-wing white male talk-show hosts. the thing that really bugs me about don imus is he is the one who convinced all the “mainstream media” idiots who came on his show that joe lieberman was a good senator and deserved to be re-elected. look at what joe lieberman is going around saying now. he is almost as bad as john mccain. what a bunch of idiots, don imus and joe lieberman and the rest of ’em. there would be a special place in hell for such cretins, if hell existed. now does this mean i have to support hillary clinton because she is a woman or barack obama because he is black? hell no! politicians have to prove that they are worthy of holding high office, and neither of them has proven themselves to me yet. in fact nobody has proven themselves worthy of the presidency except senator russ feingold, who is not even running. so, i have to settle for someone inferior to russ feingold, someone who is less open, less honest, less courageous, less visionary, and most of all, less humble. he is far too humble to run for president. instead i have to pick among a pack of people with inflated self-worth. right now i am backing dennis kucinich even though he comes off as a bit wacky at times, although nothing close to the wackiness of joe lieberman, john mccain, george w. bush, ralph nader, or mahmoud ahmadinejad, who are all certifiably stark raving mad. as for don imus, i think he is just a grumpy old asshole who hates everybody. who cares about him? nobody... his 5 minutes of fame are about to wind down in a few days. what really gets my goat is all the people insulting nancy pelosi for visiting syria even though plenty of republican politicians have been doing the exact same thing recently and gotten a lot less attention. and newt gingrich, in jerusalem, declared it to be the one and only eternal capital of israel, directly contradicting official united states policy since 1948 that had said that this matter needed to be negotiated between the israelis and the palestinians (prior to 1967, substitute "arabs" for "palestinians"). and don’t even get me started on tom delay, who denied that palestinians even exist, and made ridiculous claims that israel ought to basically wipe palestine off the map by expelling all of its inhabitants. how is that any different from saying israel should be wiped off the map? there is such hypocrisy in the media, in how they mistreat people like nancy pelosi who did nothing wrong to provoke such criticism. and frankly it is ridiculous how much coverage don imus is getting now. he ought to be retired from the industry, along with rush limbaugh, fox news, michael savage, and ann coulter. now i realize don imus is a “centrist” and not a republican, but centrists are basically a group of washington elitists who think a bunch of wealthy white male politicians know better than a majority of the american people and the views americans make clear through public opinion polls. centrists believe that politicians from the 2 main political parties should make deals with each other and conspire to enact legislation and policies opposed by most americans, things that only benefit the top 1% of people, people like don imus. centrist publications like time magazine, the washington post, and the new republic continuously try to undermine any opinions that are not already popular among politicians, reporters, and lobbyists in washington, d.c. they are just useful idiots for the spin machines of the politicians, dumb enough to believe anything if the person who says it is wealthy and powerful enough to be considered "credible". now a “moderate” is something entirely different from a “centrist”. while centrism is a morally indefensible claim that you should always walk the middle of the road and never do the right thing if there are people advocating doing the wrong thing, moderation is quite different. a moderate is someone who believes that both sides of the political spectrum have good ideas and valid arguments at least some of the time, but who is not dumb enough to fall for whatever bullshit they hear. centrism is actually a form of radicalism, because it means going against what the majority of the people in your own political party want, again and again and again. moderation just means recognizing when those on your side are wrong about something, and doing what is right and what you believe in. but you have to be careful what you are moderate about. if your judgement is not sound, you may end up siding with your own side when they are wrong, and siding with the opposition when it is wrong, making you worse than anyone else. so a true moderate listens to the will of the people and obeys it without fail. that is why joe lieberman is no moderate; the majority of connecticut voters are not supporters of the war in iraq. he went out on a limb all by himself, taking an unpopular and incorrect position and going against his own party. he might be doing what he thinks is right (which is debatable) but the man has lost his marbles and does not know up from down anymore. and the same goes for don imus, one of many elitists in the media who condemned bloggers and the blogosphere after joe lieberman lost the primary. bloggers are ordinary people, not elite media fools who are lapdogs of the politicians. i have never met nancy pelosi, only observed her from afar, and my genuine support for her means a lot more than the support of some shitty journalist who never leaves the capitol building. i am a real person, who lives out in the middle of nowhere, and has hardly any money. people like me are what made this country great, people who live in the middle of nowhere and have hardly any money. we are the only ones who actually do any real work, although some (like me) are a bit lazy. but we are uncorrupted by wealth or power. we are the true moral center of the nation. centrism ought to be about following the will of the 50th percentile of the american people in public opinion polls. like suppose you have a poll on whether to end the war in iraq immediately, have a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2007, have a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2008, have a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2009, keep troops at the same levels indefinitely, increase troop levels in iraq slightly, increase them to 1.5 times the current amount, or double the current amount. and everyone would pick one of those options, which would all be stacked on top of each other in a bar graph from most anti-war to most pro-war, so the percentages all add up to 100%. then look at what the opinion of the people at the 50% line is, and do it. polls like that could be done on every major issue. true centrism or moderation ought to be doing what the 50% right at the middle think is right. but don imus is the other type of centrist, the elitist type, who think that joe lieberman has an entitlement to hold a position of privilege and how dare anyone question someone in such an exalted position. you know, george w. bush always does whatever he believes is right, even when his views are obviously incorrect to the vast majority of people. that is not the type of moderation we need. george w. bush, despite being anti-intellectual, has more intellectual arrogance than anyone, thinking that his opinions ought to determine all government policies, regardless of what anyone else in the government or anyone outside the government thinks of those policies. he thinks he knows better than everyone else in the entire world. i make no such claims, and have no such delusions of grandeur. i am but a simple blogger, one of millions, just one of a cacophany of different voices, each with its own unique message. i am no don imus. i do not have a large audience. i do not claim to know better than everybody else in the world, just certain public figures i have been able to observe. and as for my atheism? well, along with the majority of people in the world, i do not believe that sunni islam is correct. along with the majority of people in the world i do not believe that shi'ite islam is correct. the same goes for hinduism. and buddhism. and roman catholicism. and protestant christianity. and each of the other religions. so if the issue is reduced to whether one specific religion is correct or not, no matter what the choice, i agree with the vast majority of people in the world. so in a sense, atheism is the majority view. it is just that most people disbelieve in all religions except 1 that they make an exception for. i do not make any exceptions, because i do not believe that the beliefs and cultural traditions of any one religion are superior to those of any other. i do not play favorites among religions; i treat them all equally. now my quaker upbringing has influenced me, certainly, and there are quakers i have known all my life who are family friends, but as an intellectual matter, i do not believe in the superiority of quakerism to any other particular religion out there. they are all equally flawed; it is just that people see the speck of dust in the eye of those they disagree with, but not the log in their own eye, to quote jesus. you see, every religion is full of self-contradictory nonsense that demonstrates it does not really have the right answers to everything. the only way to have a religion without that is if all the statements of faith were tautologies. and as for the rutgers women’s basketball team, i am sure they are even more upset with the constant questioning from the media than they are with don imus. the media are like vultures that circle dying animals, or rats leaving a sinking ship, or many other appropriate metaphors that may come to mind. and they are always 10 steps behind public opinion, struggling to catch up. they only lead public opinion when major unforseen events suddenly occur and catch them by surprise, causing them to actually have normal human reactions to events, instead of the usual robotic parroting of talking points.

the true cause of global warming: robots!

check out this primitive earth video, of a conference on global warming led by moon emperor al gore, recorded approximately 1 thousand of your earth years in what you fools call the “future”:

the magnificent new omniplan

dearest friends (for all sentient beings are considered friends by me), i have constructed a devious and magnificent new omniplan, an all-encompassing plan, a strategy, a tactic, an objective, and a purpose, all combined into one, and able to fit any need or any budget, adjust to any changes in circumstance, adapt to all situations, fulfill all needs, take advantage of all opportunities, and exploit all weaknesses. i call this plan a, the original plan, a plan so secret, most of us never even hear about it. we usually start with plan b or plan c, never even considering that there may be a plan behind the plan, and that the plan we are considering instead is just a derivative work, an inferior substitute, which contains arbitrary specifics that make it impractical for dealing with changing circumstances. here is how plan a works: the primary objective is to achieve all secondary objectives, as quickly, easily, and painlessly as possible. what are the secondary objectives? they are superfluous, unimportant to the big picture, but at the very core of things, they are what put words into action and make the plan work. they are the spokes of the wheel that come out of the purpose in the core of the plan and get things spinning into a new level of circumnavigation circular circumferential circumsisual circumstance. this spin makes the plan, with all of its sub-jectives, ab-tain a charge, much as the spin of a subatomic particle creates its charge. the spinning wheel, firmly grounded on the ground, charges forward, ever forward, towards the ultimate goal, the true purpose, the goal behind all other mini-goals. the ultimate goal is to achieve all secondary objectives one by one, and updating the list of secondary objectives whenever one feels like doing so, and to continue doing this until there is no point in doing it anymore. when will this stoppage occur? at the end of time, ending the times of the end times. objectifying the objectives is necessarily necessary, in order to achieve progress towards progressive achievements. one by one, each secondary objective will be fulfilled, and something that, until that point, was a thing that had to be done, at that point becomes something that was done as it should have been done, was achieved, and fulfilled, completed successfully, accomplished, and thereby no longer needs to be done. as time passes at an increasingly alarming rate, ever quickening its passage, the force of slowness can be exerted by the successive accomplishments of accomplished successes. this gravitational friction causes the electromagnetic exertions of subatomic torque to postpone the deadline of the line of death, at which point the wheel progressively spinning forward will cross the line into death and no longer will life be lived by the being which chooses to fulfill achievements and achieve fulfillment. when death occurs for any organism, this is the end of time for the universe it traverses within its own central nervous system. the continuance of time for other life forms which do not die along with the dead organism is merely an illusion created to deceive the undead into thinking they do not live in the hell of fake life dreamed up in the imagination of a dying organism in its last moments, the last moments before the end of time. for as individuals, is it not ridiculous to propound the notion that time continues after one of us dies? certainly this cannot be the case. however, yet it is the case, despite all lies and deceit to the contrary, including the aforementioned case of a dying organism imagining the entire infinite future of the universe in its last few moments before it dies precisely at the end of time. nay, time continues forever, even past the destruction of those of us who can perceive its untimely passage. there is something timeless about the untimely passage of time as it passes from the past into the gift of present times presented to us presently. as futurists, we can futuristically cast furtive furloughs into the forbidden forgotten furnishings of the futile future. the ultimate plan of an individual, made up of a number of ever-changing sub-plans, or secondary objectives, is a plan that may be passed along to others, continued by them, or done along with those individuals who are contemporaries, living at the same time as oneself. this does not end the enslavement of humans to the words of language which have so deceived us. the liberation of complete language ignorance can only come with severe brain damage. otherwise, the words of our language trap our thoughts and guide our words and deeds towards ends tied up in the very deepest catacombs of the depths of linguistic vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and diction. languages produce a thought bias towards irrationality and foolishness. for example, the verb “to be” is too vague and nonspecific to carry definite, concrete, measurable meaning, as bill clinton famously pointed out with his queries about the meaning of “is”. the time dimension, as well as singular and plural, subject and object, the fact that verbs must convey some sort of action, and the social use of various nouns and adjectives for categorical nomenclature of all persons, places, and things, despite the continued use of homonyms and other troublesome words and idioms, these are many of the factors contributing to the general horribleness of human language. language is a dirty business, and not even the bible or the constitution can be read by 2 people and have them agree on what everything means, unless one of them is a syncophant or an illiterate. instead of pouring over ancient texts and debating the precise meanings of various strings of text, why not replace these archaic works of literature with new documents written in a new language, a language of precise meaning, with no double meanings, no confusion, and everything incredibly exact and purposeful. the language of purpose, of literality, with no idioms or double meanings, would be very carefully structured so that everything in that language would be incredibly exact. however, the danger lies in that such a language leads to another bias, of people stating that they know things which they do not know. we also need an expressive language, one full of implication and double meanings and many idioms and slang, with different degrees of expressing everything, with many different words that all mean slight variations of the same thing, to differing degrees. the expressive language for creative self-expression, and the exact, precise language for legal documents, religious texts, news articles, scientific papers, and the vast majority of works of non-fiction. english is not a good language for being exact and precise, because it only has one verb that means “to be”, and many many things in it lead to confusion and multiple meanings. how can we distinguish from a present, transient state that something finds itself in for the moment, and a permanent property that something has always had and always will have? in spanish, there are 2 verbs for “to be” (not counting another verb meaning “there is”): “ser” and “estar”. in this respect, spanish is a more precise language than english. this narrows the room for confusion but makes it harder for people to be deceptive while not uttering literal falsehoods. in english, people can use literal falsehoods for deception because of the confusing double-faced nature of the language, a very untrustworthy language. the fact that we have all of our laws in the united states written in english makes it quite easy for judges to interpret laws to mean whatever the hell they want, because our language is so loose and flexible and can mean anything. so, for making the various subjectives, or sub-objectives, which are part of the overall omniplan, or megaplan, or superplan, what is the best sort of language or wording to use? flexible language would allow for things to be changed at any time, so for dealing with changing circumstances, it is best to have flexible language. but if other people are to look at the language and interpret it (as happens with the constitution and the bible), things must be written in a very strict, inflexible language so as to prevent anything from being misinterpreted to mean anything other than what it was originally intended to mean. english is such a large language, a strict and inflexible language could be made from a subset of the english language, with every word strictly defined in a new sort of dictionary, one that is prescriptive and not descriptive. however, my sort of planning is the sort that wishes for flexibility, so with each of my objectives i will embrace the full fluidity of the english language, and all of the leeway for multiple-meaning text that this gives me. in fact, this very blog post is bursting at the seams with shameless exploitation of the weaknesses of the english language, tearing asunder all traditional rules for how the english language and various words ought to be used. i think i ought to invent a new literary device to describe what i am doing: creaxploitassonance is the word. creaxploitassonance means creating a new word for little or no reason and exploiting this fact to make an ass of yourself and confuse other people for your own amusement. i find it very rewarding, as do many other people. it is the constant use of creaxploitassonance that keeps adding more and more words to the english language. like the word “american” is problematic for me, since it can refer to a set of 2 continents, or to a single country. so i use creaxploitassonance to create the word “unitedstatesian”, which is not capitalized normally, as an adjective to refer to anything having to do with the united states of america. and american people can be called unitedstatesians, using the word as a noun. that way, the president of venezuela can condemn the unitedstatesian government without being called anti-american, because he is not anti-allofamerican. oh, and i also decided to use creaxploitassonance to invent the word “allofamerica”, along with the adjective “allofamerican”, both of which refer to the combination of north america, south america, and the caribbean islands in the gulf of mexico. so someone is only anti-allofamerican if they are opposed to allofamerica. this will be funny because now the iranians will have to chant “death to unitedstatesians” instead of “death to america”. the continued use of one word for america only solidifies the effects of the monroe doctrine and unitedstatesian imperialism against the non-unitedstatesian nations of allofamerica. but in the traditional, pre-creaxploitassonance english, it sounds ridiculous to talk about american imperialism against the non-american nations of america. so in some cases we need more words, not less, for the ultra-precise language i envision. but once such a language is devised, it will be the perfect language for super-logical and mega-ultra-rational thought and discussion. however, in the current crapshoot nonsense that is the english language, every choice of words is a gamble, since it could be taken the wrong way or misinterpreted. so one of my many sobjectives (sub-objectives, if you will) is to create this new ultra-hyper-mega-super-deluxe language to replace english. but it is not a high priority. you see, my ultimate purpose in life has now been established, and it is to pursue my mini-objectives as quickly and painlessly and efficiently as possible, but not all objectives are equally important. they must be prioritized so that they can be carried out in the proper order, and the proper order will not be known until afterwards, since the order in which things must be done can be rearranged at any time, for any reason. also, objectives can be added to or removed from the list at any time, for any reason. this is the ultimate strength of my ultimate purpose in life: it is infinitely flexible. it allows me to deal with any situation reality presents me with. but what preposition did i just end a sentence on? to boldly split infinitives is my duty. engrish is mole intelesting if you switch alound the r’s and the l’s, but it can be a rittre confusing to keep tlack of what you ale doing with arr the rettels. to create you must destroy, and vice versa, because nothing is ever truly created or destroyed; the amount of stuff always stays constant, but it is simply re-arranged all the time. you might think a tree no longer exists just because you cut it down and burned it and all that is left is ashes and smoke. but the mass of the original tree plus the oxygen used up in the fire equals the mass of the ashes and all the smoke that came out of the fire. the human brain has a finite amount of cells in a finite volume of space, with a finite blood supply, so naturally it can only hold a finite amount of information and think about a finite number of ideas. and all of human society has a limit to how many people can co-exist at the same time without starving to death, on this planet. so, there is a mathematical limit to the number of ideas that can simultaneously exist in all the minds of all the people on the entire planet. and that limit is never going to be reached, because of all the duplication of ideas between minds, through the nefarious process of communication. when ideas spread into new minds, they use up precious brain cells to store knowledge of these ideas, in each brain they infect. those brain cells can no longer be used to store other ideas. and so, the spread of knowledge destroys existing knowledge. the more we communicate with each other, the more each one of us forgets what we used to know beforehand. forgetfulness is the price we pay for modern civilization with its advanced communications. we need to be humble about our brain capacities and not stuff our brains full of useless data; it is far more useful to grasp abstract concepts and understand the general underlying rules that cause things to occur in the way that they do. expand the scope of your conscious mind and your capabilities for abstract reflective thought! forget useless memories and pointless things you memorized and have no need for anymore! put that wasted brain space to use again, thinking about things that matter now! that is what i do. and practice memorizing useful information that might actually come in handy, realistically. this will replace old memories you no longer need. i have forgotten the vast majority of the things that happened in my life (most of them were unimportant and uninteresting details that i had no reason to remember), and i am perfectly happy forgetting these things. i would rather learn from the examples of others than relive my own follies inside my mind. and so, that is what i do. and i realize now why i do not remember the names of other people. it is because i do not wish to overly concern myself with them or spend too much time thinking about them. i know what i want out of life, and i will remember the names of people who are important to me. if i can tell that someone is useless to me, i will make a point to forget who they are and if i do know their name i will find a way to forget it and forget about the person if possible. this is especially important with girls. i am easily seduced by seeing pretty girls, and if i know the name of one of them and see her with my eyes on a regular basis, this produces a sort of obsessive preoccupation with her in my mind. but i have found that, by not learning the name of a girl, or by forgetting it, i can prevent myself from thinking in words about her specifically, and thereby prevent any unhealthy obsession with someone who does not return my affection. i will reserve my ability of name-learning to those whom i at least get along with, or who are in important enough positions that they hold some sort of power over me. keeping a girl’s name out of my head has proven to me to be an effective tool in preventing the unrequited love scenarios that keep repeating again and again, year after year, with me having affection towards someone who does not return it. it is almost impossible to find someone whom you can feel affection towards and have them actually feel lots of affection towards you as well. why is this? i believe i have a situational deficit. i have, all of my life, suffered from a deficiency of being in situations where i socialize and meet new people. this situational deficiency is partially imposed on me by others (such as when someone chooses not to invite me to a party, etc.), but for the most part, it is actually a decision which i make, in how i choose to spend my time and what i decide to do, and whether i talk to certain people and what i say to them. it is, if you will, a self-imposed isolation, a prison of my own design, an isolation which i have instinctually cultivated all my life without even knowing why, and i have always had to fight against this impulse to be reclusive and avoid others. but with my new over-arching superplan, which is eternal, the ultimate purpose of my life, now i can examine my situation, define my problems, devise solutions, and implement them, within a structure that allows for changing my strategies and/or analyses to comport with new insights and new information. in the past i have been constantly plagued with self-sabotage in many forms, and a general laziness and opposition to change of any kind. this can now be addressed by a new intellectual framework which acknowledges these aspects of the current situation and strategically transitions to a more productive approach without any sudden changes in how i have to behave or anything difficult to adjust to. now i must define the terms of this transition strategy, and how i can shift from being lazy and sabotaging myself and resisting all change to being pro-active and able to do things productively and seek out success in my life without any internal opposition. for too long, i have battled against myself, internally, wrestling in my mind about what to do, and about many other things, and i have learned a lot, but now it is time for me to stop having internal disputes and start putting into action all of the things i have learned over the years. i have had situations where i had glimpses at my true potential, at my many aspects which allow me to have possibilities for much greater things than my current lowly status and empty, lonely lifestyle. i have seen how, at times, i can be quite charismatic, and influence other people, and even get people to like me and care about me. it is difficult to achieve, but i have gotten that far, sometimes. i have a capability for well-timed opportunistic deep emotional expression in order to manipulate other people into liking me and caring about me. it is quite difficult to achieve, though, because i have a natural habitual form of behaving around other people which alienates them and keeps me from making any friends. it requires constant effort to get around this. and i have an innate hostility and distrust towards others and it is hard to keep that from coming out, especially if someone does something to provoke me and i contain myself and refuse to rise to the bait, because then my negative emotions, my hatred and anger and self-loathing and misery, all of them gradually build up to explosive levels if i do not express them to others. but i have such a fear of expressing my negative emotions towards others, because i do not want to be mean and then have them not like me. it is quite difficult for me, because my objective in human relations is for everyone to like me as much as i can possibly get them to like me, and for as few people as possible to dislike me. it is a constant struggle to win over people, because i am quite bad at it and need a lot more practice before i am any good. but how can i have a close, loving relationship with one person, if i cannot even get people to like me at all? there is nothing worse to me than having someone else dislike me, because i always find myself agreeing with them, and disliking myself even more than anyone else does. it is such a struggle. i wish i had some lovin’. ugh, i hate myself. pathetic. get a life! stop writing in the stupid blog and go out and do something, stupid! i suck so bad. oh well. maybe nothing ever changes because part of me doesn’t want anything to ever change. congratulations! now i get to be a complete loser forever. at least part of me is happy, getting exactly what it wants. i wonder if i actually can change things. i am so lacking in willpower, it is doubtful. every time i have ever tried before, i have failed miserably, so what makes me think it can be any different this time? either way, i am a failure. either a failure who tried and failed, or a failure who gave up and never tried again. it’s all the same anyway: failure is failure regardless of how it comes to pass. but if i try, at least there was some possibility of success, and at least i demonstrate some positive character trait in the form of courage. as if that would ever happen. what a joke. to hell with this bullshit. who am i kidding? nobody. writing in this blog is a complete waste of time. and so is everything else i do. i give up. who cares? whatever...

recently upgraded blog

you may have noticed that i recently changed the layout of my blog as well as the fonts and colors and the links section. i also now make use of a new blogger feature that shows 4 google news stories, from the latest news. that new feature is not very customizable yet. but it is better than nothing. anyway, it was fun making up 6-digit hexadecimal numbers to encode the colors, all the way from #000000 to #ffffff (or in decimal, from 0 to 16,777,215, if i recall correctly, though some of those digits may be wrong due to my pre-pubescent onset senile dementia).

so i worked hard at changing and overhauling my links section too. i made sure each of the existing links met my rigorous and stringent guidelines. every blog i link to has to be one that regularly has new entries (i made 2 exceptions for people i know personally, but for blogs that i just link to because i find them interesting and like their up-to-date commentary/satire/whatever, they have to meet this requirement). and i have rewritten the descriptions for many of the blogs i link to, either to be more explanatory, or more humorous and satirical. but mainly, i added a bunch more links to blogs, so i had to go all over the internet searching for anything i found interesting. mainly i looked at political blogs but also ones that dealt with my religious beliefs, as an atheistic lapsed quaker who has been brainwashed into the subgenius cult through their internet propaganda.

now why do i find the subgenius cult so compelling? well, their cult is basically set up exactly the way i would set up a cult if i were doing the whole thing from scratch. they come out and admit that they are a brainwashing cult that just wants your money, and that everything they say is bullshit (or bulldada, as they call it). but, it turns out, they are not really a religion or a cult at all. they are, legally speaking, a fan club of the fictional character j. r. “bob” dobbs, whose name and image they have copyrighted and registered as trademarks. they were created as a satirical organization in the 1970s in order to mock real cults such as the scientologists and the moonies, as well as the evangelical christians. but they are quite expert in knowledge of all the various other cults and fringe religious groups, having studied all of them, in something known as the high weirdness project. they are all artists, perhaps artists who draw pictures or make short films, or who compose and perform music, or who mix together audio clips in a humorous way, or who just preach in a manner reminiscent of a christian preacher, except spreading the message of “bob” instead, and having the whole thing interspersed with little jokes, to hide the fact that the whole thing is one big joke. for a long time i have been very much into comedy, and it is my favorite thing to watch on television. i liked the movie “the aristocrats” because it was hilarious how it attacked so many sacred cows of modern culture. and subgeniuses constantly attack the sacred cows of modern culture. they are said to be a counter-cultural post-modern self-satirical pseudo-religious movement of artists. there are other similar groups, such as the discordians or the followers of the spaghtetti monster, but none of those other groups has become as well-established, as popular, or as utterly bizarre and wacky as the subgeniuses. subgeniuses, through their art, express absurdity and things that make no sense, things that are confusing or stupid. the ever-present symbol of the dobbshead is a parody of symbolism in general, and the stupidity and absurdity of all forms of symbolism. the nazis had their swastika and the communists still use the hammer and sickle and the color red. christians have the cross, jews have the star of david, muslims have the crescent moon, and taoists have the yin-yang symbol. only subgeniuses can show the absurdity of all these symbols, by having the dumbest symbol of all, and using it so much and overemphasizing it to the point where it becomes obvious how stupid symbolism really is. the artistic works created by subgeniuses, especially the audio works, but also the pamphlets and books and videos, all of them have the same effect of mentally deprogramming those people who have been brainwashed by culture, the media, the educational system, their churches, their parents, and everyone around them. but the mental deprogramming is painless and in fact quite enjoyable and full of humor. if you continue to expose yourself to subgenius propaganda for too long, you will end up saying nothing but offensive nonsense all the time, never making any sense, and slacking off and never doing any work. but then, if you listen to normal people and their advice for long enough, you will find yourself not saying anything offensive, making sense, and working hard to get ahead. that is why subgeniuses are so important; they try to fill your mind with stupid nonsense, but in the end, when your mind takes out the trash and cleans up, there is a good chance you might discard some long-held beliefs that you realized are stupid, because of how similar they are to subgenius nonsense. once you have discarded several of your long-held beliefs, you will have less beliefs, and be neutral on more issues, and thus more open-minded. at this point, you can observe reality fairly objectively, having neutralized and removed much of your previous bias. at the same time, your sense of humor will be much more open to laughing about almost anything, even things that are not considered appropriate to laugh at. any political correctness will be removed from your thoughts, if not your speech and writings. you can only free your mind if you realize that much of what you believe in is bullshit, and the only way to realize that is to have your beliefs mocked and parodied and for you to actually find it funny instead of getting offended by it. getting offended is the last refuge of a scoundrel. there is no such thing as hate speech. let the bigots dig themselves into holes on their own. then we can ignore them. censorship is for cowards who are afraid of being proven wrong. it is pointless to criticize subgeniuses, because they regularly criticize their own pseudo-religion far more harshly than anyone else ever could. the real hate speech is when people say that only followers of their religion will get into heaven, or that only their political ideology is correct and anyone who dissents is wrong or even an immoral bad person. but there is no reason to silence such people. they will alienate other people on their own, and thereby gradually eliminate any influence they have, as more and more people see the light. now the joke religion of worshipping the flying spaghetti monster is now calling itself pastafarianism, but this just shows how unoriginal they are. this newfangled joke cult is nothing compared to the coolness of the frop-smoking bob with that big technicolor grin on his face.

anyway, you might notice that all the sites i link to have a rather left-wing perspective, but not so far to the left that they do not support the democrats. this is for a very good reason. i could link to sites that i do not agree with at all. i used to do that from this blog. but, i think that is a patently dishonest tactic, because it makes it seem like i actually look at both sides of the argument. but, to be honest, i only look at things from the democratic party line perspective. and i cannot support any viewpoints that oppose this perspective. why not? because it would undermine the party, of course. and supporting the party is the only way to help the party achieve victory, and enact its agenda. and i agree with almost all of the party agenda, or at least a lot more of it than the republican agenda. but it would be dishonest for me to link to anything i disapprove of, while pretending that i think it is worthy of linking to. i know that there are plenty of very prominent right-wing blogs out there that get lots of hits. but i am not a fan of any of them, nor do i support them in any way. so why should i link to them? that would be deceptive and make it look like i actually consider their opinions valid or even look at their sites, which i don’t. rené descartes once tried to abandon all beliefs from his mind and start from believing in nothing, and then he came to believe in himself, and then reality and god. but he never really managed to abandon all beliefs; the ones he had beforehand were the same ones he had afterwards. he just temporarily deceived himself into thinking he had abandoned the beliefs that he kept believing all along. similarly, my liberalism is a belief system that continues in my mind as strong as ever no matter how many times i question it or consider that maybe something else that contradicts it is right instead, or how many times i practice not having any beliefs at all politically. that is simply an excercise in temporary self-denial, denial that i have long established strongly held opinions that do not change easily. but i am not open to other conflicting ideas, to be honest. i will listen to them, perhaps, but i am too skeptical of that which contradicts my beliefs in order to ever be won over by anything that conflicts with them, unless there is absolute proof, or something of that level of evidence. of course, liberalism itself is an exercise in self-denial, because it calls on people to be open-minded, rational, able to consider both sides of things objectively, and willing to embrace change and try doing things that have never been done before. it also has a major humanist aspect, calling on people to help each other out, and to respect each other, to treat people equally, and to help out those who are less fortunate by taxing those who are most well-off. equality is the foundation of liberty, and inequality leads to tyranny. markets must be regulated to correct for negative externalities and market failure. while conservatives think unintended consequences of regulation and government programs outweigh any benefits, they fail to understand that in a democracy with a functioning news media, the unintended consequences get well documented and then the government programs and regulations can be modified, corrected, and tweaked to correct for any errors in how they were originally structured. and many things done by corporations have unintended consequences, or bad consequences that do not directly impact the corporation, but if nobody is there to regulate this, these bad things will be done with no punishment, to the detriment of everyone. pollution, insider trading, monopolies, unsafe products... these are all things that can and must be regulated, which is why all of them are regulated and have been for many years. conservatives combine oversimplified, false views of economics with the religious right’s gradualist theocratic agenda, a sense of superiority over all other nations as if we are entitled to complete world domination with nobody questioning us, and a basic authoritarian mindset that could result in fascist government if the leading politicians were crazy or power-hungry enough to seek out fascism. i do not wish to poison my mind with the false consciousness or the delusions of the conservatives; they have already infected me with a severe case of islamophobia and a lingering distrust of the feminist movement and women in general. my malleable young mind is still susceptible to deceptive manipulations that teach me that other groups of people are to blame for my problems. so i feel a need to protect my mind from anything that would lure it into the selfish, arrogant embrace of empathy-free all-about-me consumer-culture conservatism. with my asperger’s syndrome, i naturally lack empathy, and do not inherently care about anyone else, but only care about myself. it is important that i get past this lack of empathy and get myself to care about other people. and i simply cannot see how someone can care about others and be a conservative, since conservatives are the selfish types who, like ayn rand, believe that greed is good. and trying to show you care by having the government intrude into people’s private lives and things that are none of the government’s business, in some misguided attempt to restructure society and undo the changes catalyzed by the hippie movement of decades ago? completely misguided and wrong. undoing things is always a backwards, reactionary step to take, even if you are undoing something bad. a progressive is one who looks to the future and how to make things better than they ever were before, with new ideas, looking to the past only for history lessons, not for a destination to take a detour back towards. so that is why i have that particular set of links, which, to be fair, is not quite perfect. i do not have enough time to find all the best blogs on the internet, or to look through all the ones i link to and make sure they are all good. a lot of it is just which ones i personally liked or did not dislike. but i do have an agenda with this blog. yes, i sabotage my agenda sometimes, but that is just because i like to highlight that part of my agenda is self-sabotage. for a long time in my life, i sabotaged myself covertly, from deep in the subconscious, and refused to acknowledge what i was doing, even denying it adamantly. this caused plenty of emotional turmoil. but i came to accept all aspects of my personality, including the self-destructive ones, and stop hiding my bad aspects from my conscious mind. and suddenly stopping self-sabotage does not work. it will simply return again once you let your guard down, worse than ever. to truly stop it, you must first accept it, and then just try to gradually tone it down and eventually eliminate it. nothing too drastic, because any sudden or drastic psychological changes would cause an imbalance. at least that is how i view my psychology. but my delicate mind is too weak to handle a lot of the right-wing blogs, because they are so schocking to my psyche; especially bad is the blog called “little green footballs”. if i look at that site, it just fills me with such fear, hatred, disgust, hostility, and contempt towards the religion of islam, it is a struggle to even accept the fact that i live on the same planet as muslims, let alone belong to the same species as them and live in the same country as many of them. and i want to be able to be accepting of muslims and not feel negatively towards them, to think of them as equal human beings just like anyone else. the right-wing websites always fill me with negative emotions, which keep me from going back too often. it is the same problem i have with right-wing talk radio. i tried listening to it to understand the right-wingers better, but the more i listened, the more i hated, despised, and wanted to get rid of right-wingers. if i avoid listening to what they say on their radio shows, however, i can forget what i heard from them earlier, and then i am willing to peacefully coexist with them. but more than a few minutes of rush limbaugh is sometimes enough to make me want to send all republicans to re-education camps; it is usually a day or too before that effect wears off and i am willing to peacefully live in the same country as them again. so, no links to right-wing blogs; that is the upshot of what i am saying. reading them brings out the authoritarian aspects of my personality, which i am trying to get rid of. it is odd, but i cannot stand anyone attacking or insulting nancy pelosi, or doing that to the aclu. both nancy pelosi and the aclu are often attacked and for some reason it makes me irate in either case. i don’t know why... maybe because i am proud of nancy pelosi and the aclu and believe in them and think the attacks are all completely unfair and misguided and wrong. but it is weird, then, that i am ok with people attacking the democratic party as a whole, or any of the democratic presidential candidates, or feminists, or jesse jackson, or michael moore, or moveon.org, and if any of those gets insulted, i don’t care. i suppose there is just something special about the first female speaker of the house, or the top organization promoting civil liberties and constitutional rights. it is ok if you say something bad about me, or if you say my mother wears army boots, but you had better not dis on nancy pelosi. anyone who says anything bad about her is just asking for me to beat them up. not that i would... i would calm myself down and find a way to remove my anger and hostility towards all the naysayers who want to bring my favorite house speaker down. i cannot expect everyone to be enlightened enough to realize that nancy pelosi is an even greater thing than sliced bread. but it is unfortunate that people cling to their fanciful notions of sliced bread being better than nancy pelosi. what fools.

republican presidential candidates

firstly, i would like to end my vow of neutrality that i made in the last post. i just needed to temporarily be neutral to think things over, but i have opinions again now, and things are back to normal.

there is a very small but growing wing of the republican party which is actually opposed to president bush, or at least opposed to the war in iraq, to secret prisons, to warrantless wiretapping, to torture, to gigantic budget deficits, to “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, to the failed response to hurricane katrina, and/or to unfunded mandates like no child left behind and the medicare prescription drug benefit. recently matthew dowd, a top adviser to president bush from 1999 thru the 2004 election who was karl rove’s deputy, came out against the war and the bush administration’s policies, and said that his faith in george w. bush had been misplaced. and representative ron paul of texas and senator chuck hagel of nebraska are both running for president in the republican party on anti-war, anti-bush platforms. those 2 candidates represent the anti-bush wing of the republican party, which is still in its infancy, since most republicans still have such a misplaced allegiance to their failed president. so who are the real republican candidates for president, the ones that might actually win? well there are 5 that i think could win.

rudy giuliani, former mayor of new york city... he is #1 in the republican polls even though he is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. why? because he supports bush and was instrumental in responding to 9/11, and the media promoted him as a hero. but to the religious right, he is an archenemy. and his style of leadership is said to be quite authoritarian, so he might appeal to the authoritarian movement, but not to freedom-minded people who are opposed to things like torture and warrentless wiretaps and secret prisons, people who support habeas corpus and the geneva conventions and the bill of rights. rudy giuliani is a war hawk, so on national security and foreign and military affairs, he is very right-wing. however, his center-left social views might keep him from becoming president. also, he has been through many divorces, and he lived with open practicing homosexuals while mayor of new york city. he has been through many scandals, and prior to 9/11, was quite unpopular. although crime rates in new york city fell sharply under his tenure, there was alleged to be police brutality. and he does have a few right-wing social views, like when he wanted to outlaw a painting of the virgin mary made from some type of animal shit. but if he becomes president, this would probably make the religious right much less influential in the republican party, which is a good thing.

john mccain has been promoted by the media as front-runner even though rudy giuliani is front-runner. senator john mccain of arizona has a long history of fighting against the rest of his own party, and being like a lone voice in the wilderness on certain issues. one of his assets in the republican primary is his extreme pro-war hawkishness. he wants to escalate the war in iraq and send more troops than any other mainstream politicians are proposing. just about the only people who would send more troops than mccain are rush limbaugh and ann coulter... president bush’s troop increases are quite modest by comparison. but mitch mcconnell is the leader of the senate republicans, and was the leader of the opposition to john mccain when mccain got together with my personal hero, senator russ feingold of wisconsin, to introduce the mccain-feingold act, which put in place the campaign finance reform that took effect between the 2002 and 2004 election cycles. now, that campaign finance reform is still very controversial and disliked in republican circles, even though it probably hurt the democrats more than the republicans. the mccain-feingold act is what made 527 groups like moveon.org and the swift boat veterans for truth become so prominent. but 527 groups cannot promote candidates, they are only allowed to attack them, according to the law. at least that is what i read somewhere. quite odd. anyway, john mccain is reviled and disliked in many republican circles, because of his treacherous opposition to the party line on so many occasions. he is considered too independent-minded and disloyal. that is why he had to prove his loyalty to the party in 2004 by rejecting john kerry’s love letter that asked him to be john kerry’s vice president, and instead john mccain strongly supported and campaigned for george w. bush. john mccain is quite a chameleon/chimera figure, always changing his stripes.

senator sam brownback of kansas is the only real party-line “movement conservative” who has a shot at the republican presidential nomination. so, it is strange that he has not attracted more support. if republicans want continuity and someone who will continue the right-wing party-line leadership of george w. bush, he is the only real option. he is the candidate for real republicans, the type who still support george w. bush after all the bad things bush has done. he is the one who shares the ideology of the right-wing base of the party, on all issues. but perhaps he is not getting support because the more pragmatic members of the party saw the writing on the wall with the defeat of rick santorum in pennsylvania, and perhaps the party might abandon its social conservatism. sam brownback is the only one who can preserve that social conservatism. he is the only real republican running, but i wonder if republicans realize that.

former massachusetts governor mitt romney is a joke. he has flip-flopped on every issue in order to try to get votes. he only has supporters because of the media hype and because he is a talented public speaker. perhaps he can win using his charisma. but being a mormon, he has many enemies on the religious right, even though he shares much of their agenda, or at least pretends to. but how could anyone trust this man who can’t even make up his mind on abortion? i do not understand why he is being considered a major contender, because he is a complete intellectual lightweight, inexperienced, not well known, and the world’s #1 flip-flopper. he tries to show his conservatism through reagan-worship. but i am sure that people can see right through his shallow ploy at presenting himself as a conservative republican, and see that he is just a charismatic pragmatist with no ideology to speak of, other than his mormon religion which is so reviled. of course, bill clinton was a charismatic pragmatist with no ideology, but he is incredibly smart and was a great scholar who studied at oxford under a very prestigious scholarship. i doubt mitt romney is smart enough to pull it off like bill clinton did.

the 5th major republican candidate for president is newt gingrich. newt might or might not run; we do not know yet. but he is still quite popular in republican circles for his leadership of the republican congress, and for how he took control of congress away from democrats in 1994. newt gingrich is a brilliant but misguided genius, and he is also a well-known hypocrite who has had plenty of extramarital affairs. it is rather doubtful that conservative republicans would forgive him for his failures in his personal life and his well-known hypocrisy. but with his towering intellect, he may be able to devise a plan to win. however, he is still a quite controversial figure, and would almost undoubtedly lose the general election if he got the nomination, since many people who are not republican have a lingering dislike for him because of his hypocrisy and because of the failures of congress under his leadership and since that time.

one last thing: my sister liz has a blog here and there might be a major announcement on there soon, but first she has to tell everyone she knows about it and i will certainly not break the news before she does. but i hope you visit her blog and see if there is anything new, and if not, check again later. i am very proud of my sister and wish her all the best.