Why I Haven’t Been Writing Lately
December 13, 2005 | 2 Comments
This post was written by guest author, The One and Only Wayne.
Here’s the thing about me-I’ve got ideas, son. Lots of ideas. Things I want to invent. Things I want to do. Places I want to go.
Here’s another thing about me-I’m a big talker.
I’m often that guy who, when hanging out with a bunch of other guys, will say something like, “Hey, it would be funny if you…,” or “You know, someday we should…,” or even “Stop! If you touch her there she might wake up!” For now, I’ll focus on the first two.
And yes, that joke was stolen.
In the last however many months since the last thing I wrote, which I believe was a review of a Judas Priest cd (which is still awesome), I’ve had a number of what I felt were great ideas for things to write about: Things Carmax could do to make my job less cruddy. The Secret to My Success (or, How to Completely Avoid Success). Wayne’s Eight Rules of Pimpitude: How to Pick Up Chicks Like a Nerd Who’s Engaged to the Only Girl He’s Ever Dated. Why There’s Nothing Wrong With That, and Why This Subtitle is Just a Bit Too Long.
Note that the last one has no subtitle.
Everything comes back to the fact that I am not one to act upon any impulse to do something. Unfortunately, writing happens to be something. In fact, I think the last time that I was documented showing initiative I ended up with a device made of two trashcans designed for hauling someone through a field behind a moving vehicle. It got a little bloody.
I guess what I’m trying to do is tell all of my fans, which I’m convinced actually exist, that I’ll be writing more soon. Not so much because I’m trying to become initiative-ious. Not so much for the fame and the glory that comes with posting on this site. It’s because I want to put nonsense in an article and be able to find it with Google.
I’ll leave everyone out there with something I shared just a few days ago with some folks from church: I’m too sexy for my cat. Too sexy for my cat. Poor pussy. Poor pussycat.
Review of Angel of Retribution
March 17, 2005 | 0 Comments
This post was written by guest author, The One and Only Wayne.
So, the other day this guy comes up to me at work and says, “Wayne, you’re the coolest guy ever. In my ongoing attempt to be just as awesome as you are, I want to listen to the same kind of music you do. What kind of cds do I need to go buy?”My response: “Aaaahhhh, pod people!” Then I stabbed him in the face with a soldering iron.
Had I been of sound mind at the time, I likely would have told him that I always go back to the rock.
Browsing through my music collection, from 58 to ZZ Top, it is easy to see that I either have a thing for rock music, or groups of four or five white guys. I won’t deny either one.
This being said, it may not be too hard to understand how excited I was a few years ago when it was announced that Rob Halford had rejoined Judas Priest, one of the most influential bands in the history of heavy metal. I’m pretty sure that I told everyone I know two or three times, at least. I’m also pretty sure that I don’t know anyone who really cared (sigh). Really, people, these guys co-headlined Ozzfest last year! They’re still awesome!
Whatever. On March 1, 2005, Judas Priest released Angel of Retribution, their first album in 15 years with the original lineup. None of my friends cared. However, I know better. I know that it may just be the best album in the 30+-year history of the self-proclaimed “Metal Gods.” Sweet guitar solos, a driving double-bass drum, and bald guy who can wail just about as well as he did before I was born. And that’s just the first song, “Judas is Rising.”
The first single released is “Revolution,” a song that seems radio-friendly and even has an accompanying video on the band’s website. It’s a bit of a different sound than the band’s last few albums, but not very different at all from Halford’s last two, which makes his re-entry into the band even more welcome.
I suppose that the best way to sum up Retribution is to say that if you like Judas Priest, you’ll like the album. I’d even say that if you like a heavier, non-Tom Petty-type rock, you’ll like the album. If you have at least one functioning lung, and an attention span of more than 17 seconds, you’ll like the album. It’s a collection of songs that is simultaneously classic Priest and something new, and it works. And where else can you find a 13-minute song about the Loch Ness Monster?
Florida’s Proposed Amendments
October 22, 2004 | 0 Comments
This post was written by guest author, Shannon.
Disclaimer: I did not write or compile this information. I merely received it in an email and therefore, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. However, from what I can tell, it seems to be a very unbiased compilation of information regarding Florida’s proposed amendments.
AMENDMENT 1
Official Title: Parental Notification of a Minor’s Termination of Pregnancy
Official Ballot Language: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before the termination of the minor’s pregnancy. The amendment provides that the Legislature shall not limit or deny the privacy rights guaranteed to minors under the United States Supreme Court. The Legislature shall provide exceptions to such requirement for notification and shall create a process for judicial waiver of the requirement for notification.
Amendment Type: Legislative
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Proponents: Florida Right to Life Committee
Proponents’ point of view: Proponents argue that it is critical for parents to be involved in helping their daughters make important decisions when pregnant and that parents should know when their daughters undergo surgery. Based on evidence from other states, proponents believe teenage abortion rates will go down if this is passed.
Opponents: Planned Parenthood and ACLU
Opponents’ point of view: The proposed amendment will limit the fundamental right to privacy. They believe notification laws postpone medical care and increase risk to patients. In addition, the opponents believe the ballot language is misleading to voters.
Your Vote: If you support this issue being added to the Florida Constitution as an amendment, vote yes. If you would like to keep this out of Florida’s Constitution, vote no.
Editorial #2
October 1, 2004 | 7 Comments
This post was written by guest author, Andy Gately.
I admit that the intro to my article made fun of Bush’s inarticulation, but my article focused on his policies. But you gotta admit, its pretty embarrasing having a president who builds up our nuclear program, but can’t pronounce “nuclear.”
To begin with, all that crap on the Bush website about saving the environment is just talk, sure he “supports those proposals,” that doesn’t mean he’s gonna make it happen. That’s a token gesture if there ever was one, and only lip service to placate the environmentalists, most of which see right through it. Why is Bush drilling all over the god damn place if he’s such a fan of renewable energy and conservation? He talks a lot of game, but his actions reveal his real allegiances — to the companies that financed his campaign: big oil and multinational corporations.
Your response to my referring to the average American as politically stupid and easily misled completely missed the point. Clearly, Americans have proven that they can be manipulated by their leaders since the public has just backed a completely unjustified war. How can you in good conscience vote to send more people our age to die in a country that (a) has never attacked us, (b) has never threatened to attack us, (c) is one of at least a half dozen hot spots around the world in which there are human rights abuses, and yet we are ignoring those because they are of no strategic interest, and (d) had no physical evidence of WMD’s, before OR after our invasion. The whole pre-emptive strike is the most ludicrous concept ever. If our inspectors had found evidence of nuclear weapons, MAYBE we could then send in troops, but when they didn’t find shit, we’re like “Too bad, we’re still gonna come kick your ass. Fuck the rest of the world’s protests.” That’s the basic message we sent — if you disagree with us, tough shit, cause we can bomb whoever we want, with our without global consensus. The president even sabotaged the whole inspection thing — he sent in a few CIA agents DISGUISED as weapons inspectors to spy on the Iraqis. Way to make a sham of the whole peace process, chief.
The old line about how Saddam is evil and had to removed is a bullshit argument. Of course Saddam’s evil, but it is documented and commonly known that we tolerated his massacres of the Kurds as long as he continued to facilitate our access to oil in the region. It was ONLY once he decided to invade Kuwait that we said “enough already.” But it wasn’t to protect the Kuwaiti people, oh no, we just used that as the perfect excuse to get into Kuwait and set up air bases there to further extend our imperial stretch into the Middle East and our leverage over oil prices. Bush senior clearly didn’t give a shit about the people there, because he promised the Iraqi people military support if they rose up and fought Saddam, then once Saddam retreated out of Kuwait, he REFUSED to go after him and left Saddam to murder all the Iraqi people we encouraged to resist. That’s the kind of people we’ve got leading us. Liars who seize any opportunity to further ensure “American” interests.
Here’s another fun fact. Did you know that immediately after Saddam heard that the US was pissed off about his invading Kuwait, he offered to settle the dispute with the US through peaceful negotiations, and made MULTIPLE peace offerings, even offering to retreat back into Iraq? And what did Bush Sr. do? He rejected them all flat out, saying “we won’t negotiate.” Why would he do this? Because he used the invasion, like I said, as an excuse to get his greedy little hands further into the Middle East. Then, to top it off he lied to the American people and said “I went to war as a last resort, only after all chances at diplomatic resolution repeatedly failed.” Sounds familiar. What a fucking liar. And the average American bought it completely, despite the fact that, if they bother to get their info from something other than the Bush-worshipping Fox network, they could learn the truth for themselves, from plenty of published sources. Hence, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IS STUPID. Or, they just don’t care unless it directly affects them. Probably a combination.
9/11 was Bush Jr’s excuse to go back to the Middle East under the bullshit allegations that Saddam was somehow connected to Bin Laden. Are you beginning to see a family pattern here? This intelligence claim came from ONE IRAQI INFORMANT, as the 9/11 commission discovered. That is clearly not enough evidence to send a country to war. And yet we did. And I cannot understand how you think it was a good idea for Bush to ignore the U.N.’s protests. What the fuck good is a global peace organization when we can just circumvent it anytime we damn well please? Explain that to me, please. We act like we’re the God of this planet.
Here’s another idea — hypothetically, even if Iraq did have nukes, who the fuck are we to say they can’t? They didn’t threaten us, we shouldn’t get in their affairs. What, we can have nukes but no one else can? Why? And if we are deciding to play global police, then we should LISTEN TO THE REST OF THE WORLD when they disagree. But our administration is too self-righteous to back down or admit they’re wrong. I’m not saying previous presidents were much better, I’m saying the whole system is corrupt. Consider that India and Pakistan have nukes, and we’re not trying to take those away. They’re unstable too. Why all the double-standards? If you can offer some insight, Shannon, by all means, enlighten me.
You ended stating “And finally, you said that ‘there are intelligent responses to provocative material, and then there is Shannon’s response.’ If you are going to say that, at least get it right. There was only one response besides mine, so there was ‘an intelligent response’ not ‘responses.’ ”
Wow. I didn’t say there are intelligent responses to “my article,” I said “there are intelligent response to provocative material,” meaning not just mine, ALL material out there. I would think that was obvious. Read carefully first so your quips at least make sense.
My Response
October 1, 2004 | 0 Comments
This post was written by guest author, Shannon.
Okay, first of all, I wrote that it was not meant to be a personal attack because it was intended to focus on the content of your article, and not of you as a person. So, in that respect, perhaps you are correct in that my last comment was personal. However, let’s just talk about your absurd, ridiculous allegations…
First of all, you stated that I accused you of “personally attack[ing] the president as a person,” which I did not. I said you were mudslinging, which is not at all the same thing. The first would be attacking him, and the second, to quote from Merriam-Webster.com “the use offensive epithets and invective especially against a political opponent.” This does not necessarily mean against the person, but rather against his policies and so forth. Either way, before you even begin your article, you’ve already done both. To quote from you, “Then again, if you’re my next subject, you can’t spell a lot of things. My teacher asked us to write about what pisses us off lately, and that, just like my subject, was a no-brainer: GEORGE W BUSH, commander-in-thief.” If that is not a personal attack against the president as a person, then I would like to know what is.
My first problem with your article was your statement that “the average person’s knowledge of world affairs began with the largely ignorant response to September 11th, which was then easily manipulated through patriotic public statements from our jingoistic president into a war in Iraq….” That is a huge, horrible accusation. Not only did you attack citizen’s knowledge of politics and current events, but then you continue to attack them regarding their ability to think for themselves by implying that they are so stupid they can be easily persuaded. Now, I realize that there is a large portion of U.S. citizens that do not pay attention to current events, but, and perhaps I am thinking optimistically here, I believe that the average person can properly analyze information and decide their own opinion on the issue. Here’s a funny thought…maybe they actually supported the president into a war in Iraq?!
Next, you alluded to Clinton’s presidency in comparison to Bush’s, as though sexual relations in the oval office were of equal value to trying to defend the nation and the world from weapons of mass destruction. True, none have been found, but that doesn’t mean that there weren’t, or that the threat wasn’t there. According to you, we apparently should have just sat around until we found out, after they starting using them, that there actually were weapons there. Furthermore, Bush’s action resulted in the capturing of dictator Sadam Hussein. I don’t think that anything of equal comparison resulted from Clinton’s inappropriate actions.
In addition, you accused Bush’s cutting of research into renewable energy and stated that his reason for doing so “all to please his rich big business constituents, as he continues to act as a lapdog for his campaign contributors, including more oil company donations than any other president in history.” I could go off into a tirade about Clinton’s campaign donations, since you think he is relevant in discussing this upcoming election, but I won’t. I will, however, suggest that his decision had more to do with his party’s political ideas rather than the reason you state. As Republicans traditionally prefer a smaller national government, they prefer to limit their spending to other things, which justifies his money spent on the military. Even so, you did not back up your comment, so I don’t know what you are referring to, and therefore can not properly defend it. However, according to the GOP’s website, “One part of the President’s Six Point Plan for the Economy is to pass a comprehensive national energy plan. The President looks forward to working with Congress to pass an energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and modernize our antiquated electricity delivery system… Businesses depend on affordable and reliable energy supplies. Energy shortages, price spikes, and blackouts disrupt the economy and discourage businesses from planning with confidence and adding new workers. President Bush has proposed a comprehensive national energy plan to upgrade the Nation’s electrical grid, promote energy efficiency, increase domestic energy production, and provide enhanced conservation efforts, all while protecting the environment. It’s time for Congress to finish its work and pass legislation based on the President’s energy plan.” Interesting, that sounds like the opposite of what you said.
Next, let’s discuss your little conversation that is supposedly representative of the “typical opinion.” You assert that the major opinion is that people thing we were attacked because Bin Laden and his country hate “freedom.” Are you kidding me? I’m not sure where you got that from that idea from. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know anyone who goes around believing every thing that the president says, or uses phrases like “just like the president says.” However, I think that it is more correct to say that a typical opinion is that the “they” you referred to have a hatred for the American ways and lifestyles, and not “freedom”. Of course, you say that that is “the single most destructive lie perpetuated by the Bush administration.” Furthermore, you also said that “often now days, even considering the enemy’s perspective means you’re a terrorist sympathizer who’s belittling the deaths of the WTC occupants.” I don’t think that people who are considering the enemy’s perspective are terrorists sympathizers, and I also don’t know anyone who does think that. I believe that what America stands for, and what we do in our relations with other countries, go hand in hand, and can’t really be separated. Past presidents of both parties have been involved in other’s countries for most of our national history, and I think most people believe that our past actions were related to 9-11. However, because America has been involved in other countries’ affairs long before the Bush administration, I don’t think the reasons they attacked us have any relevance to this election. Still, you claim that once we “demand leadership change and transparent government that terrorists acts will cease.” Dream on. And I thought I was the optimist.
Next, you said, “I guess it’s ok if Bush attempts to get every other country in the U.N. to back him, then only a couple do but goes ahead anyway, but Kerry, who actually has combat experience (however dubious, its more than Bush can say), doesn’t have the right to send troops… Talk about flip flopping.” I never said anything about either, so it’s interesting that you accused me of flip flopping. Yes, I do think that it’s okay that Bush went ahead into the way without UN support, but I also think that Kerry has the right to send troops as well. My comment was based on the idea that electing Kerry will equal automatic involvement of allies, which is ridiculous, because as I said, Bush attempted that and our allies did not want to be involved. So, Kerry can, by all means, send troops, and I never said otherwise. Also, I can’t find anywhere in my response where I supported the opposite of “leav[ing] the rest of the world alone.”
In addition, you also claimed that I was supportive of the war in Iraq, which I also cannot find any mention of in my comment. That is not to say that I do not support it, in some ways, but I never said that. Also, who do you think you are with your comment “it’s easy to support a war on foreign soil when you’re a girl in college with the absolute least chance of being drafted, should Bush reintroduce the draft next term. But do you believe in this war enough to go fight for it… ‘Cause if not, you shouldn’t support it.” According to you, I can’t support a war just because I’m not capable of fighting in it. First of all, no one would want me to be fighting in the war, because I’m sure I would be more of a burden than a help. But to say that you have to be eligible to do the actual fighting in a war in order to support it is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. There’s an example of your “blind bias and hatred” right there.
And finally, you said that “there are intelligent responses to provocative material, and then there is Shannon’s response.” If you are going to say that, at least get it right. There was only one response besides mine, so there was “an intelligent response” not “responses.”