I was stuck behind a Ford truck today. It had a curious bumper sticker that read:

"If it smells like fish eat it." 
-Jim's Restaurant

This bugged the crap out of me.

A) It's a sentence fragment. It's half of a conditional statement. "If p, then q," but there's no "q," u c?

My sincerest apologies. I shouldn't have done that.

B) Fish eat worms and crickets, which is kinda gross. Why would a restaurant want to associate itself with the smell of grubby invertebrates? Not a good business model, in my opinion.

Maybe it was half of some some hilarious inside joke that they only told at Jim's Restaurant. So, like, if you show up and ask "Hey, you guys, why do your advertisements say 'if it smells like fish eat it?'" then the patrons, without missing a beat, would reply "then we also would eat it because we are like fish in many respects! Ha ha ha!" or whatever the punchline is (I can't think of a good one; I'm no good with jokes.)

Then I realized: vaginas. It was a pun about vaginal odor and seafood. What they meant to say was:

"If it smells like fish, eat it." 
(I enboldened the comma, but I don't think it shows up very well)

Except the pun was only about vaginas and not about fish, because as everybody knows, the rule for fish is that if the fish smells likes fish, do not to eat or buy it. So, Jim's Restaurant wants to be associated with oral sex, not worms and grubs and baby squids. Or rather, Jim's Restaurant wants to be associated with gross old men who make unfunny one-liners about cunnilingus while in polite company (traffic). That's their "money demographic," as the executives say.

Let this be a lesson to you. Remember to always punctuate your stupid jokes before putting them on bumper stickers. That way it won't take me five minutes of puzzlement to decide I hate you.

Do you remember the Dave Chappelle show? Oh, well it was this show where a black dude did comedy skits. It was very successful, for cable. The odd thing was that Dave Chappelle never did promos for his own show. I surmise (and this is the first of many surmissions) that he refused on the grounds that it was gay. However, the promotion must go on, so jump cut to me two or three years ago, sitting on a couch, with a very queer look on my face having just heard the phrase "Stay tuned to see who Dave busts on," after a forgettable episode of South Park.

 "Busts on?" Mary full of Joseph, that's a stupid thing! It wasn't even a celebrity-insult based show. Did they think it sounded hip and urban? Obviously, the price for Mr. Chappelle's never having to do any advertising was for him to have no say in the advertising that resulted. Case in point. No way anybody with an ounce of coolness came up with that crap.

So who did come up with it? I dont know, but for the purposes of this essay I'm going to call him Greg Mitchels. Greg Mitchels was probably some guy new to the promotions department trying to make a name for himself when a juicy opportunity landed on his desk. He thought "Hey! Black! I know: 'busts on.' That was on one of our demographic lists of popular things black people say. Itll go great with our new 'in your face' type font and 'in your face' deep-voiced announcer." It probably was on a list, too.  I mean, the last time I remember hearing it was back in '93, and even then it wasn't that cool, but it has likely survived amoung black posers who overcompensate for their own nerdiness by excessive use of slang or amoung people who get their slang from MTV, i.e. "crunk*" Dumb.

But, Chapelle's Show was hit. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Greg Mitchels was a genius. They heaped on the accolades and promotions. He got a raise and a company car. He'd go down to the cafeteria and say "Hello, table full of secretaries. I came up with 'busts on.' Want to give me a BJ, or series of BJs since there are so many of you?" and they'd be all "Do we ever! (BJ noises)" He'd strut down the hallways of Comedy Central and hear the fervent whispers of young interns saying "OMG! That's Greg 'Busts On' Mitchels, the legend himself!"

Then the big bosses came to Greg and said, "We've got a new, fresh-faced 40-year-old man we've just signed. He's going to be the next Dave Chapelle, but Hispanic and more accessible to white people. We need you to make him a star. Can you do it? Can you repeat a miracle?" and Greg said "Relax. Who do you think you're talking to? It's 'Busts On' here. I got it in the bank."

So Greg went to Carlos and said, "Hey, I have some notes for you." To which Carlos replied "Fuck off, whitey." and Greg fucked off because his feelings were very hurt. But then one of Carlos' friends said "Do you know who you just insulted? That was Greg 'Busts On' Mitchels. He's the guy who made Dave Chappelle into what he is today!"

Carlos immediately apologized and welcomed Greg's suggestions, like:

"You know what you should do? You should take that racially charged humor of yours and do it on the show, except take out any the insight and edge you might have. Then, if people criticize you for it, you can just call them craven PC pussies, and you'll look hardcore and rebellious. And since you're making fun of all races and sexualities, you're an 'equal opportunity offender!' Chortle! You can use that if you want."

 "Be sure to put in jokes about the Founding Fathers that everybody else was doing in 1995. Political humor is very big right now."

 "Make fun of rappers like Dave did. You want people to think youre like Dave, dont you?"

 "Sure! The retard noise you do is definitely a catchphrase. 'Dee dee deeee.' That's gonna catch on like briskets. Use it and use it often."

 "Spic it up. That way everybody will know that you embrace your own culture."

"Clever? Why would you want to be that?"

 "Do a lot of commercials where you look angry at minorities and like you're going to swear at them. The common man!"

"Shout more."

 
Carlos listened, and so the Carlos Mencia show sucks. Balls. Hard. And with gusto.

*Which they totally stole from Conan O'Brien! O'Brien is a true innovator in hip hop culture and I will not rest until he gets his "mad propers."

The coolest thing about Jesus was that he could see the future. The ancient term for this is "seer" which is derived from the English infinitive "to see" and means "one who sees." It used to be "seeer" but that was dumb. I would say he was a "looker," but as far as I can tell he only ever had one bath during his entire life, and he needed John* to help him with that (Jesus was afraid of any body of water that came over his ankles). Nor could he have been very muscular or his own body weight would have torn the nails out through his hands and he'd have fallen off the cross. Still, he could see the future, which counts for a lot.

Specifically, he predicted the advent of total douchbags:

"Not all who sound religious are godly people. They may refer to me as 'Lord,' but still won't get into heaven. For the decisive question is whether they obey my Father in heaven. At the Judgment many will tell me, 'Lord, Lord, we told others about you and used your name to cast out demons and do many other great miracles.' But I will reply, 'You have never been mine. Go away for your deeds are evil.'" (Matthew 7:21-23)

That means these guys are going to Hell:

Before they were ever born, Jesus knew they would suck. Awesome. These guys run around saying "Jesus meant this," or "Jesus hates queers," and Jesus knew all the time what they'd be doing and prepared for them a fiery little surprise. None of these people saying what Christ wants know Jesus at all. So, I'm going to tell you what he really, really meant, because I would somehow know better than anybody else for some reason.

Guess who else is going to Hell. According to Jesus, just about everybody. Not that he was a doom-and-gloom, fire-and-brimstone kind of savior, but he outlined some pretty cool rules about how not to be an asshole, and now his followers break them. Par exemple:

 "Take care! Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired, for then you will lose the reward from your father in heaven. When you give a gift to a beggar, don't shout about it as the hypocrites do -- blowing trumpets in the temples and the streets to call attention to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you in all earnestness they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you do a kindness, do it secretly -- don't tell your your left hand what your right hand is doing. And your father who knows all secrets will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-4)

That's Hollywood in the lake of fire, but we already knew that was going to happen. He continues:

"And now about prayer. When you pray, dont be like the hypocrites who pretend piety by praying publicly on street corners and in the temples where everyone can see them. Truly that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, all alone, and shut the door behind you and pray to your Father secretly, and your Father who knows your secrets, will reward you.
            "Don't recite the same prayer over and over as the heathens do, who think prayers are answered only by repeating them again and again. Remember, your father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him!" (Matthew 6:5-8)

Going to church is a sin. Jesus said it as plain as Sarah, Plain and Tall...and as tall because he was on a mountain when he said it. Jesus wants you to pray the way other people masturbate: not out in the open, like some weirdo, but discretely and with the blinds closed, and not too often.

That last one is one of my favorites, because with just two simple paragraphs, He takes on politicians that go to church for PR, Catholics, those weird, swooning church-goers on TV and crazy homeless guys all in one go. And if you're a Catholic presidential candidate and you swoon and testify when you see a crazy homeless person preaching on a street corner, feel bad about it, go to confession and have to do ten Hail Mary's as penance then you're really fucked.

More good stuff:

"Again the law of Moses says, 'You shall not break your vows to God, but must fulfill them all.' But I say: Don't make any vows! And even to say, 'By the heavens!' is a sacred vow to God, for the heavens are God's throne. And if you say 'By the earth' it is a sacred vow to God, for the earth is his footstool. And don't swear 'By Jerusalem!' for Jerusalem is the capital of the great King. Don't even swear 'By my head!' for you can't turn one hair black or white. Say just a simple 'Yes, I will' or 'No, I won't.'  Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong." (Matthew 5:33-37)

Not that people say those types of things anymore, but it is still relevant. If you've ever testified in court (especially against me, and especially, especially if you were one of the people in that tour group) it's pitchforks for you, buddy. When you are sworn in, you're supposed to say "So help me God" which means you are making a sacred oath to the Three-in-One Sin Remover.

Know who else? This guy:

And not just him, all the other presidents, too. Even though the Presidential Oath of Office doesn't contain any direct mention of God, it's still a sacred oath because preisdents put their hands on the Bible, thereby asking God to witness their oaths and make them stronger. To put your hand on a Bible and swear an oath is to directly contravene the words inside that Bible. It's blasphemy, and not just any ol' blasphemy: its blasphemy with props...the worst kind.

I don't know about congressmen and senators, though. I think their swearing in goes on behind closed doors, which I guess means it could be even worse: there may be goats involved. 

Of course, Jesus sometimes got a bit weird:

"Don't criticize, and then you won't be criticized. For others will treat you as you treat them. And why worry about a speck in the eye of a brother when you have a board in your own? Should you say, 'Friend let me help you get that speck out of your eye,' when you can't even see because of the board in your own? Hypocrite! First get rid of the board. Then you can see to help your brother." Matthew (7:1-5)

I get what he's saying there, but dude, the whole point of an analogy is to relate one experience to one that is more commonly known so that the listener can say "Oh, now I understand. This new thing is like that other thing." But a board in the eye? When has that ever happened to anybody in the history of things happening to people?

Who in Galilee said, "Yes, of course! That's like that time I was working down mill and one of the crossbeams when out of skew on the treadle and a long wooden plank flew across the room and got caught in my eye. Oh, it was maddening! It was stuck right underneath the lid and I could feel it under there all day long. I tried to get it out with my finger, but I was just making it worse and my eye got all red and swollen. Luckily, it came out in my sleep. So when Jesus here says we should get the boards out of our eyes, I know just what he means." 

When you use a metaphor, you're supposed to make it universal. He should have said something like "In the event of an emergency, secure your own oxygen mask before turning to help your companion. Except, you know, with souls. How can you criticize your brother for a slight cough when you're vomiting blood and dying of smoke inhalation in a pressurized environment? Hypocrite! Put the tray table of your soul up, for it is it not said in the Scriptures that he who does not will smack his face during turbulence and create extra work for the flight staff after landing? And shut that baby up!"

Have you ever seen those weird white people that get on TV and complain about vast conspiracies to persecute Christians and honest Christian values? They're usually grumpy old men, but sometimes you see a dumpy, middle-aged woman being a total bitch. It's mostly nonsense, but being victims makes them feel special, so even though (white) Christians tend to go to the best schools, own homes, have fine cars and clothes and computers, are very well represented in government and live in places where the police actually show up when called, they like to believe they're a persecuted and downtrodden people on the verge of extinction. Anyway, those guys say Hollywood film makers (Jews) and liberal activists in Washington (Homosexuals) are evil ne'er-do-wells out to destroy Christianity and they're fed up with it and good Christians should do something to stop them.

Nope!

"When you are reviled and persecuted and lied about because you are my followers-wonderful! Be happy about! Be very glad! For a tremendous reward awaits you up in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted too." (Matthew 5:11-12)

And:

"The law of Moses says, 'If a man gouges out another's eye, he must pay with his own eye. If a tooth gets knocked out, know out the tooth of the man who did it' But I say: Dont resist violence! If you are slapped on one cheek, turn the other too. If you are ordered to court, and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat too. If the military demand that you carry their gear for a mile, carry it two. Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow." (Matthew 6:38-42)

So, there you have it. A good Christian never goes to church or prays in public, never swears to God, never recites prayers over and over, never makes a big deal about the good things he or she does, and never complains about being persecuted or offers any resistance whatsoever. Now, how many Christian leaders can you say are like that?  

Ok, sex.  I can't call it "hawt" bible action if I don't give you some flimsy pretext on which to base your already promiscuous behaviour, so here's this:

"But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

And since God loves all women (and men!), and never marries the chicks he knocks up, you go ahead too. The more people you love, in the biblical sense, the closer you are to being perfect as God is perfect. It's a bit of a stretch, I'll admit, but when you appear before St. Peter, just say you were confused. Also, slyly allude to that time Jesus had been captured by the Pharisees and Peter thrice denied he ever even knew Jesus right when Jesus needed him most*. Peter will probably get a bit embarrassed and let you in.

(All quotations taken from the one true Bible: the New Catholic Living Bible in English. They are all also from the book of Matthew, chapters 5-7, "The Sermon on the Mount," or "The Amazing 8-minute Speech That Lasted Three Chapters")

*And then Peter got to be the first Pope! That part has always bothered me. I see how loyalty gets rewarded round here. Jesus passed over all the other apostles and rewarded the cowardly Peter whose eternal faith depended on which way the wind the wind was blowing. What, were John and James, the fucking Sons of fucking Thunder, not good enough? Or what about the apostle Andrew, Peter's (also called Simon's) brother? He kept his head down and his nose clean the whole time and what does he get? One line! An apostle of Christ our Lord, the savior of all mankind, and his entire legacy is "There's a youngster here with five barley loaves and a couple of fish..." You'd think Peter would be able to use his clout as first Pope and Heaven's official greeter to get his baby brother a bigger role. What a dick.

First, we tell everybody to get out of Israel, then drop a nuke straight on Jerusalem and say, "There. Now nobody gets it! If you want to wait around for ten thousand years, be our guests." Then we call them all homos so that they'll feel bad about themselves and stop messing around. World Peace.

Plus, I heard from one of those crazy Christians that like one of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the armies of Israel rise up and defeat all the Arabs, so that's why the West is always supporting Israel: so Jesus will come back. So, a nuke'll stop all that falderal, too. No more Israel, no more Apocalypse.

I hate the Apocalyspe.

There were a few blogs about circumcision going around the other day, and I was going to copy them...but with a twist! I was going to do a blog about female circumcision in a "circumcised females vs. uncircumcised females: which do you prefer?" kind of style. You know, really exploring both sides of the issue.

I wanted to include nasty pictures of circumcised vaginas, to have a comic disparity between the geniality of my tone and ugliness of the real issue, so I went googling. I found some. They're pretty gross, but probably nothing you couldn't handle. See, what they do is scoop out all the fun parts, then sew it up tight, leaving like this little hole for peeing and sexual business. One site said something like "the stitching enhances pleasure..." fuck, what was it. Hold on.

Oh, here it is: "The purpose of mutilation is to preserve a girl's virginity for marriage. The vaginal stitching up provides enhanced pleasure for men only. An uncircumsized woman is considered dirty, oversexed and unmarriageable." 

That reminded me of how oftentimes when a mother is giving birth, her vagina is too small, or the baby has this really giant head, and the doctors take a pair of scissors or something and extend the vagina aperture by cutting it. Longways, I think, but maybe they cut vagainas sideways, too; I'm no doctor. After the birth, the doctors sew everything back together and make you shine a sun lamp on your privates for a few weeks to heal everything up.

But sometimes, when they're sewing the coochie back together, the husband asks the doctor "How about an extra stitch for daddy?" so that the vagina will be tighter, which is kind of crass, but also kind of funny, so I was going to put that in there in context with the female circumcision, which involves quite a lot of stitches. See?

It was all going to be in very poor taste, I assure you, making up with shock value what I lack in talent. On the other hand, I'm not exactly the mayor of Idea City over here, so I'm not in a position to turn down any random idea that passes through my head.

So, I was cruising around looking for really great circumcision pics, when I saw a link for "vaginal tumors." I clicked on it, let out a high -pitched "eeeewwwwwwwwww!," and ran away from my computer. I thought my stomach was safe, I thought I knew the score, but this is gross stuff all too gross and gross. If you ever wondered were my line was, it's pussy tumors. Damn near puked over everything I own.

All those huge, mysterious lumps and dark squiggly bits. So nasty. Sometimes tumors have hair and teeth growing in them. Ugh.

Anyway, I'm going to go read my Bible and see if there is anymore Good Blogs in there. Some nice Christian blogs are what we need around here.

When I was but a wee'un learning about civics, or possibly Grecian history, an unremembered teacher made several distinctions between such terms as "nation," state," "nation-state" and "city-state." As a consequence, I become unreasonably enraged when the terms are used interchangeably, as often happens on shout-your-head-off television news programs. Accuracy comes before all!

Even though I am more than confident that my discerning readership is well acquainted with these terms and more, a bit of a refresher wouldn't hurt. A state is a geographically defined set of boundaries, the interior of which governed in some way by a political process of some sort. It's some land inside some borders that has a set of laws. Also, it's sovereign; that's important.

A nation is people; not only people, but people that all are on the same page which regard to their beliefs or culture. Nations can exist independent of states, as in the cases of the Cherokees, the Jews before Israel happened, and the Palestinians after Israel happened.

Nation-states are where the two happen to coincide: people with the same culture living in the same territory with their own laws. City-states aren't around much anymore. They're like nation-states, but smaller and gay. They had their heyday back when people still gave a shit about theatre and armies pranced around in pleated leather skirts. On the other hand, Vatican City is basically a city-state and it doesnt seem to be going anywhere. It's up to you whether or not to be happy about that.

Does Vatican City have a mayor? (Note to self: Come back to this. Or don't, you lazy Tijuana donkey act.)

(Note to self: I'm sleeping with your boyfriend.)

So, if you break down the name "United States" you'll see that it is a union or alliance of sovereign states that have banded together to fight tyranny and grow corn and read magazines and whatever else it is that people do in America, as specified in the Constitution. Drink beer? When The United States of America calls itself itself, it's being precisely accurate.

Or is it not?

Contrary to popular belief, La Guerre Civile was not about slavery. While slavery was certainly the gay marriage of its day, Lincoln only made it a war issue a year after the war started, and that was just so he could pretend the Civil War had a moral justification, which kept the bleeding-heart Brits and swishy-pants French from supporting the Suuth¹. Or the South; either one. The Civil War was really about whether or not states had the right to secede from the union.

Up until that time the issue was an academic curiosity: both sides had their opinions, but as long as it remained untested, there wouldnt be any negative consequences for either side. There were a few State's Rights vs. Federal Power flare-ups before "The Big Mother Blowout" as historians jokingly refer to the Civil War (I dont get it, myself), but nothing anybody couldn't handle.

One such incident was the "nullification crisis" of '32 (18). Andrew Jackson passed a law² raising tariffs to protect Northern industry as a "fuck you" to the British for beating America in the War of 1812, the least imaginatively named of all the wars in American History³. It was called the "Tariff of Abominations," but this was before marketing was invented, so this kind of poor choice of name was bound to occur. Nowadays we can pass laws that take away civil liberties and personal privacy and call it "patriotic," but those rascals in the 1800's still had a little something to learn about convincing people to do things that are bad for them.  

Now, if you know anything about South Carolina you know that they're some seceding motherfuckers. South Carolina is to secession as France is to surrender. It's probably because they're only South Carolina, and feel inferior. The South Carolinians took great umbrage to Jackson's high talking and mincing about like he's so great all the time, the bastard, so they passed a law saying they didn't have to obey any law the federal government passed if they didn't want to, so there. While they were at it, they also gave themselves the right to raise their own military, so you'd better not try anything, buddy.

Jackson was pissed. He was all, "Say what?!? Did you fuckers see what I did to the fucking Indians? Do you have any idea how many of those motherfuckers I killed? And they werent even doing anything! You dicks so fucking dead."

So he rolled up on them with a fleet of seven small ships and this one other really big ship and said, "Now how you gonna act, knaves?" and South Carolina went "Fuck, dude, we didnt know you meant it like that. Alright, we wont secedethis time."

Crisis avertedbut for how long?⁴ 
 
"To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation" -- Andrew Jackson (in one of his less profane moment.)

And thats true. But, what stupid, old biological-warfare-inventing Andrew Jackson didn't realize is that it works the other way, too: to say that no State may secede from the Union is to say there are no States.

Lemme drop a wiki-train on you:

A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern a society, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. Following Max Weber's influential definition, a state has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence'. Hence the state includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police. For theorists of international relations, recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international engagements, is key to the establishment of its sovereignty.

Is Nebraska recognized by Thailand? When has Georgia ever signed a treaty? Does Vermont have an army? Well, okay there's militias and shit, but it's all fat volunteers and half those State Defense Force guys don't even have guns, and theyre all subject to the federal military, and that hardly constitutes a monopoly. When was the last time Idaho entered into an international engagement?

The fact is that not one of the United States has sovereignty, and without sovereignty a state is just a province, like they have in Canada. Not one has the exclusive right to wield supreme political authority. I mean, you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause watery tart threw a sword at you. Federal authority trumps state authority every time. I recognize that these so-called "states" have a certain amount of autonomy, but I defy you to name me one leading expert who can conclusively prove that "autonomy" is spelled the same as "sovereignty." States Rights has been dying since the Civil War, and only exists today out of sufferance and a polite sense of obligation. Basically, States Rights is your grandmother; sure, you visit and say you love her, but really she smells bad and has gross candies in her purse.

And you know what else died in the Civil War? "United." Logically, one would think that if its your choice to join the United States, that it is also your choice to leave the United States, and you can do so whenever you want, like a job or a marriage. However, the North rather bloodily proved that to be incorrect on the legal basis of "we have the guns, so youd better do what we say." I forget the Latin term for it. "United" doesnt work, because from that point, its not a willing alliance. The whole "we shall act together as one" thing implies a constant choice to continue doing so. Now, it's more of a "owing to certain circumstances, we have to be the same thing, so we might as well get used to it" type deal, and it's lost some of the magic, like working some crap job because you're in debt, or getting married and having a kid.

If you take the "United States" out of it, the only noun youre left with is "America," and while many people refer to the USA as America, its not quite totally accurate, is it? See, "America" isnt the name of the country; its the name of the continent. When world-wide celebrity Amerigo Vespucci, known throughout Europe for his trip-hop dance styles, satiric insight, and lavish parties, decided that the newly discovered New World should be named after him, everybody was all "Of course! What a great idea! Only you could have come up with that one, Amerigo. You truly are Italy's sweetheart." The name stuck. Now everybody for the rest of time will know Amerigo Vespucci was the straight-up shit.

My comical interpretation of history aside (or in full consideration), the point is that America isnt the name of the county. It's "The United States of America" which, in that context, means "the union of states in that place America," not "these allied states make up and form the country America." Technically, everybody from Canada to Argentina⁵ is an "American" by the strictest definition of the word, which, as we all know, is the very best kind of definition.

So, after removing everything that isn't accurate, we're left with "The of," which isn't much of a name for anything. Putting "the" in front of your name is the height of obnoxious pretension, anyway, so we can ditch that. What if other countries started doing that?

"Representatives from The Moldova and The Spain were summoned before the UN today to defend their recent embrace of high-powered catapult travel technology. Highlighting its lower costs and environmental benefits, Ambassador Olaf of The Moldova pleaded with the UN to give the new technology time to work out its kinks, but was drowned out by a booing crowd of grieving widows and street cleaners from around the globe. The two ambassadors appeared flummoxed before making an abrupt escape." -AP

Clearly, that malarkey is not going to pass muster. "The Spain" sounds like an ailment old people get. And "Of?" Get fucking serious.

Frankly, America never even had a proper name to begin with, just a short description of its political structure and location, nothing cool like "Senegal" or "Bangladesh." My point is this: we need a new name, and I'm putting it to you to come up with one. I'm partial to "Humbletania" myself, but even I can see that's stupid. The one who comes up with the best name gets a free T-shirt and a firm sense of personal self-satisfaction.

¹ Oh, you didnt know about the Suuth? Yes, they were there, but were kept out of the correctly-spelled history books, because of blatant grammaticism.
² Actually, it was J.Q. Adams who passed it, but Jackson tricked him into it.
³ I wont tell you what the British call it; your feelings would just get hurt.
⁴ 'Bout thirty years.
⁵ Or maybe its Chile (my globe sucks).

I learned an astounding thing. When people don't want their cats to have babies, they take the cat in to get fixed (so it works properly). They snip the balls off the males, and do junk up inside the females uteri. But sometimes, when they take the females to get fixed, the cats are already pregnant. So they scoop out the babies.

Kitten abortions!

They scoop out their widdle faces, wif their widdle kitten noses, and ickle half-formed kitten legs and kitten feet. Then the vets throw the spindly kitten fetus bodies in the now adorable and bloody garbage. 

It's the most...well, I don't really have an adjective for this. Just "kitten abortions." I'm singing a little song about it right now, but you can't hear.

My great chum just made his own book out of his old material. I think you should buy it. It's not expensive, plus he's like the best writer on Myspace! Well, second best, anyway. Maybe third or fourth or even fifth, but still pretty good, all things considered.

Ugly Bungalow
by Vincent Truman

Plus, if we can demonstrate a market for writing on myspace, something might happen for the better. It's important for the future.

(Myspace is eating my apostrophes. Bear with me.)

There sure are lots of angry people on TV. The catch phrase used to be "sex sells," but nowadays we live such pallid, grey little lives that we'll pay millions of dollars to anyone who can make us feel any emotion at all, even the negative stuff like hatred or anger. It's how Bill O'Reilly makes a living: he gets the liberals to hate the conservatives, the conservatives to hate the liberals, and then laughs all the way to the bank.

And by "laughs," I mean "makes obscene phone calls." Forgot about that little incident, didnt you? 

I only count myself a liberal because I don't care if two chicks or dudes get married to a turtle, or if 14-year-old Cindy Ragamuffin gets an abortion and doesn't tell her parents. None of that makes any difference in my own life, so why should I care? Furthermore, all your claptrap infringes on my own rights. I dont want to get gay married, but neither do I want you telling me I cant. Because fuck you, thats why. Stay out my business.

Speaking of fags, I called a woman "gay" the other day and she replied, "No, I'm a lesbian," like thats some great retort that justifies the purchase of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVD. I really must insist that the gay and lesbian community get together and create one blanket term to denote an attraction towards ones own sex. I can't be running around trying to remember different words all the time. So, I'm going to keep using gay and if you don't like it, come up with something better. Make it cool, too. Something on which everybody can agree, but can also hurt someone's feelings in a pinch. Hard consonants a plus, queers.

Unlike all my annoying liberal "Taxocrat" friends, I understand free trade economics and think its pretty nifty. None of the problems the people on TV yell about are really a big deal if you think about them, but then, you can't expect anybody to do that.

Por ejemplo, immigration. That border security thing is bull-honkey. The same people who are saying we need increase the security of our borders are the same people who were whining about Mexicans taking jobs before the attacks of September 11^th. They're just using the deaths of 3,000 people as an excuse to get national attention without everybody calling them a racist, which they basically are. And if you're an American worried about an uneducated, non-English-speaking immigrant taking your job, you probably aren't in a real secure position in the first place. I don't have a lot of sympathy for you, nor a great estimation of your ability to outline a cogent argument in your defense. The real market value for any good or service is whatever the two interested parties agree. If the Mexican is willing to do your shitty job for half the money, and the employer is willing to purchase that labor at that price, then that is what the shitty job is worth.  

In market-oriented societies, wages will always tend to reflect productivity. If a Mexican takes your job (for much less money), then that means you've been enjoying an artificially protected wage, whether by tariffs, government subsidies, or simple physical geography. Once that protection is removed, the real value of the labour emerges, and you need to choose whether you want to keep doing your shitty job at the new price, or switch to a different shitty one.

Furthermore, craphead, I'll remind you that it is your Republican buddies in Congress who passed NAFTA and signed all those trade agreements with India and the Philippines. Even though they get on TV and act like they're Champions of the Common Man and Galaga, they're the ones taking away your precious, precious outdoor jobs. I guess the Republicans want the brown people to do all the work, but they don't want them here while they do it.

So, it's just racism. On the other hand, I don't see why the immigrants can't just take the damn citizenship test. I looked at an online version when I was a half-stoned high school student and let me tell you, that thing is fucking easy. It's all crap like, "How many branches of government do we have?" and "Who is your local congressman?" I'm sure there are Spanish-language versions hanging around. Just hand them out at the border with a small pamphlet that covers Americas ideals and history in five easy bullet points, and youll be done. Another problem solved by the HB Kid.

On to China! Zooming woosh!

Everybody is shouting that the power-hungry Chinamen will outstrip us and take all our money and our rights. TV-nistas would have you believe that China is some great big economic threat and that we are losing some world contest because their growth. Cowpie. The point of free trade is that everybody gets wealthier at the same time. That no-account, baby-raping fearmonger Jim Lehrer likes to run his mouth off about how America has this great big trade deficit with China (they get billions more money from us than we get from them), and we should be shitting our pants over it, but thats crap. While it is true that America has a huge trade deficit with China, the fact is that trade deficits, unlike budget deficits, are good.

If you give someone billions of dollars, where are they going to spend it? I'll tell you where, right back in the good ol US of A. Its not legal tender anywhere else. America only has a deficit in what is called the "Current Account" which measures goods and services. We spend billions more on goods and services from China than they buy from us. So, you need to ask yourself "Where is all that money going, if not back here?"

To answer that, you need to ask yourself another question (I know, it can be hard) which is "What are all the things one can do with money"? You can spend it, invest it, or burn it. While it is too much to hope for that theyre burning it (see Real Cash Balance Effect), we can assume that they must be doing one of the other things, and if they're not spending it, they must be investing it. Theyre investing in American companies, and purchasing American land and buildings and other fixed assets, all of which are measured in a thing called the "Capital Account" in which America has a giant surplus. In fact, the giant surplus in the Capital Account exactly matches the deficit in the Current Account. By definition, Current Account Capital account = zero. Trade is always balanced.

Still not convinced? How's this little factoid? America been running a general trade deficit with the entire world since the 1970s, and since that time we have had a period of unprecedented economic growth. If you look at it the right way, the trade deficit becomes a way to measure foreign confidence in the economy, and by that standard, America is kicking ass.

I assure you, Congress knows all this stuff, so why is everybody getting on TV and crying like little baby women? It's very strange because China is an issue where pussy-chested hippies and racist nationalists agree. The hippies hate all the human rights abuse and the nationalists fear that China will grow more powerful than the US. They really shouldn't be on the same side on this issue.

China will never be a threat to America as long as China keeps doing all the censoring and executing of political prisoners. You should fear China's power only when it stops the human rights abuse and gains it freedom. In freedom, ambition takes deepest root, and flowers to greatest effect. Nationalism is a great motivator for mass production and killing Jews, but the idea of substantial and lasting personal reward (i.e. hot bitches grinding your jock) is what spurs real innovation. The last thing China invented on its own was fireworks, and since then theyve had to copy everybody else's ideas and fuck like crazy just to stay in the game.

Think about it: when was the last time China was free? They had emperors and warlords for thousands of years and then fell right into, or under, socialist oligarchs. You dont get to be Bill Gates in that environment, as most of the benefits of your work go straight to your liege lords and over-comrades, and they only keep you around so long as you continue to perform and never give your opinion. Personal wealth for spindly nerds is denied.

But, sadly, the human rights hoopla is coming to an end. As foreign wealth goes into China, each Chinaman gets a piece of that. As the wealth spreads across the populace, the power of the average citizen will grow. I haven't fully completed my Nobel prize-winning study on the economics of power yet, but I'm fairly sure that more "power to tha peeps" means less "power to tha creeps." Antisocialist groups will be able to organize and demonstrate more easily.

Plus, there's a generational change coming up. That should help because all the revolutionary spies that infiltrated the Chinese government¹ will be promoted to positions better able to end all that "stickin' it to the downtrodden." Sure, it's shitty now, but pain and death is part of the process. We didn't have it so great when we started out, either. Take the long view here.

Of course, what you really need to fear about the Chinese is their secret plan to export all their babies to barren women in the West in order to dominate the future electorate so that, in 20 years time, they can formally elect their oppressive totalitarian regime into other countries and rule the world in a cunning and totally legal way. I'd watch out for that if I were you.

That's probably why Republicans are so opposed to abortion: we need all those unwanted white babies so that we can send them to China. We have a crushing adoption deficit² with China, people!

There, that's another world problem we have solved for all time by telling everybody to do nothing and let things take care of themselves. Let's see what else we can topple from our platform of apathy.

Oil: not only is it a precious and necessary commodity, but its also fun to say. Oil. Oil-oil-oil-olé. My local newscasters, whom I despise with a fiery passion rivaling the very passionate metaphor that I can't think of right now because of my hatred, keep running stories that invariably feature the phrase "prices at the pump". They think theyre soooo fcukiong² clever, dont they? You bland queermosexufags wouldn't know good alliteration if it kicked you in the nuts! Especially you, Todd McDermott! I hate you and your news hair. If I ever corner you in a dark alley, I'm taking a tire iron to your bleached teeth! You're no better than a comic stereotype!

Sorry. Its just that I hate them so much. Although, I do like this story I just found, tragic though it is. Now that's a headline. Also, this one.

Oh yeah. Oil. Its nothing to worry about. Prices are going to go down. Ever since "Rich As" Rockefeller founded the Standard Oil Company in 1870, the price of oil has been steadily declining. Here's an accurate, hand-drawn graph of the price of oil in real (adjusted for inflation) dollars.

What we are experiencing is just a little bump. Nothing more. Two factors are contributing to the recent rise in gas prices: Congress and the war.

Congress passed a bill a while ago that made it mandatory for gas companies to put a certain amount of ethanol into their gas mixtures. Ethanol is expensive like whoa. They did this because its supposedly better for the environment. It placates the hippies and Congress gets to go home and tell their constituency what a neat-o job they're doing. However, the real reason is that Congress is in the pocket of Big Corn, which spent millions on PR campaigns, bribes, and hippie rabble rousing⁴ to get this legislation passed. Corn farmers, who have long profited from government subsidies⁵, now have a license to print money. 

The war raises the price because it raises the cost of doing business. If some developer said to you "I say, fellow, prance into yon Fairy Meadows and fetch me thy precious goo," he might get a different response than if he said "Go into that ass-raped war-hole over there and extract a highly flammable substance from the ground using heavy machinery." You might charge a bit extra for that second one.

As for the war itself, I can't fix that. At least, I can't fix it without a team of crack commandos and a computer nerd in a wheelchair...and a sassy black kid with a heart of gold if you have one.

I must confess that there are certain aspects of this war I quite enjoy. I like all the rhetoric. I like it the way the conservative Republican Party wants to make America more conservative while at the same time trying to whip up popular support against an enemy whos even more conservative. I like it the way everybody is supposed to support the troops, because they're this great mass of blue collar heroes. Which isn't to suggest they aren't heroic, but I talk to these guys. They're just regular people, same as you and me. Some of them a proud to be ending evil oppression and spreading democracy across the world. Some of them are quite upset at how they're being exploited to further political agenda. Some of them like to say how many of dem ol' "sandniggers" they've killed, which is weird because Arabs are technically Caucasoid and more closely related to white people than niggers. They would be more accurately labeled "sandcrackers" which, oddly, makes me kind of hungry.

Hey, want to know why that last "the n-word^6" was offense and the first one wasnt? It's because I didnt use quotations. Just a little lesson about the power of punctuation from me to you.

However, I do have a solution for the gas problem. Oil companies used to have a national market. The gas in Oregon was the same as the gas in Georgia. Now, because of hippies, there are only regional markets, as states pass their own legislation about what can and cannot be put into gasoline. The manufacturer runs one formula for a little while, stop production, load a new formula, and start up the machines to run a second formula. They have to do this a lot. Then they have to organize which trucks go where, instead of just sending out whoevers ready. All that lost production and extra effort raises the price of gas. So, if you really want to write your congressman about something, write him and demand the government mandate a single national gasoline formula. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as there's only one, the price will drop.

So, I guess we're done. Bye y'all.

¹I sure hope I didnt just blow somebody's cover.

²Or "baby gap".

³This was a typo, but on further reflection I found it to be more descriptive. Just look at it. The hatred and contempt leaps off the screen and into your grill.

⁴I hope that one day the hippies will wake up and realize they are nothing more than the puppets of Big Business. Not because I hope they'll overcome, but because I want to see the looks on their faces. I bet they'll cry. 

⁵Like American sugar, automobiles, airlines and much, much more.

⁶Coming this fall to BET!