My DD214

Veterans should be a thing of the past.

A week of thanks. And fun.

This is the first in a series intended to go for a week. It will most likely wither and die before Thanksgving™ gets here, because I am a generally a bit of a bum. Anyway, here’s today’s “Thing I am thankful for”… Really it’s better if you watch this on weebls stuff, the loop effect really adds to it.

21 November, 2008 8:59 PM Posted by | Clay Recommends:, Hash is Awesome, I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, I love me, Just a thought.., LEGALIZE IT!!!, Movies, Plan for global domination | , | Leave a comment

Confusion about Myanmar, Burma

At this point, there’s really no excuse for why we haven’t sent a U.S. Armed Service Veteran to Myanmar/Burma to clean that situation up. Sylvester Stalone showed us all how diffuse THIS EXACT SITUATION when he made the last Rambo movie. I don’t know, it seems pretty clear to me what needs to be done – if there’s a bad man in Burma stealing children, torching monks and villages and just being an outright prick to humanity, send a bad-ass-mutha in there to clean that shit up!


10 May, 2008 12:11 PM Posted by | I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, Just a thought.., News, Politics and other hazardous materials | 1 Comment

An analysis of Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya in 1941 to a British soldier who had moved there to join the Allied Forces during the Second World War. He and his family returned to England when he was eight years old. He was raised in the Anglican Church of England, attended Anglican schools and was confirmed in the faith as well. He studied at Oxford University and graduated in 1962. After receiving his doctorate under Nobel Prize winning, Danish ethologist Niko Tinbergen he was Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley from 1967 to 1969. In 1970 he accepted a position as Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University as well as Fellow of New College. He is endowed with a multitude of awards and prizes for his work in the field of ethology and evolutionary biology as well as for his uncanny ability in making science and the understanding of scientific principles (especially Evolution and Natural Selection) accessible and available to the public.

Today, he is perhaps the world’s most prolific proponents for atheism, secularism, science and embracing evidence when rationalizing beliefs. He was named the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science in 1995 (a £1.5 million sterling award to Oxford University) and has been aptly called “Darwin’s Rottweiler” by Simonyi himself. Dawkins, since 1976, has been publishing books and papers and making public speeches that fly in the face of the Intelligent Design/Creationism movement and religious dogma. His books include The Selfish Gene (1976), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), The Extended Phenotype (1982), River Out of Eden (1995), Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), A Devil’s Chaplain (2003) and An Ancestor’s Tale (2004). His latest book, The God Delusion (2006), has served to stoke the flames in the ongoing controversy over religion and its interaction with society. Over the past decade he has become the Media’s Golden Cow with regards to coverage of the ongoing debate on religion, atheism, secularism and faith. He has appeared on countless television and radio programs in both Europe and America and has been translated into numerous languages. He still teaches at Oxford to this day.

Richard Dawkins main contribution to the body of scientific works with respect to Darwinism, Evolution and Natural Selection is the view that the unit of Natural Selection is the gene – a locatable region in the genomic sequence that makes all life on earth possible. This view is laboriously detailed in his first book The Selfish Gene. Here, Dawkins modifies the original idea (Evolution) that Charles Darwin invented in his 1859 book, the Origin of Species. The Darwinian view to Evolution is that the species is the unit of selection. Under Dawkins’ theory that the unit of individual selection with respect to Natural Selection, the mechanism of Evolution, the individual organism is a machine assembled by the genes in order to ensure the longevity of the genes – we are survival machines in which our genes reside safely, behind the curtain of our (and all other organisms’) physiology. According to Dawkins, the intent behind the book The Selfish Gene and the research Dawkins did for the book is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism. For most people, the stretch is not that there is a biological basis for selfishness, but that there is a biological basis and genetics behind altruism is a giant leap. Thus the controversy ensues, much like the kind Darwin endured, over whether or not humans receive an objective basis for morality from God. Dawkins, as well as many other accomplished unbelievers, is clearly a strong opponent to this view that a divine mandate is behind our will to be good and to do good. From this position, it is not hard to see why Dawkins has a robust philosophy and is often the subject of discussion on human morality. Dawkins, as well as others, has brought a staggering amount of evidence to the argument from Natural Selection that our genetic make-up has clear, relevant and reasonable influences to not just human behavior, but the entire, perceivable ethical system of the animal kingdom. Answers to why mice commit infanticide, why fratricide is found among baby cuckoos, why gazelles jump in front of a predator or why religion is common to all human culture lie in the interactions of the genes in our DNA. The opposite of this view of course is the argument from Intelligent Design that all of existence is brought into being by a Divine Creator (a la Aristotle’s Prime Mover).

There are two problems with this that both I and Dawkins are adamant in pointing out. One is that along with the assertion of a Unmoved Mover or Divine Creator comes the need to explain the existence of the Creator. Who or what is responsible for its creation/existence? Quickly, an infinite regress of creators is apparent and in need of justification. The justification, predictably, is that the Creator is beyond justification or human understanding. Two is that the “Theory” of Intelligent Design is worthless in practice. Intelligent Design cannot make predictions about our physical world. Intelligent Design’s only answer can be god did it, god’s doing it and god will do it. With Evolution via Natural Selection we have a usable theory on how organisms are affected by their environment and subsequently alter themselves in response to changes around them. I don’t intend for this paper to provide extensive proofs for the claims within – my references provide an embarrassment of riches if one needs evidence. That isn’t my scope nor do I have space and time for it, so I apologize if I seem dodgy of providing evidence.

Aside from the Selfish Gene Theory, the body of literature and various other media that surround it, Richard Dawkins has been extremely determined it providing evidence and logical arguments for the harms that holding beliefs without evidence to support them – religion – can have on individuals and societies. His latest book, The God Delusion, lays out a strong case against religion and is a full-frontal assault on any religion founded on false or otherwise un-provable tenets.

In the first part of the God Delusion, Dawkins draws into question the validity of the Theologian as a fixture in the University and as a field that one can claim expertise in. The analogy he uses in the book is how a reasonable person might regard a fairyologist in determining the exact shape and color of fairy wings. I find this reasoning both sound and valid and it is here that he displays one of his key arguments about atheism being a noble and intellectually fulfilling admission. The argument here is that everyone, everyone, everyone knows what it’s like to be an atheist. Because no single person can hold all possible beliefs at any given time that person can be said to be an atheist with respect to something else. Muslims are atheists with respect to Hinduism, Christians are atheists with respect to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and humorously but true enough the reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster). The atheist simply goes one-god-more in the list of human generated phenomena that he/she doesn’t believe in. After all, since the birth of written history humans have been drawing nearer and nearer to the true number of gods believed in by the majority. From polytheism to monotheism we can see a plausible convergence on the number zero. Dawkins also points out the inventor of this particular line of thinking to be Bertrand Russell in his parable of the Celestial Tea Pot orbiting the Sun betwixed Earth and Mars. The charge here is a fallacious argument theists have with atheists that the atheist cannot disprove a given gods’ existence. Russell’s answer to this is that there are myriad things that no one can disprove – such as an undetectable, infinitely small tea pot in an elliptical orbit around the Sun. The argument is simple, albeit a little cynical, but nonetheless relevant and effective. The God Delusion lays out case after case of counters to contemporary arguments faced by rationalists today.

Dawkins points out that every theology, whether it be mono or polytheism, is based on something called the god hypothesis. At it’s core, the god hypothesis is a proposition that is subject to all of the same scrutinizes as everything else in the universe. It is here that Dawkins calls into question the peculiar curtain of deep respect that religion is given by politicians, competing theologians of other religions and even scientists. Why is it when dealing in matters on human morality and certain topics in ethical discussion that a trump card is simply issued to the theist by default? Why don’t they have to support their claims, first off, and second, why are they given a free pass such as in recent court cases where religious groups in the U.S. were authorized to use otherwise illegal substances because they believed it is the only way to practice their religion? Especially considering that even with mounds of evidence stating that usage of the same hallucinogenic drug in cancer victims eases pain and has a sating effect on their symptoms. The answer is (Dawkins and I both borrow from Daniel Dennett) that belief, in itself, is a virtue more powerful to some than supporting claims with evidence. People believe in belief. It is here that Dawkins calls for a divergence in the paradigm which gives a free pass from reason to religion. Any claim – whether it be from the mouth of a scientist or theist – should be verifiable.

I agree strongly, as he points out, that religion is all too often given a free pass out of logical discourse. We can see other ways in which this is so such as the contentious objector in war-time. It is all too true, as he asserts, that all one need to do in order to avoid serving in war is merely claim to be a Quaker or a Muslim. It doesn’t matter how many papers or books you’ve written on the philosophical basis for Objective Morality. You don’t even need to have read the Holy Books you claim to follow religiously. All you must do is claim faith. In my own experience in the military I was truly awestricken, and indeed a little insulted, when a chaplain in the U.S. Navy tried to convert me to Christianity. Nevermind that I was wearing my countries U.S. Marine Corps uniform and leading men into certain death, but I also had to deal with the onslaught from the religious to save my soul. As if I didn’t have enough to worry about. The real problem here is not my feelings so much as the fact that U.S. Taxpayers are funding the Chaplain Corps to harass nonbelievers before embarking across enemy lines, as well as in peacetime. I, nor Dawkins I presume, can see any logical basis for the continued existence of a Chaplain in the Military other than that’s ‘the way it’s always been’. To that I’d say that is an argument once brandished by slave owners and witch-burners.

Another question he demands that we as a humanity own up to is our contrived dependence on the clergy to answer for us certain flavors of questions like why are we here, why is there pain and suffering, what happens when we die and where does life come from. Again, would you ask this of a fairyologist? Why have we not abandoned the notion that the clergy are the guardians of this type of information? Why is it that we would defer the opinion of a lawyer, doctor or scientist and rely on that of a priest when it comes to matters like these? The claim here is basically that religions haven’t gotten anything else right – geology, astronomy, physiology, etc. – so why should we trust it in matters of morality and the big questions?

Moving from direct conflicts with atheism and religion Dawkins briefly touches on the subject which he calls the ‘poverty of agnosticism’. He distinguishes between two types. One is the TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice. This form of agnosticism, the more understandable of the two, is basically an admission of doubt based on the notion there is a definite answer somewhere, but we lack the evidence, all the facts are not in or we haven’t looked at the evidence properly yet, etc. This type of agnosticism is understandable to subscribe to given these circumstances, but to Dawkins, the facts are in. Evolution is a fact just as much as any other empirically verifiable scientific theory or tenet. TAP would be a reasonable position for say, why the dinosaurs went extinct or why the Cambrian explosion? To these questions the jury is actually still out, but to the question of the existence of every single God every to grace the pantheon of human experience, the argument is over. For this reason Dr. Dawkins refuses to appear in any debates where the subject matter is Science Vs. Religion or Faith Vs. Evidence or something to that effect. To people like Dawkins and myself, there is no argument. The claims are simply false. And not only are they false, they are unimaginative. To borrow use a Douglas Adams quip in the God Delusion (to whom the book is dedicated) “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” and Dawkins own saying that unweaving a rainbow doesn’t make it less wonderful. We have the multitude of our future to explore and find or even to create god (as some like Ray Kurzwiel would predict) without having to rely on the infancy of our species for the answers to questions like the ones mentioned in this paper.

The second form of agnosticism, PAP, or Permanent Agnosticism in Practice, is understandably detested by nonbelievers and believers alike. As one can guess, a PAP argument to the god hypothesis is that there is an equal likelihood of each scenario – god’s existence and gods’ nonexistence – so the answer is that it is an unanswerable question and, therefore, not one that deserves the attention of a response. An arguer for PAP, to me, is really someone who doesn’t care – the stereotypical face of agnosticism. And, to me, to be apathetic towards such a weighty and ever-present topic such as how other peoples’ delusions affect daily and global life is not respectable in the least. With atheism, even believers can respect that the atheist has the courage of his convictions and vice verse.

Predictably, being the evolutionary biologist that he is, Dawkins talks about Evolution. If you read the Selfish Gene you can become an informed voice for it and wield a better-than-modest understanding of it as well. If you read the God Delusion, you’ll undergo a brief education in the argument against Evolution from mere chance. Dawkins, as of late, doesn’t seem as hell-bent over imparting the evidence for Evolution via Natural Selection – the evidence for that is well documented and readily accessible to most everyone – as he is hell-bent on imparting an understanding of how it works and how it doesn’t. The relevance of Evolution in the debate isn’t hard to see because it provides an alternate creation story for people looking outside of Septuagint-derived works such as the Bible, the Pentateuch and the Qur’an. And the confusion, in my eyes is actually understandable. Most proponents for biblical literalism would have you believe that Evolution explains the origin of life on Earth as happening by chance – and here’s the confusion. Evolution happens via Natural Selection, a process that takes millions upon millions of years to, visibly, work. The Dawkins analogy is the climb up Mount Improbable, where there are two ways up the mountain side: a quick leap up the miles-high mountain (equal to the probability of a 747 being assembled by a tornado sweeping through a scrapyard) and the other a slow, winding pathway up the other side. The process of Natural Selection takes the very improbable concept of the occurrence of life in the Universe (there’s only one known case: Earth) and breaks the improbability down into a long series of more likely occurrences. This is the opposite of chance.

But with Evolution comes the task of explaining why religion occurs at all in human culture since Natural Selection abhors waste. One explanation that the field of evolutionary biology has offered is that it (religion) is a misfiring of some otherwise or once useful trait that humans evolved in response to meet the needs of their environment. Like how a moth flies suicidally into a burning candle. This is because they use the luminosity of the moon to navigate at night. A misfiring of an otherwise useful trait. As of today, I must confess to be an agnostic with respect to the reason this happens, as I imagine most people in the field are today. But the field is very young and much research is underway on this very topic. Even with the hypotheses and case studies Dawkins provides, the larger argument still remains intact, afloat calm waters in the sea of religious mysticism – the absence of a concrete explanation for various phenomena does not add any weight to the truth of their arguments. This is true of religion as well and this is a gripe I have (as does Dawkins) that when science cannot offer a concrete explanation here and now, on the spot – the “only” alternative, God, wins the argument by default. I’ll quote the only known American equivalent to a scientist on par with Dawkins in communicating science to the public – Carl Sagan. When asked whether or not he had a gut feeling on whether life really existed elsewhere in the universe he replied “But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it’s okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.”

The last point I’d like to cover in this review of Richard Dawkins as one of the world’s most important contemporary philosophers is the issue of why be good without god? Here he is very clear that morality is easily the department of the atheist just as much as, if not more than, the arena of the theist. Michael Shermer is clever to point out that when someone admits that they’d surely kill him if it weren’t for the fear of God, that person reveals him/herself to be an immoral person. It’s a debate stopper. In the God Delusion, Dawkins asserts that morality in the absence of policing is somehow more truly moral. He also subscribes to Immanuel Kant’s views on a sense of duty for duty’s sake. One of most influential points he made on the topic of the compatibility of morals with either atheism or theism is in his discussion on Hitler and Stalin. Both of these men are said to be atheists (Stalin most certainly was, but Hitler is not so clear on the issue, even that aside…) and both are attributed to committing some of the worst known cases of genocide in the twentieth century. Yes. There is no argument here. The argument, and to me, the real cookie of the point is that neither of them did their atrocities in the name of atheism! How often otherwise is the case of a suicide bomber or a crusader doing his or her crime against humanity in the name of his or her deity? Always. The case against atheists having no basis for a system of ethics or a moral code is, not surprising to me, exceedingly and embarrassingly weak.

From indoctrinating children to authoring slavery and genocide, religion has a lot of owning up to do and must somehow make up for it’s own misdoings. In my mind, it would be best if the guardians of these religions could muster the courage and come clean with its followers so we can be done with the whole mess. The Dali Llama has reconciled his religion with science saying that if any tenet we (Buddhists) hold is not reconcilable with science, it must be abandoned. But even this, I know wouldn’t be enough. If the present leaders fell today, more ruthless ones would pick up the colors and march forward (or backward…?) into the same old tune of hellfire and damnation.

To finish, Dawkins sums it up best in an interview with Paula Zahn on CNN. When asked by Zahn “How would you characterize the overarching public reaction to atheism?” Dawkins happily replies “Misunderstanding. And, really, missing an awful lot of what’s valuable. Because if you’re an atheist you know, you believe this is the only life you’re going to get. It’s a precious life. It’s a beautiful life. It’s something that we should live to the full, to the end of our days. Whereas if you’re religious, and you believe that there’s another life somehow. That means you don’t live this life to the full because you think you’re going to get another one. That’s an awfully negative way to live a life. Being an atheist frees you up to live this life properly, happily and fully.”

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

TalkOrigins Archive. October 1, 2003. Mark Isaac and TalkOrigins.Org. December 4, 2007.

Richard Dawkins. Wikipedia.Org. December 4, 2007.

Richard Dawkins: Biography and Background. July 1995. The World of Richard Dawkins. December 4, 2007.

YouTube. February 12, 2007. Straight Talk with Paula Zahn – CNN. Conversation with Richard Dawkins. December 4, 2007.

31 January, 2008 4:26 PM Posted by | Angry rant, I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, Just a thought.., LEGALIZE IT!!!, Politics and other hazardous materials, Pride and Prejudice, Religious Tomfoolery, We don't need no educations, Will Recommends: | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Imperial Presidency – Nepotism

I was reading through the comments on Curts last post and when I read the last one, by Coop, there was an idea brought up about limiting the terms of elected officials even more – to two, three years or so.

I really don’t think that’s the idea we should be focusing on. The problem with having the same people in office for generations, which is why we have term limits, is multifaceted. One, a major reason, is that we as Americans realize that corruption can slip underneath our radar and we want to be able to evict an elected official if he/she is uncovered to be Satan or a minion of Hades. Another big reason is that we want to keep new faces and new ideas rolling through our offices of representatives – we’re a progressive country and should be progressively getting new and inspiring leadership.

Something I don’t think we’re talking about in this country enough is that, if Hilary were to be elected, we’d have an American Presidency that looks a little like this:

  • George Bush
  • Bill Clinton
  • George W. Bush
  • Hilary Clinton

From 1989, the year George Sr. took office, potentially until 2012 when Hilary’s first term would be up we, as an American people, would have said there is no better representative for this country than a member of either the Bush or Clinton family.

Bull$hit. This is America. The home of the best and brightest. Why are we continually electing Presidents, Senators and other representatives of our nation from a small pool of individuals from a small network of families.

I realize that Nepotism is a major driving force in the economy here, but this is a little ridiculous. That the American Presidency should be dominated, stolen, hoarded and plundered by two families for over 20 years is folly.

We don’t need shorter term limits.

We need to, all of us, have the common decency and foresight to




(its a little late, but this is a guy who’s got it…

check out this video and you’ll see what I mean)




8 February, 2007 9:38 PM Posted by | Angry rant, I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, Just a thought.., Plan for global domination, Politics and other hazardous materials, We don't need no educations, Will Recommends: | 8 Comments

Intellectual Property.

I am including this to our cherished DD214 Blog – maintained by Fernando Rizo, R. Clay Anderson and Will Charlton – as a tool to whomever may wish to use it. If you wish to contribute to the 1709 Foundation, send inquiries to founder, Will Charlton, at

Freedom of information.

Examining the validity in underpinning our freedom of information and the widespread sharing of digital music as a cultural imperative, an essay by Will Charlton.

I would first like to say that we, as Americans, have liberties that can only be realized by actually doing and exercising those freedoms. We trade our personal histories to each other verbally and freely in our everyday lives. When we grow up we are expected to learn the things that comprise our culture. We are quizzed on our knowledge of national history. We have discussions on what it means to be a “Citizen”. We make demands of ourselves to be a contribution to our culture, not a detriment. We are taught to speak and communicate according to a set of agreed upon rules. By applying these rules correctly, you will achieve a maximum success when conveying your message. As infants, we are immediately challenged with mind teasing games that are meant to foster brain activity. Put the right block into the right hole. We are also encouraged by our school system at a very young age that music is a part of who we are as a whole. Everyone can agree upon this. That is why we have music programs as youths. We view it as a fundamentally important piece into the puzzles we call our lives. We make it our own.

I have always been able to access new methods of communicating by utilizing the infrastructure in place. If I want to learn to speak Spanish, I would go to my local library and check out a Verbs book. Perhaps I would sign up for a Spanish class that’s offered by the community education department. If I wanted to learn how to program Java, I would get the latest book outlining the rules. I could find this at the library as well, maybe I’d just go to Barnes and Noble to buy it. I can always use my environment to help me in a Capitalist society. That is the whole point.

What if we happen upon a better, more efficient system? Book clubs afford you the luxury of not having to physically go out to actively seek out your desired information. Netflix offered an undeniably sensible way to access our cinematic library as a culture. I don’t need to explain this. It is accepted knowledge in our culture that Netflix is the best way to get movies. The old ways are parting.

Netflix will fail. We will outsmart ourselves again. We will invent a newer, better, more efficient way of sharing ourselves.

The increased potency of the flow of progress is a championed virtue for Americans. Acting in opposition to positive change is viewed, in this society, as detrimental to the flow of progress. So, by restricting us from using our best methods of communication, the system would no longer benefit us – culturally, financially, or intellectually. It would be causing opposition to the flow of progress. If a person in this country was sued in a court of law for damages done to an aggregator of cultural content, that person would only be found guilty of utilizing the methods put in place for him. Methods put there by the best and brightest minds of his or her civilization. It is a testament to one’s culture to invent new ways before other cultures do. We celebrate this in our history books. We teach it to our post-embryonic predecessors. Success will surely not come unless you embrace change when change appears.

7 May, 2006 4:53 PM Posted by | I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, Patent-worthy idea, Plan for global domination | 3 Comments

Product Review

OK. I am ready to talk. Over the last four weeks, I've had the following neato things happen to me. I started my last academic quarter at IPR, moved to a new house (the second move in under two months), used the term "bone ramakin" accurately in normal conversation, lost my wallet, had a birthday, got a new bicycle and, most importantly, bought a new laptop computer. The latter is what I'd like to discuss.

It was April 20th and I was on my way to purchase my new machine. I had my heart set on the new MacBook Pro, 15" monster. In order to go through with it, I had to stop off at my place of work, Tucci Bennucch, for a bite to eat and a couple cocktails. After a martini and a martini I went to the Apple store in the Mall of America to make the purchase. I couldn't be happier.

This machine is absolutely amazing. It's load time for OS X is super short; it is very thin and weighs next to nothing; it contains dual-core Intel processing; it is customizable to ridiculous ends; it updates my iCal planner to my iPod automatically (which is extra awesome); it has a power cable the attaches using magnets so that if you pull it or if someone trips over it, it self releases with ease; and it's battleship-gray.

The only problems I've had with it so far are that it cost me $22xx.xx (with a .mac account and an Apple Care Protection Plan for 3 years) and that software companies are still working on Mac-Intel mods for their products to make them functional on the MacBook Pro. These updates should be relatively fast in coming because of how whoop-ass this computer is doing.

So what does this all mean?

Basically, I should be able to keep Clay from crying so much about how I don't write on the blog as much as I should.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to provide a link or two on some stuff I've been enjoying lately: an atheist podcast that I find kind-of cool, open, and who's heart is in the right place (not to mention that they're atheist:D); watch some videos, I know it's AOL, but it's a really cool idea.

Thanks, guys. Here's your much-awaited picture from Will.

1 May, 2006 5:09 PM Posted by | I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, I love me, Plan for global domination, Product reviews, Religious Tomfoolery, Reviews, Will Recommends: | 1 Comment

A thought experiment.

OK. We’ve established that the President has Ultimate power and cannot be bothered with little details like civil liberty and Law, but I want to try one more thing. Just to see if it works.

Here’s what we should do: Get a team of 40 lawyers. 15 of them GOP, 15 of them Asses, and the other 10 independent. Have them hold debates and mock trials to see if the president could ever be accused, charged and/or convicted of one of the most clear-cut, universal laws that man-kind clings to…murder.

I don’t think that he can be. I really think that if photos, testimonies and genetic evidence of the president committing murder were ever to be found, he would still get away with it.


26 January, 2006 8:59 PM Posted by | I lack creativity and/or attention to detail, Politics and other hazardous materials | Leave a comment

Ivy League be damned

i’m back. that’s right bitches, i’m back. “back from where,” you might ask, and you would be entitled to a reasonable answer. the answer is, in fact, this:

I had to go christmas shopping.  There is nothing in this world that I hate more than christmas shopping, and that includes Nazis, the alarming spread of dementia in our nation’s population of senior citizens, and the tendency of the majority of “servers”, or waitstaff in America to ask me if I “want change” after I give them money to pay the bill. Of course I want change, asshole. I earned that money, and I by god decide how to spend it. Don’t go assuming that you deserve a tip. If I feel that the service you provided was deserving of a tip, then I will tip you, and generously, I might add. But to assume that your shit doesn’t stink and that your sevice was almost to fellatio level, and therefore automatically deserving of my change (no matter that you haven’t even looked at the actual amount of cash I gave you, I could be paying with a hundred for my order of Cheese & Mayonaisse Zing-Flingers, you fuck. A ninety-three dollar tip? Are you kidding me?), is absolutely mentally challenged (formerly “retarded”).

    So, yeah, I hate christmas shopping. I hate all of the massed, steaming humanity bustling, rather, roaming- like their distant cousins the American bison- through the malls and shops, fighting over the newest “hot” toy, most likely a talking sheep turd or a teddy bear stuffed with Colin Farrell’s pubic hairs.

    I hate the fact that I have to wait in line for anything closer than 15 miles to the mall, and I hate the mall. We didn’t even go in there today, but I could feel it’s evil presence lurking like a pervert at the public swimming pool. What a day.

   The consolation is that I am really fucked up on good hash right now, so I’m doing alright.

    More later.




17 December, 2005 9:24 PM Posted by | I lack creativity and/or attention to detail | 2 Comments

We can’t waste any more time!

Listen, I know we’ve got this blog started and everything, but we need to get our next most important venture into action: the Ivy Leagure’s Starter Kit. Things I think should be included: pomade, black-bristled comb, letterman’s jacket, atleast one (1) cardigan and atleast one (1) pull-over. Any other ideas? Come on guys, this is huge!

15 December, 2005 3:26 AM Posted by | I lack creativity and/or attention to detail | 2 Comments

Thank you everyone.

The first thing I shall do to etch this momentous occasion in the virtual stone that Mr. Gore gave to us in tribute not so long ago, is say thank you to my friends Clay and Fernando. I know that you feel like you are inferior to me and my wonderful superpower, but I assure you that we are no different (other than the superpower). Thank you for including me on my own idea guys, this is great.

15 December, 2005 1:51 AM Posted by | I lack creativity and/or attention to detail | 2 Comments