Taboo Plaza

There are certain things I never needed to know about myself that I learned thanks to the internet.  Recently, I was searching around on Funny or Die's website not really looking for anything in particular when I found a reaction from Kermit the Frog to a video called "Two Girls One Cup." 

The reaction video was odd so I kept searching.  I went to You Tube and typed in "Two Girls One Cup."  There were a couple of additional reaction videos and slowly I started to realize that this video (people were reacting to) was incredibly disgusting.  Somehow, the video apparently involved someone eating scat.  Which sounds disgusting enough to not even want to proceed looking any further.

And yet I did.

I don't know why I kept looking, but I was watching all of these people practically getting sick watching the video.  I had to see the video. 

Why? 

I have no f'ing clue.  Finally I find something that resembled something that I never wanted to see.  Poop in someone's mouth. 

Oh my god. 

That is frickin' disgusting.

I didn't watch more than ten seconds.  I wanted to puke.  I can honestly say I don't ever need to see that again- and yet I knew that before I saw it.

The internet has taught me that I'll go out of my way to see things that I don't really need to see even when I understand that I don't need to see them before I see them.

Thank you Internet!

Current Affairs

Suicide bombers struck in Pakistan last week.  According to sources, At least 50 people were killed when a suicide attacker detonated a powerful bomb inside a mosque in northwest Pakistan, apparently targeting a former interior minister.

This bombing was the second assassination attempt on a critic of Islamic militants.  Over the past year, these militants have made attempts at killing public officials in Musharraf's government.  Musharraf has been called a key ally in the War on Terror; however, some suggest that the attention from President Bush and the U.S. have actually given Musharraf an incentive to allow Islamic threats to grow in Pakistan rather than dealing with them proactively.  In fact, some say that Musharraf- and thus Pakistan- nurtured the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists.

Now, according to sources, Pakistan houses Al Qaeda inside its borders.  Al Qaeda exists as the only current face of terror- that I'm aware of- in the imagination of the United States of America.  (Given enough time other faces of terror will surely be identified, but for now Al Qaeda is really pretty much it.  Unless you count the term "Islamic Extremists" which I personally reject, because I'm personally at a greater risk of being oppressed by Christian Extremists rather than the Islamic variety.)

Musharraf has been accused of dismantling Pakistan's judiciary system in favor of martial law.  He has been implicated attempting to recreate the government in his vision.  A vision of less democracy and more tyranny according to some observers/participants.  This is a government- or country if you prefer- that "we" the United States of America support.  Not only do we condone this type of behavior in Pakistan's leaders, but we contribute billions of dollars to support these activities.

And just an FYI, this money pours out of the United Staes of America and we haven't even occupied Pakistan yet. However, last week U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was quoted as saying, Al Qaeda right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistani people.  In the logic I'm used to, from the last seven years, that means we need to be fighting terror in Pakistan.  Bush has said it often- in many ways- that he intends to stay, fight and win the war on terror.

I associate Al Qaeda with the War on Terror, because that is what I've been conditioned to think by President Bush and his Cabinet.

We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, so we don't have to fight them at home.  We were (and still are) fighting them first in Afghanistan so that we don't have to fight them at home.  It only makes sense that we should be fighting Al Qaeda in Pakistan as well (as logic would follow) so we don't have to fight them at home.

Apparently though, taking into account how jacked up Pakistan sounds, there is a road in Pakistan where the law is obeyed.  Eight years ago- or so- the M2 motorway stretched six lanes that carve a path across the plains of the Punjab, from the city of Lahore to the capitol Islamabad and beyond.

The M2 receives the distinction of being the first motorway in South Asia.  According to journalist Philip Reeves, the highway receives a regular cleaning by a man wearing overalls.  The highway also receives what sounds like a significant amount of attention from highway officers with speed guns.  These traffic cops apparently are above taking bribes (which sounds like- but goes unsaid by Reeves- something out of the norm.)

The M2 freeway has apparently opened a swath of land that observes law and order.  Not many people drive on the road, apparently because fines are steep, but it sounds relatively peaceful.  It makes me wonder if there isn't an answer somewhere in all of this.

Is the road something to be protected?  More so than an open plain?  More so than a squalid village in a desolate desert?  Would better roads increase vigilance on the part of those who would benefit from the roads?  Could "we"- the U.S.A.- better spend our money on building roads in Iraq and then hiring cops to monitor them from the Iraqi population rather than trying to conquer, occupy and hold territory in a hugely f'ed up area of land?

Sure the roads would get bombed, but we can always lay more road; we do that well in the U.S.  We have to have one of the best roadworks in the world in the United States of America and where we have roads we have relatively little lawlessness.  It is also logical to assume that better roads leads to better trade.  Trade is rumored to lessen tensions and increase peace & stability between trading partners.

If we started projects of invading countries and building roads, would people really be that mad at us?  We could call it the War on Unpaved Roadways.  We needn't depose rulers necessarily.  We just invade a bit of land at a time.  We put our Army to work guarding a perimeter (our Army does that well) and then we move in road workers who begin laying out the road a couple of miles at a time. 

As we move forward with the road, if someone blows up what we have built then we go back and rebuild it.  What's the difference between that and blowing up munitions?  Traditionally our country has done well economically in times of war because we create things that we then go out and destroy which means we have to go back and create them all over again.  The military-industrial complex is nothing if not efficient.

This War on Unpaved Roads could start in Mexico.  Mexico would be the easiest place for us to build. 

We don't annex. 

We don't conquer. 

We merely build infrastructure outside of our borders with no strings attached.

What's the benefit to us, you might ask?  It seems to me that our construction industry would probably do well.  Our military troops would be closer to home.  Money would exchange hands through the purchasing of materials and the renting of bodies & minds to complete the task.  Busy hands and all that jazz, not to mention the goodwill we might generate by sharing our wealth with our neighbors around us.  (In this scenario, if we could build up the road network within Mexico fully, we could then move down to the Dominican Republic and further south.) 

This might even be considered good Christian charity work- if you chose to define it that way.

Honestly, the United States of America needs to do something different pretty fast.  The Europeans have figured out how to break their mold, apparently.  They appear to have moved past the mentality of Hitler and Napoleon.  The creation- and continued expansion- of the European Union took a step forward last week.  There are now 24 European countries that now share open borders.

Europe has moved closer to Russian borders and seemingly consolidated a significant majority of the continent into one entity of sorts.  By integrating their economies in a peaceful fashion, Europe is now doing essentially the same thing differently that the United States did from its inception. 

Gain more territory.

Hold more territory in an orderly fashion. 

Expand the economy through acquisition of territory and regulation of trade.

Still there are hold outs from this grand union, such as the U.K. and Ireland.  However, gone are the conquerors and would-be emperors.  Gone is the United States as underdog.  The United States is now the entrenched power.  The European Union is the alternative.
They are the up and comer as it were.  When the world is sick of U.S. hegemony, to whom else may they turn?

In apparently unrelated news, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado dropped out of the republican presidential race last week.  He has thrown his support behind Mitt Romney. 


Question of the Week 

Did you bring a tree into your house this year? 
How do you reconcile that act with the Old Testament?
Do you care?
Me- for one- not so much.


Tip of the week

Next time you're around a kid, give them a hard time for a while. 
Bust their chops a little bit. 
Be difficult.
Say no politely, just to say no.
Offer no explanations.

Not enough people in the world inherently understand: life can be difficult.  This lack of understanding may lead to intolerance.  This intolerance stems from not knowing your place in this world. 

If you feel entitled, so be it.

If the world removes those entitlements, don't gripe about it. 

That's just life kid.




Belly Laugh

Ali G and Borat have been retired by Sacha Baron Cohen.  The Daily Telegraph reported that he said,
"It is like saying goodbye to a loved one.  It is hard, and the problem with success, although it's fantastic, is that every new person who sees the Borat movie is one less person I 'get' with Borat again, so it's a kind of self-defeating form, really.  It's upsetting, but the success has been great and better than anything I could have dreamed of."

"Getting people" with the Ali G character is what makes it work.  Below are some examples:

Some of these NBA guys seem like they want to kill him after a while.

Noam Chomsky on the other hand seems to take it all in stride (by the way, how did Ali G get an interview with Noam Chomsky?)



This interview is just flat out hilarious.



Ali G probably got Andy Rooney the best.  Andy is definitely ready to kill Ali G.



I's just gots to say Ali G have been one interesting character.  Mad props.

Borat on the other hand didn't really need to "get people" it seems to me.  One way or another, it would appear that you are just forced to respond to Borat whether you want to or not.

Letterman handles Borat as well as he could.

CNN on the other hand doesn't seem to handle Borat quite so well.  She keeps trying to push him into a serious interview and he just keeps coming back with obsurd nonsense.  It is really funny watching her trying to defend the status quo while Borat flatly rejects her reasoning.



Sacha Baron Cohen has said in ditching Borat and Ali G he will now pursue opportunities with another character Bruno.



Bruno seems to have potential.  Good luck with that Sacha.






Birthday Shout Outs (12-23 to 12-29)

12/23-

(1867) C.J. Walker: The first black American female millionaire.  There's more than enough qualifiers in that statement, but an accomplishment nonetheless.
(1964) Eddie Vedder: Pearl Jam's album "Ten" is one of the best put together albums ever made.

(1971) Corey Haim: I have nothing but great affection for "The Lost Boys."  Therefore, Mr. Haim gets a nod.

12/24-

(1809) Kit Carson: He killed Mexicans and Indians.
(1880) Johnny Gruelle: Although I was never into Raggedy Ann & Andy, it has as a brand hung around quietly for a long time.
(1922) Ava Gardner: Hottie.

12/25-

(1642) Isaac Newton: We still follow his laws.
(1899) Humphrey Bogart: "Play it again Sam" is cliche.  I prefer "stop Bogarting the bud, Bud."
(1907) Cab Calloway: The brother was bad.

(1924) Rod Serling: An integral part of my television seeking habits.  He was great.
(1945) Gary Sandy: A WKRP alumnist and that's good enough for me.
(1949) Sissy Spacek: Her work in "Carrie" alone gets her on this list.



12/26-

(1963) Lars Ulrich: Although he seems a bit petty and arrogant, he's still part of Metallica and therefore pretty awesome.

12/27-

(1822) Louis Pasteur: He saved many people.
(1939) John Amos: I have nothing but fond memories of "Good Times."

12/28-

(1856) Woodrow Wilson: He was the 28th President of the United States of America.
(1933) Nichelle Nichols: According to the first Star Trek, it seemed she may have been the only black person to make it off the planet Earth.  That's a significant compliment.
(1946) Edgar Winter: "Frankenstein" is one of the baddest jams I've ever heard.

(1954) Denzel Washington: The brother can act his ass off.
(1954) Lanny Poffo: This guy use to be a pretty good wrestler and few guessed he was the brother of Macho Man Randy Savage.

12/29-

(1808) Andrew Jackson: He was the 7th President of the United States of America.  He seemed like a fairly complicated guy, but he killed his fair share of Indians himself.
(1922) Matt "Guitar" Murphy: The brother could play.