squidbag

The End is (Not) Nigh

I know you people believe stuff more or less at random, but this? This is embarrassing for us as a group. No, as a race. The human race should be collectively embarrassed over this. This would be as bad as reality TV if it didn't have a built-in expiration date stamped on it.

First off, even if you are the sort of person who believes that this symbol, or this one, or this one or this one or even this one, mean something to which you can semi-rationally or emotionally relate, you have to admit that basing a belief that the world is going to end on an ancient piece of semi-functional rock is pretty fucking thin. It's beyond thin. It's Karen Carpenter, it's Kate Moss's hipbones. I mean, I get that a lot of people want to believe in angels and demons and a coming zombie apocalypse, and that they base their "serious" beliefs on...well, on a lot less than this, but choosing to believe that the end of the world is coming because this thing doesn't have December 22nd on it is like assuming the world ends every year on December 31st at midnight because you didn't get a new calendar for Christmas. It is beyond ridiculous, and it is the behavior of people who shouldn't have privileges, knives, children, conversations, licenses or credit. 

First off, this thing is not a measuring device that should be given any credence by an advanced civilization. In this case, "advanced civilization" means any civilization who has given up worshipping corn gods, tying your wife's tongue up with barbed wire, and using heads for sport. Our measuring devices have numbers and letters on them, and if you want to argue that this is an arbitrary difference, imagine a tape measure where you had to tell someone the couch was "six snakes long." Or someone's temperature was "three pointy face guys." Extreme silliness.

Then, there's how this great mad stone bastard works. It needs two other massive stone wheels to work properly, I believe, and you only ever see this one. The "long measure" of time as calculated by the Mayans requires this disc inside of the other wheely thing, and no one's really doing that. Regardless, you can set this one in the other one and get to December 21 and no further - which is the point at which the Mayans would have re-set this thing and started counting again, you stupid, stupid people. Just a little reading and you can get right to it. I don't even really understand it and I have a better grasp on this than you do, you end of world moron, you. Additionally, it is perhaps important to realize that the Mayans didn't do leap years, and when you try mooshing that system with the one they were using, the world ended eight months ago, and you dumb motherfuckers didn't even notice.

So. What is this, really? An excuse for people to act stupid again? For people to kiss and fuck and fondle people they're not supposed to because the world's coming to an end? So they can be irresponsible and claim this was the reason? So they can spend too much on Christmas bullshit stuff? Just a "belief of the week," where, once you were done with Planet X or Ron Paul or vampires or group supremacy or religious craziness you could move on to this, believe in it until the 22nd, and then move on to "Well, I'm going to hold onto my canned goods and shotguns because the world has to end sometime."

Not soon enough, cousin. Not by a long shot.

Bad Anthropologist

I would make a terrible anthropologist.

If my current anthropology instructor is to be believed, An effective anthropologist is kind of a terrible human being. In order to properly analyze and consider what's happening in a culture and with its people, you must first divorce yourself from judgment and bias of any kind. This is called objectivity, and presumably springs from the ability to turn oneself into an object. This complete abandonment of what is seen to be entirely cultural bias requires an additional commitment we've not discussed in class yet and is a bit broader than the simple Western conception of "keeping an open mind." I shall illustrate.

Picture your mind as a home, open for a party. Your own ideas are already there, comfortably slumped in overstuffed chairs, feet up on the marble table-top, sipping brandy in front of the fire, reviewing the books of your memory. They've eaten many of the snacks and for some reason play the same songs over and over again. Eventually, other ideas will arrive, and the door is open to them - after all this is a party, and we often benefit from our exposure to others as a major component of growth. But let's say that after "Gay Marriage is Just Marriage" and "Life In Outer Space Might Exist" arrive, "Cold Fusion" shows up. Okay, you'd let her in. I'm totally letting in "Bigfoot" even though we don't get along, because he's a lot of fun and other people like him. Same with "Communism" and with "Religion Provides Solace for Some." But what about "It's Okay to Place Dollar Amounts on Brides?" Do you want to talk to her? You might, but the conversation's going to bore you pretty fast. What about when you get to "Forced Child Labor" or "Female Circumcision" or "Child Sex Workers?" I don't know about you, but this simply isn't that kind of party.

So I would make a bad anthropologist, because I eventually ride right up to stuff that I cannot help but judge, and I can't call that a bad quality in a person - a person who judges nothing must be the opposite side of the coin from sociopath, right? I think there's one of those in my class right now, actually. I don't know her name, but she's pretty and blonde and covered in sorority stuff and postures herself as a "Rebel Traditionalist." She doesn't call herself that, but you know the type; crusading for traditional values and backwards ideas because no one else will crusade for them anymore 'now that the whole world's going to hell.' She argued once in class that men make better leaders than women - biologically, based on emotions and hormones and stuff.

That's not what ruined our non-existent relationship, though; she and I got into it in class last week when she asserted that it was wrong of us to judge people in other countries who push their kids into illegal sex work "because they might have reasons of their own." I'm sure they do, actually - everyone's reasons are their own reasons unless they have no minds of their own to begin with - but I don't care. If you live in a culture where people have sex with children and people feel justified into getting their kids into that business, then your culture needs work. ALL cultures need work - we're all fucked up. But I don't believe that everyone is solely a product of their culture, can't see their culture anymore than a fish sees water, and should be able to justify whatever they want based on a bullshit bandwagon culture.

And so I would make a bad anthropologist.

Sleepless & Bragging

I have noticed a trend lately, and I seek to get out in front and distance myself from it, since I am running for political office and all.

Apparently there is a great heaving swell of animosity towards those who don't sleep as much and who brag about it. Examples can be seen here at Diesel Sweeties and Cracked.com. These are both funny to me, but as someone who doesn't rest as well as perhaps most of the rest of you, and also as someone who has spoken about it on many occasions, I may have some additional light to shed on the situation. Because that's who I am, you see - a light-bringer, torch in hand, shining understanding down on everyone like a golden shower of bright truth.

I will not contest that sometimes, a sleep deprived person is in your face, bragging about it. This can be annoying (especially if you yourself have not slept - then you want to kill them five times with habanero bullets) and seemingly pointless. I would point out, however, that all bragging is annoying and seemingly pointless, from the new skirt to the marathon runner, from the saved zealot to the pop rapper - bragging just wears people out. Usually this occurs for one of two reasons - either the bragged at person simply has no shits to give or they're jealous, deep down and truly, wishing they could also get by on less sleep, making them guilty of two deadly sins at once, Grumpy and Sleepy. It's like when people brag about running marathons - it makes me jealous, a little. I wish that I, too could brag about running marathons, but that would be lying since I'm never running a fucking marathon.

Like marathon runners, a sleep-deprived person may also simply be telling you what's happening because they cannot believe it themselves, possibly for many of the same brain-starved reasons. "Hey, I'm only functioning on three hours sleep, giant Spanish banana. Can you believe it?" Yes, yes he can. Have a nap before your reality breaks.

The last explanation for this "bragging" palaver I can relate from experience is simple disclosure, done so that the other members of the sleep-deprived person's shared experiential reality group can brace themselves for strangeness or outright deficits of behavior. I'm not saying that sleep-dep excuses kicking the Alderman, but it can explain it, also the inability to do math, articulate simple sentiments, avoid violence, drinking all the coffee, grumpiness, and protracted blog entries defending one's own mostly indefensible behavior. It also might be practical to share the information; if I think my driving's going to be affected by my lack of sleep, I might share that with you as a passenger. Wouldn't you rather make educated decisions based on real data, freely given?

In closing, you may be annoyed by the sleep-deprived and wish that they would shut the hell up and get some Zs. Remember though, many of them have poor judgment and hot beverages, and you may not escape from your encounters without a coffee bath if you don't tread lightly. Just shine a green light at them and sing softly, and maybe they'll drift off and make the world a better place for everyone.

The Amazing Echometer

(This was the speech I had to give to my public speaking class today. Public speaking is a gen/ed requirement, and today's assignment was "sell something using Monroe's Motivated Sequence.")

(Holds up 4x6 index card with an infinitesimally small, unreadable word on it) Can you read this? Of course you can't, because you have a visual impairment, just like me and millions of other Americans. Night or day, rain or shine, reading, birdwatching, vigilante archery or taking in an outdoor sporting event; everybody sometimes needs some visual assistance!

Well, if you're like me - and I think we've established that you are - then you know that the worst thing about having glasses is losing glasses because you have to find them just to find them and that's impossible without a time machine - but we've got people working on that (points at girl giving a time machine speech later). What I'm really saying, like a lot of you at this point is: There's got to be a better way!

Now, I have the answer to your problem, the solution to your question, the magic elixir of synergy that's going to help you find all of the missing glasses that plague your life! Step right up and take a look and listen at the Amazing Echometer®! This astonishing device, invisible to the naked eye, attaches anywhere on your glasses frames and it's ready to go! Based on the echolocation solution provided to us by Mother Nature and exhibited by the furry and friendly vampire bat, the Amazing Echometer® sounds off when you do!

The moment you lose your glasses, simply sing out - HEY! - (Joshua in the back makes 'PING' sound with his laptop) and the Echometer® will answer back using patented EchoTronic® technology that identifies, triangulates and locates your lost glasses - it can't fail! Don't want to yell? Echometer® can be keyed to respond to embarrassed grunts and muttered profanity, common sounds made when glasses are lost. Don't like the noise it makes? Celebrity voices and top 40 hits will be available in the Spring of 2013.

Look, I know how you are now; blindly stumbling about like Frankenstein using Braille, hoping against hope not to crush your glasses into powder. With Echometer®, there's no more crawling around on the rug like a dog on all fours, no running red lights in front of Johnny Law, and no more contributing to Dr. Spectacles yacht fund buying new glasses! You'll be standing around - master of all you survey with your perfect vision - wondering how you ever lived without it!

So - how can you start your new life and bright future today? Call 1-989-ECHOMETER, or www.echometer.com - we have people standing by; don't waste another minute on scams or scrambling - order the Amazing Echometer® today! 

Advice to Republican Friends

Republican friends and family of mine who read this blog - both of you (rimshot) - think of this as an intervention. Because I care. Well. In an abstract way that crunchy hippie nice people friends of mine compel me to care. I care because I have to.

On this blog, you may have noticed, I frequently use rudely sophomoric grammar constructions to not-so-subtly imply that Republicans are deplorably immoral, stupid, socially backward, and often crazy. "Right wingnuts," "Republicunts" and "Republican'ts" are a few of these; there are others if you go and look. I made it through the entire Dubya presidency wthout ever referring to him by his given name, opting for the more descriptively accurate "Dubya Monkeyface." The time for these half-assedly witty monikers is coming to an end, though - soon, all a citizen of these United States will need to utter in order to connote a tragically lowered intelligence, fried logic and societally unacceptable levels of craziness will be "Republican." It'll be a derogatory term all by its lonesome, and how long do you want to be associated with that? There's already an "R-word," so I don't even know how we'll discuss you people and call elections once your name is a slur - but I'm looking forward to it.

You, individually, on the other hand, should get out now, while the getting's good. It might already be too late - I don't know if you can escape a tornado of bullshit like what's being spouted from this incontinent elephant's ass without getting a little of it on you. Let's face it; the GOP (and its bastard child, the Tea Party) in this country has long been a shelter for those who don't give a fuck for anyone but themselves and have a need to justify this propensity by associating themselves with something that looks like an ideology, or failing that, surrounding themselves with similarly inclined people. (I would have said "like-minded," and in fact, went back and replaced it, because it implies a mind at work, and I'm not certain that's accurate.)

You can prove a Republican doesn't care about anyone but himself with any argument, but I'm going to use gun control, because it gives me an excuse to draw attention to this before it drops out of the public memory forever. Only Republican conservative thinking would argue, in the wake of multiple instances of gun violence that people should maintain relatively unfettered access to guns, because of course, they don't want to give up their rights to guns. They'll tell you that it's because guns don't kill people - which is true, but it would be a lot fucking harder to build houses if you banned bricks and mortar. They'll also try to whip out the 2nd Amendment on you, but that was 221 years ago and a flat backward refusal to re-evaluate texts after that long a period is religion, not governance.

Some solid examples of backward-ass thinking have come from the Repubbies this week, which is why I think it might be time for you rats to get the hell off the ship. First up is Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who shared with us what happens when you speak using your ass instead of your head with his now famous definition of rape biology: "It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down." This begs all kind of questions: How the fuck did this guy get elected? I mean, I know Missouri votes for dead people, but come on. Who are these doctors; Mengele, Doom and Frankenstein? How does a "legitimate" rape differ from an illegitimate one? Is there a 'level of effort' consideration here? Finally, the female body does have ways "to try to shut the whole thing down;" they're called mace, knives, keys, fists, and self-defense classes. Also, they can vote against Republicans like your dumbass self. Maybe you could for once focus on the male body's way of shutting the whole thing down - NOT RAPING PEOPLE. Why don't you address that, halfwit?

Predictably, a firestorm of criticism - some sincere and some staged for effect - landed on Akin's goober head and everyone short of the Ghost of Abe Lincoln himself condemned Akin's comments, including Romney, who has to. Everyone's calling on him to step down and stop running, but true to the monomaniacally zealous thinking of current Republicans, he's staying in there, not giving a shit if anyone thinks he should. There's a point at which sticking to your guns in the face of adversity becomes bull-headed arrogant jackassery, and that point is distantly fading in Akin's rear-view.

Today Akin got some help from Iowa Republican Steve King, (co-sponsor of the "redefining rape" bill from last year with Akin and Eddie Munster-looking mook Paul Ryan) who contributed his own turd of wisdom to the conversation by stating "I've never heard of a girl getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest." He went on to say that he'd be open to a conversation on the subject, but that no one had ever presented this information to him in any personal way. So he's a maniac, but he needs to have his offices filled up with people who've had to deal with pregnancies caused by statutory rape or incest, just so he can't say shit like this again. Theoretically. I mean, it won't work, because facts aren't part of the equation with Republicans - beliefs are WAY more important.

As demonstrated by the Texas Republican Party platform's language which now includes this little nugget: "We oppose the teaching of higher order thinking skills, critical thinking skills, and similar programs that are simply a re-labeling of Outcome Based Education which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." Really, this is just the first step to "Slavery is Freedom, War is Peace," but you would have had to have read Orwell's 1984 to know that, and Republicans don't read anything not ghostwritten for one of their radio or TV talking heads. This is the crown jewel of ignorance for the GOP, and it's astonishing that it comes from the state that de facto controls our textbook standards nationwide.

So Republicans in Texas are against higher order and critical thinking skills, because those things frighten them with the questions and whatnot. You can tell they don't like questions, because they're also against early childhood education - one wonders how they handle "Why is the sky blue" when their unfortunate kids ask that one. To answer accurately is to educate. Hmmm. I think these are people who could have used some additional behavior modification - and what's so wrong with that, anyway? What do you dickheads imagine (if you can imagine) laws and social mores are for? They've been modifying my behavior for other people's benefit since 1974. Finally, no one - and especially not a child - should have any belief that is "fixed." If it's fixed against data, discussion, facts and reason, it's wrong; it's a stick lodged in the ass of idiocy, and you pricks stuck it there.

O, jump! Republicans, jump while you can from the ship of the USS GOP - it is a crippled and perilously listing craft; escape into the icy waters of thinking for yourself - board another ship if you wish, but please don't lash yourself to the mast of stupidity as the whirlpool consumes you!

Having Kids & Hitting Kids

Recently, this was posted on The Facebook where I could see it (I'm sure it's been around for a while, it's just that I'm just now seeing it), and I made the mistake of attempting to become involved in a discussion about it without first realizing that there would be no discussion, simply people who want to hit their kids half-assedly justifying their positions.

Argument one for spanking: "I got beat as a kid and I turned out okay." Well.  You turned out as a droning punk who needs to use a proxy to belittle other people on Facebook and who thinks it's okay to hit kids, apparently, so that's debatable at best. If you want to raise kid-hitting assholes, then go forth and spank, I guess.

Argument two for spanking: The Biblical One, which I have previously mentioned that I will no longer respect or refute, because it is a waste of time and a disservice to breath and life to pretend that people who are using a 2000-year-old aphorism of dubious origin as a parenting guide are using compassion or thought to raise their kids, so fuck them in the spanked ass with a switch, I haven't got time for their invisible friend justification.

That's it. That's what they've got; these two arguments are the two horns on the bullhead of kid-whacking rationale as espoused by people who are apparently dumbfucked in the skull parts enough to be outwitted by children.  Seriously, as I mentioned in the Facebook thread, the day that I can't outthink my kids, they're raised. These are the people who hit their kids because they want to, and connections between that ritualized humiliation and adult erotic spanking be damned. They don't care that there's no proof that it really works, they've got the Bible and a ridiculous "I'm okay," argument, and that's all they need.  Two things: the pain and humiliation cocktail of traditional spanking is fucked up; physical correction is largely unnecessary and should be relegated to whacks to stop them hurting themselves (swatting a kid's hand away from knives and fire, for example) and genial, not-hard, expected cuffs around the back of the head. Corrections without the punishment, so they do right because they're supposed to and not because they're afraid of you.

I got switched, belted, paddled and spanked.  I was smacked in the face by authority more than once, too, because I had (have) a very big fucking mouth. You know what happens when someone bigger and older than you hits you?  It changes your relationship to them forever. You internalize a giant "fuck you" for them and anyone else who thinks they can bully you into correct behavior, and that expresses itself in as many ways as there are children. Spanking: another example of traditions being used by those who can't think their way out of anything.

While dealing with these people who you wish didn't have children, I happened upon another ongoing discussion between childless people tired of justifying why they don't have children. Wow. I didn't even know that this was a thing, but there was a whole opinion piece in the Times and everything.

Okay, if you're one of the people that I know and you don't have kids?  I don't care. I don't care why or anything. It's totally up to you, seriously. Great if you have 'em, great if you don't. I mean, I'm glad somebody's having some; we need as many evolutionary chances as we can get, but I cannot fathom wanting to be involved in someone else's personal affairs like that.  "Whassmatta, Melman?  Prong busted?  Where's a passel of rugrats leaping out of your wife's cub-hatch?"  I hate people on both sides of this one, though: You've got your invasive, noisy prick asking you about your personal decisions, and then you've got people defending their rationales.  If you say anything other than "noneya" when asked why you don't have kids, you walked into the trap. Enjoy the trap, stay a while.

Fuck.  Just when I think the wheel-spinners have wasted all the oxygen they can...

Robertson: Fuck You, Tornado Victims

On what has previously been a bastion of balanced and sane programming, the 700 Club, maniac and complete fuckwit Pat Robertson took a break from having God talk to him to condemn people who build houses where tornadoes might come while also claiming that God was responsible for tornadoes without being responsible for them.

It breaks down like this: See, God makes tornadoes when a group of air of one temperature meets a group of another temperature, and they are used by God to siphon hot air away from Earth, since presumably, tornadoes extend into space, but any damage they cause during that process is the fault of stupid, stupid people who build things anywhere in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas, or really, about a third of the United States.  Now you could build stuff that might be knocked down by tornadoes there, but you'd have to pray really hard that God would divert the tornadoes from your stuff, and if your stuff got knocked flat or you died, it's your fault because you didn't pray hard enough.

Got that?  Because Robertson also believes that Sandra Fluke is a fornicator who'd like others to pay for it (and that Rush was "a little over the top" in talking about it), that the earthquakes in Haiti happened because that country's founders made a deal with the devil, that 9/11 could be blamed on lesbians, abortionists, the ACLU, and others who disagree with him and Jerry Falwell, made money off of Hurricane Katrina, and is financially linked to Charles Taylor, Mobuto Sese Seko, and blood diamonds. In addition, God frequently talks to Pat (who's real name is Marion, so he went with the far more masculine 'Pat') and has recently told him who will win the 2012 Presidential race. 

Poppycock, all of it.  Everyone knows that tornadoes are formed when the hot air from doorknobs like Robertson and his ilk collides with cold truth.  Whatta maroon.

Baboon / Badger

This is Danny Dyer. Apparently, he's a British footballer, media person, and someone with really entertaining opinions about badgers and baboons. This is the most important thing you will see today.

Timethink

I think I've emotionally retarded my development by placing temporal restrictions on myself.

When I was a younger man, I had a really nice watch; a heavy Citizen with lots of superfluous bullshit on it, it told the time really accurately, and was tough as nails.  I still have it; the crystal is all scratched up to be damned, and the band's been replaced about four times.  Reached a point in my life, though, when I stopped wearing a watch.  I found that when I wore one I would check incessantly to see what time it was, and what time it was just wasn't important as often as I was checking.  That, and I lived in South Florida then and it was just the wrong watch for the climate.

I went without a watch for years.  Haven't really missed it.  Now, I carry a Skelanimals puppy watch, 100% plastic construction, fully digital, that my daughter gave me out of a fast food meal.  I can't reasonably fit it onto any appendage I have, so I keep it in the front pocket of my hoodie or the hip pocket of my pants.  I only carry this watch when I have classes or have to be somewhere at a given time.  In fact, I ONLY started carrying this watch when I started school.  Previously, I had disabled the clock on my iPod, and put the really nice watch Matt gave me in '04 in my nightstand.

I worked for years in a deadline-rich environment, and I came to the realization today, while pursuing personal deadlines, that maybe, just maybe, adhering to anyone else's concept of days, minutes, hours, timespans of any kind, is a mistake.  How often do I wish away a month because I wish it was next month already?  Or aim at the end of a week because I'm tired, thus missing what I pass on the way?  I do not cram my every waking hour with entertainment and diversion, but I cram a fair bit.  How much would it open our tiny little minds if everyone's perception of time extended simply from when it started to whatever I've got left without marking it all the time?  Would you still hurry?  Still care about how long anything took?  I think I still would, but I'm not sure.

People often ask me how many books I read in a year, and I usually know that answer, because I keep lists and check at the end of the year.  What if I stopped?  Here's the books I read since I read some other books.  I only read this one book while I was reading this book.  This kid's newer than that kid, but she seems older sometimes, due to the wiseness/creepiness thing little girls do sometimes.  Deciding to do this would be an easy process for me, since my sense of time is broken anyway.  15 years ago seems crystal clear, but I have troubles with the early 00s.  Maybe I exist better in the stretched out times and not so well in the smaller ones, or maybe my perceptions are all jacked up.  This might make me difficult to deal with in terms of being on time for stuff, but I'm fairly certain that I can pick out random instances marked by numbers and hit them without fucking up my whole "drifting through a limbostream without reference points internal anti-chronometer" thing I'm attempting.

(Today's art is by Ghetto, upon whom I visit a small art crush.)

Ron Paul Problems

(I almost entitled this post "I got 99 Problems But Ron Paul Ain't One.")

I have friends who have friends who are for Ron Paul for President in 2012.  I don't have any friends who are for him, and if you are my friend and you are for him when you finish reading this, then one of those things has to change.  When I walk around my college campus, students - who traditionally are at the crazy end of liberal - have flyered all over for a man who has one of the most conservative voting records around, presumably because he'd let them keep their weed, which is a fuckheaded reason to vote for someone, and bolsters an already negative stereotype about marijuana users.

Seemingly rational people are for Ron Paul.  Don't be fooled, though. It's like when you get three hours into a conversation with someone and you kind of dig them and then they cop to being "born again" or Raelian or Scientologist or they believe in ghosts or tattoo their kids for ID purposes.  It spoils everything.

So I'd like an explanation.  If you're a Ron Paul supporter, which is akin to being an athletic supporter and smells about the same, and fancy yourself to be a reasonable person, I invite you to clear up a couple of things for me.

"LIBERTARIAN": What the fuck is Paul, exactly?  I mean, I know he's supposed to be this sort of libertarian in a Republican mask that we all know is fake, but he isn't, not really.  He's off script too much.  He's so far from their platform that other people are looking for him in the crowd. Really, he's just an 80s-style "Get Big Government Off Our Backs" Republican wearing a special pin, and chatting up abolishing the Fed and preaching against Big Brother.  So yeah: prove he's a libertarian. Youse can start there. In the meantime:

ABORTION: Dr. Paul, the former OB-GYN, is a staunch opponent of abortion (except for in cases of "honest rape," which I'm not even going to get into) and therefore supports limiting the rights of women to control their own reproductive freedom.  As a quasi-libertarian, this is a strange position to take, one that limits liberty. He takes this position because he says that due to his many years as a OB-GYN, he's convinced that life begins at conception.  This is a bit like a lifelong chef having strong and global opinions about the ethics of using spinach, and then running for office to enforce those ideas about spinach on others. Dr. Paul would overturn Roe v. Wade if that were ever in his power.  So - if you're a woman who supports Ron Paul, I hope you're religious and believe that life begins at conception, because otherwise you're simply voting to curtail your own rights.

GAY RIGHTS: While Ron claims that he favors "any voluntary association" between two people, he also has this libertarianesque hang-up where he thinks that marriage is a sacrament (which is interesting because it would seem to imply that those without religion shouldn't marry) and that the state shouldn't involve itself at all in marriages.  He has the right people mad at him about this, too.  However. While he does not support any constitutional amendment defining marriage, he defines it as "between a man and a woman," and says that gays can "call it whatever they want."  So he's not for it. He urges people to look it up in the dictionary if they need to define it. His old newsletters have yearned for the days of closeted homosexuals, he thought that DADT was a "decent policy" and then voted to have it overturned.  What the fuck, Ron?  I have a guess on this one.  Ron's the kind of old guy who's icked out by gays, and as long as he doesn't have to hear about it, is fine with them doing whatever the fuck they want. The problem with this is that it automatically relegates homosexuals to the status of second-class citizens. So - if you're a member of the GLBTQIAlphabet soup community, and you're voting for Ron Paul, you're voting to make yourself into a less present member of our society.

GUNS: Paul would repeal the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, gets an "A" from the NRA on a regular basis, and really wouldn't restrict your rights to have guns whenever and wherever you want. If you think more guns make America awesome, Paul's your man.  The best part of this is The Gun Owners of America, who exist because they think the NRA "sold out" on the gun issue in the US, that big bunch of pansies. The quote at the top of their webpage?  "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington. Ron Paul."  'Cause they have guns, and people with guns shouldn't have to compromise.

RACISM: Paul claims to be against racism, while his old newsletters (yes, again) have printed openly racist statements that, whether he wrote them or not, he later defended.  He's also openly associated with known racist activists. His basis for being against things like Affirmative Action is that it is a form of reverse racism (I would argue that it should more accurately be defined as a form of reparations, and you can take issue with that if you like) and that he opposes the "obsession with racial identity."  Which is one of those things only white people say, because we don't think about it, because we don't have to. No one's giving me shit for being white while I'm out for the day.  If you're black and voting for Ron Paul, be aware that he doesn't like you very much.

IMMIGRATION: Paul doesn't like Mexicans much, either. He voted for the Secure Fence Act of '06, he's for killing ALL health benefits (including emergency room care) to people illegally in this country, and he doesn't think anyone born to an illegal should have US Citizenship.  Wonder where the Paul family is from originally?  They must be native Americans.

CLIMATE CHANGE: Just not a big problem for Ron Paul, who's one of those annoying people who doesn't quite accept it, but won't land on a definite position, either. Mostly, he doesn't care:  "I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus — those are immediate threats. We’re about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that’s going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up." That's right, Ron - our country is a lot more important than the planet it's on.

ENDING THE FED: Possibly the position he's best known for, and the one that a great many of his supporters are really proud of. He's got books you can read on it and everything.  In them, and in his various speeches, he claims that putting an end to the Fed would end the cycle of recessions and depressions (there is no evidence to support this, and he doesn't give any that I can find), that it would end inflation (as a long-term upward trend, yes, but not entirely, and deflation would be more drastic without controls) and that it would "end corruption between government and banks that virtually defines the operations of public policy."  Ending the Fed ends corruption?  Really?  Does it bring fairies and unicorns out to play in the fields of sparkly fun, too?  Do I get my own gold flying pig?  This one I really don't get, because he's either naive or lying, to say out loud than any single action could end corruption. It's like he needed one more argument and so he made one up.  The place where he's standing here - a platform made of prudence and responsibility - sounds good, but this is a wrongheaded approach fueled by creepy economists I admittedly only partially understand.  But I know enough to be able to say it won't work, Paulists.

And then there's some other stuff, but I've already got almost 1400 words on the subject, so it's your turn.  I can't do everything for you, but I hope you'll do this for yourselves; Renounce your support of Ron fucking Paul.  It's not worth it just for the cool stickers.  If you feel outsidery, then vote Batman or Eli Manning or yourself, or your friend's mom or something, 'cause if you keep voting for Paul he's going to think you like him, and he'll never stop until the doors are broken down and America's brain is totally eaten away.