Misogyny or Mental Illness?

You decide!

"But PF," you say, "I'm not doing your job for you!"

"Hello, I don't paid for this . . . and, there's a video of a praying mantis eating another praying mantis post coitus as proof of something. Do you really want to miss that? Here, look at what you're missing:"

Absolutely,..and precisely because females are now able to and indeed seek to legislate and personify the male within government. I believe instinctually males tend to avoid competition and conflict with females and are actually quite responsive to female demands, screams and otherwise female demands or perceived need for more protection and provision. I do believe that males are predisposed to look after female general safety and well being. As you have noticed deference to females has become legislated by law. This is inevitably what happens to the political and social system when females are given power over it. They actually commandeer the social fabric and legislative policies to serve their own ends. Female authority and power is not protective or provisionary to males as male power and authority is to females.

It is no mistake that the Stimulus Package was devoted to females upon the request of Women's Party Feminists for protection and provision though 80% of all jobs lost have been to men.

There's words. They may or may not mean something. It's hard to say. When did we get a Women's Party, anyway? I have a friend registered to the Halloween Party, but I don't recall ever seeing the Women's Party.

Female authority is not protective or provisional like male authority is. When female gynocentrism becomes systemic as it has, civilizational decline quickly follows, historically it always has. I am not so sure our Republic can recover from this…. But we have the duty to understand what is happening in the hopes of correcting it….

Female power, being gynocentric in nature advocates for the consummation of resources around the well being of females and females alone. Women as a political group will not stop this, it is simply female nature. Systemically speaking female authority and power consumes the system of itself.

Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin and, what, Margaret Thatcher? Is that his best example?

I dunno. 3:1 this dude hates his mother for reasons that would make an issue of Wiffle Ball Fuckers Anonymous seem normal. I don't want to know.

Oh, Crazy, How I Have Missed You So

Christianity, prophecy, the Book of Enoch and Reptilians. What do all four of those have in common? This post (scroll down to The Reptilian Reality), the Holy Grail of christian crazy.

Yesterday my friend 'A' (<< 'friend' being used VERY tongue-in-cheek) asked me how I can read Half Past Human reports - after all, he attested, HPH believes the world leaders are actually reptilian overlords in disguise. "I just want to know your take on it." He added sardonically. And ironically, I have wanted to write about this every since last week, when George Ure and the HPH dudes came out with the 'reptilian overlord' theory.

What is this reptilian overload theory? Well, HPH has discovered a group in Canada that have taken the Bible and translated it using just the 22 symbols that make up the Hebrew alphabet. See, other symbols had been added, and it changed the meaning of a lot of things in the Bible, apparently. So they are working to restore it to its original - which may or may not be real/true - I don't know. It's called The Chronicle Project, and honestly I haven't had time to read much about it... only what Ure summarized. Which basically says that there's a WORD that can be uttered (that we don't know) that will show our world leaders to be reptilian overlords, wearing human skin as a disguise. It sounds like a sci-fi plot, doesn't it? Only it isn't.

I am rubbing my hands together and cackling with glee! This is like Christmas! This is like winning the lottery!

Gen 3:1a Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

We were always taught that the 'serpent' in the Garden was a 'beast', or animal on the earth, that it was cursed for tempting Eve, and then it's legs were taken off and that's what a snake is today. But what if that's not true? Try to leave behind church-taught notions for a moment. Because how many animals do you know that can reason, converse with logic, and be 'cunning'? There aren't any. The church said that Satan possessed the snake and used it to converse with Eve, but NOWHERE in scripture do we see that confirmed. It doesn't even say that the 'serpent' is Satan in Genesis. In fact, look at this verse from the Book of Enoch:

And how many times have you seen a man appear from dust? How many times have you seen a tree that grants immortality or knowledge? Seriously, the talking lizard-snake is the most reasonable thing in Genesis.

Yes, this verse is from Revelation, but it's from a timeline, so it's referring to something that has already happened. We see a 'dragon', identified as Satan, being cast from heaven along with his minions, after 'casting a third of the stars to earth'. So first, Satan as a dragon. What's a snake with legs? A dragon, pretty much. He wasn't cast into Hell, he was cast down to earth, along with his fellow fallen angels. So 'serpent' with legs = 'dragon' = fallen angels. With me?

Assumptions! I make them and call them fact, and then I mercilessly abuse the innocent equals sign. It's religion!

Next up: Nephilim.

Enoch 7:3 - 8:3 And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones. AndAzazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.

The word used for these 'giants' are Nephilim. Apparently they were nasty creatures. Now... suspending what we think to be logical and rational, think about this. The first appearance of the 'Sons of God' or fallen angels on the earth was as a dragon/legged serpent. If he took on this 'reptilian' appearance, would it not also follow that his fellow fallen would do the same? And what happens when you mix something that has the physical likeness of something reptilian with something that has the physical likeness of man?

Just... hang in there... because I'm JOKING. Sort of. Well... okay, no, I'm not... exactly. Let's just hold this thought and continue with verse, hm? For now?

She's not joking! And she's showing the amazing power of the "if . . . then" construct: if you allow my completely insane presumption then anything is possible, including Reptilian overlords.

This actually gets crazier.

Rev 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair of women and their teeth were the teeth of lions... And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath this name Apollyon.

I've never seen any of the 'Alien' movies, but in doing an image search for 'aliens', I found this. It's uncanny how close they got it - it has teeth like a lion, a tail like a scorpion, it's raised up, sort of like a human, but more like a horse rearing (prepared unto battle?). This sucker doesn't exactly have the face of a man or hair of a woman, though. But still...! For Hollywood, they sure got it about right! Now (and I know ALL of this is suspending logic and reason as we see ourselves logical and reasonable)... if something looking like this showed up, what would the people around you - unversed in scripture - think it was? A fallen angel? Hardly. It's an ALIEN... right?

More, where do you think this concept CAME from? Remember, this has been foretold for thousands of years. Man blows it off, but do you think the 'evil spirits' - the remains of the Nephilim who remember what happened to their fathers and know of their pending release - do you think they wouldn't utilize this, desensitize (or at least work the concept into our culture) in order to prepare for it?

This is why I don't laugh off Half Past Human's outrageous statements about 'alien wars' in our future, about 'reptilian overlords'. Because scripture supports it. Sure, it's TOTALLY outside of our norm, but it really happened, and it's foretold to happen again... in our near future.

That's right, HR Giger, the artist who created the creature above, is some kind of prophet, desperately trying to warn us of the horror to come! It's totally impossible, unsupported by any evidence, but look! an old book says it happened, so it will. Just like that. I almost hope the xenomorphs are our new alien overlords, because at least our suffering will be short.

Well, THAT sheds some light on the matter, doesn't it? Food for thought, anyhow. I don't claim to have all the answers as to what is going to happen, but I certainly have quite a few of the puzzle pieces. And I hope this helps to put a few together for other people, who don't quite understand, but see some of this and wonder.

Sure, I could be wrong about our alien overlords. It's possible they look more like the Terminator than the xenomorphs, but hey, it's something to consider, right? I'm glad we sorted that out.

Comments to Make You Cry

If you haven't read What Happened When I Went Undercover at a Christian Gay-to-Straight Conversion Camp by Ted Cox, you should. The story alone is enough to make anyone with the slightest bit of empathy teary-eyed, if only from frustration, but the comments are worse.

Especially this one:

You’re nothing but a left-wing fascist. You have no respect for the thousands of people with SSA [same sex attraction] who know that what they have is a neurosis and an addiction. What do you know about our suffering? This is America: we have the right to want to change. If people can decide to change their gender, why can’t they decide to change their sexual orientation? The mainstream gay world feels threatened and wants to defend its rights by squashing the rights of people with unwanted SSA.

I don’t think much of Rich Wyler and Richard Cohen (tried their seminars, was not impressed). There are much more professional approaches (Joseph Nicolosi,www.narth.org). The reason amateurs Wyler and Richard Cohen thrive is because people with unwanted SSA have been abandoned by the psychological profession, under pressure from politically correct fascists like yourself.

I do think your reporting is valuable in that it confirms my doubts about Richard Wyler, but if you have ANY shame and any scruples, why don’t you make it your next project to talk (openly, not behind a mask) to people with unwanted SSA so you can convince yourself that we’re not all repressed and under the influence of religion. I’m a Jewish-born left-wing atheist. I have SSA because I was emotionally abused by my mother and father. Duh!

You’re not even reporting accurately. Rich Wyler’s organization is NOT Christian. He NEVER talks about Jesus. You’re incompetent as well as prejudiced.

Get a real job and stop harassing a persecuted minority. Try to act like the scientist that you’re not and find out how many people with unwanted SSA were actually abused by their parents.

What's sad about that is why homosexuality would be unwanted: because society makes it so. Sexuality is like height- you're born with it. It's possible that constantly being sick as a child caused me to be a little shorter than I should have been (I'm 5'1.5" tall), but I was never going to be average height, let alone tall. Outside factors can affect sexuality somewhat, in terms of whether you find blondes more attractive than brunettes, but there is no outside factor that can make one homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual or anything in between.

This poor commentor so desperately hates himself, so desperately wants to change because of people like the Opiners, the Westboros, the Mormons, those who blame the Catholic pedophile scandal on gays.

Here's the thing; best of luck in coming to terms with yourself, but if we lived in a society where the men were predominantly gay and I had need to change my sexual orientation, I'd be as much out of luck as you probably are. I didn't decide that women aroused me and that men were sexually completely uninteresting, my penis told me all about it. I couldn't even fake it convincingly. I'd experience the same problems maintaining a gay relationship that gay men have in heterosexual marriage.

Exactly. I didn't need anyone to tell me that men arouse me and women do not. Until women start getting that broad-shouldered/slim hipped physique, that facial skin that's rough underneath all the time, and, oh yeah, penises, I can't change my attraction. And here's this poor guy, twisting himself into knots trying to change what can't be changed because assholes tell them that he should and scam artists tell him that he can.

The Meek Can Have It When the Bold Are Done With It

Actual title of this display: The meek shall inherit the earth, but not the mineral rights.

This article is a mess o' whinging about the National Day of Prayer and Obama and liberals, but what's interesting is how very specifically, the writer makes my point for me about religion in the US. It's too wrapped up in politics, it's too powerful in making policy and what truly makes these people angry isn't a loss of prayer- they can pray any damn time they want- it's a loss of power.

Perhaps the blame for this change in the political atmosphere should be laid at the feet of the current administration and it’s concept of pluralism. After all, the president boldly declared last year that the U.S. was no longer a Christian nation. This remark infuriated the faithful and set the stage for millions of rank and file Christians to question his personal faith. Next, he did not attend the National Day of Prayer and refused to make a declaration or statement until late in the day last year. Conservative Christian powerbrokers watched tentatively as the administration attempted to bring new leaders into the president’s advisory circle. These new leaders had no real national cache’ with the Christian masses. Despite the fact that the president attended a Congressional prayer breakfast earlier this year, his approach seems to have been aimed at “defanging” the politically powerful, religious right. [emphasis added]

Conservative Christian powerbrokers. Politically powerful religious right. Yeah, well, that's honest, but stop snarling at me about morals and values and faith. You had power, you like power, you've lost power and you're mad. The meek shall inherit what, now?

Apparently, Atomic Weapons Have Bizarre Side Effects

If anybody speaks Japanese, could you please tell me wtf this is an ad for?

From What I've Tasted of Desire

My favorite poems are Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Coleridge and Fire and Ice by Robert Frost.

Is there any few lines that express desperation and pain quite as elegantly as these?

Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.

I think not. The image of dying of dehydration while surrounded by a literal ocean of water you cannot drink is so . . . perfect.

As for Fire and Ice, that's short enough to reprint whole:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

"From what I've tasted of desire/I hold with those who favor fire" is just perfect to me in every way.

I mention this because I've stumbled upon a treasure trove of modern Christian poetry that makes me wonder why I haven't seen Samuel Coleridge or Robert Frost's shambling corpses looking for revenge upon us all. (If you do see them, be sure to give them Glenn Beck's latest book along with a printout from googlemaps.)

Only God

Only God could pay for my sins
Only in flesh
Could my God die
Jesus hung on a hand hewed cross
Silhouetted against a darkened sky

5 points for Silhouetted against a darkened sky, 5 points for spelling "Silhouetted" correctly, -15 for hand hewed cross. It's hewn. Hand-hewn. Wait, -20 for implying that there may have been mass production in the year 33 CE.

On that tree
Was the Word of God
Forever faithful and true
Betrayed and scorned by evil men
Including me and you

When did I beat the risen Lord
When did I curse His Holy Name
When did I deny Him and then run off
Hiding in absolute shame

-20 for almost making me choke on my 7up upon being asked when I beat the risen Lord. You probably shouldn't combine "beat" and "risen".

I didn’t do that, no not me
Jesus I did not betray
It was them, it was them
Evil men, their vicious lies
That killed the Lord that day

But in my heart the truth burns deep
Innocent, no I an not
My sin and yours held the nails
Our soul depraved and full of rot

-50 for making me say that out loud to see if (a) you were still sticking to the meter, and (b) if there were some meter related reason to say "our soul" rather than "our souls".

But on that cross on Calvary’s hill
The full and complete price was paid
“It is finished”,cried my precious Lord
And with that our souls were saved

I think the main problem here is the kind of thing musicians run into: you have to fit the lyrics into a certain rhythm and song length, so you end up with some really weird word choices and expressions in order to do so. This guy had to get in the evangelical salvation message no matter what, so the end went right off the rails.

Yield

I ponder upon Your Forgiveness and Grace
Through You I came to salvation’s embrace
Who am I that You'd take notice of me
I present all that I am to You, willingly
Once in sin I was separated from You
Now restored and alive to Your Truth
My deepest joy is praising Your Name
You changed me, never to be the same
Where once my path was dark and cold
You reached for my hand and took hold
Planted within me a desire to be holy
To have no fear but to trust in You only
My Savior, Lord, Fortress and Shield
My whole being to You I forever yield

That makes Only God look like the work of Robert Blake (did he who make the lamb make thee?) When I become Empress of the Entire Freakin' World, I will burn all rhyming dictionaries, because that is the only explanation for this.

It’s My Time To Fly

Lord, you know all about me
You see what’s in my heart
Only you alone can guide me
And show me where to start

With patience you teach me wisdom
In faith I’ll learn to walk
Lord, I’m an eaglette, still learning
Sometimes, you’ll hear me squawk

Squawk? The first clue you're not writing poetry is that you used the words "eaglette" and "squawk".

Cast out of my nest
My parents built for me
Out went my toys
It seemed crazy to me

Baby eagles have toys?

It’s time to stretch my wings
I have to learn to fly
I’ve watched my mom and dad
Now, It’s my time to fly

They showed me how to eat
Taught me how to hunt for food
Daily catching meals in flight
It tasted mighty good

"It tasted mighty good" has removed my will to live.

When I see storms are coming
I don’t run away and hide
I stretch my wings towards Heaven
And above the cloud I’ll take my flight

Seriously, that's the end of the poem. It's a good thing I've already given up on living. Which may be why I'm feeling positive about this:

The DEVIL

Men don't believe in a devil now

as their fathers used to do

They've opened the door to the broadest creed to let his majesty thur

there isn't a print of his cloven feet or a fiery dart from his bow

To be found on earth or anywhere.,

for the world has voted it so.

Okay. You have to admit that there isn't a print of his cloven feet or a fiery dart from his bow is like poetry, in the way that toilet water and wine are like one another, being liquids, but I'm sensing some teabaggery politics in here. the world voted on the devil? Also, do women believe in the DEVIL now?

But who is mixing the fatal draught that kills both heart and brain,

And loads the earth each passing year with ten hundred thousands slain?

Who blights the bloom pf the land today with the fiery breath of hell?
If the devil isn't or never was - won't somebody please rise and tell?

I like "draught". I just do. The word itself, the spelling, it makes me happy. (You already knew I was wierd, I'm sure.) "Blights the bloom of the land" isn't killing me.

Who dogs the steps of the toiling saint and digs the pits for his feet?
Who sows the tares in the field of time when GOD is sowing pure wheat,

But the devil is voted just not to be - and of course the thing is true. -

But who is doing the kind of work the devil is supossed to do?
Won't somebody step to the front row right now

- and immediately begin to show -

How the frauds and crimes of the day spring up -

for surely we want to know!
The devil was fairly voted out

- and of course the devil's gone -

But simply folk would like to know, who carries his business on?

I'm guessing people who foist such trash upon an unsuspecting internet, that's who!

Just to help you with the soulbleed you undoubtedly have right now, let's take a trip to the pleasure dome:

In Xanadu did Kublai Khan
A stately Pleasure-Dome decree,
Where Alph, the sacred river ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.

So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers was girdled ’round,
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

See, now isn't that better? A little laudanum works every time.

The Eye of the Beholder

I have a close male friend whose taste in women is clearly different than mine. I say this because he will describe a woman to me as "so beautiful" in rapturous tones, and then I'll meet her and find her to be . . . plain.

What I am saying here is that while some truths are true for everyone, some truths are only true for one person. Gravity? No matter who you are, let go of a ball and it falls to the ground. Beauty? What's beautiful to you could be beautiful to others, but it's unlikely to be beautiful to everyone and may only be beautiful to you.

Which is why the argument that science is useless for determining truth is rather silly. Science's truths are the only truths we can all share.

There is a tendency in the modern age to think quite the opposite. There is a tendency to think that "truth" means what can be empirically proven to have some physical existence, and that anything which can't be reduced to its physical components must not actually be true. Even though there are plenty of moderns who will voice exactly that, there are few willing to take this hideous notion to its terminal points--for if truth equals empiricism, then tragedies and histories, poetry and art, emotion, reflection, memory, and all such things are not really an experience of what is true, but only a pleasant sort of fiction which each person decides upon for himself, based on a few random biochemical reactions entirely out of any person's control.

I wouldn't say that poetry, art, and emotion are pleasant fictions, but nor are they universally true. One man's true love is another woman's stalking. One man's heroism is another man's barbarism. One woman's safety is another woman's oppression. Outside of science, nothing is true for everyone.

That is why science is, or should be, so attractive. There are at least two sides to any story, usually more, so give me math and well-designed studies, give me experiments and test results, and please, please don't stint on the empiricism.

The Headline Tells Me Nothing

The headline: Ohio Man Arrested for Wanting to See Obama

The reality: Ohio man with a FAKE COP CAR and A GUN and a FAKE DRIVER'S LICENSE arrested in AN AIRPORT that THE PRESIDENT was scheduled to arrive in.

Do I even have to say it?

Oh, yeah, the man's name? McVey.

What's the Difference between My Philosophy and Yours?

My best guess as to what happens when we die is nothing. Neural function ceases, without neural function one cannot thing or feel or be, so . . . nothing. This doesn't scare me, because if I'm gone, just absolutely gone, I can't very well be afraid or lonely or in pain, anymore than my desk is ever afraid or lonely or in pain.

This is, of course, just an educated guess. The evidence seems to point that way, but I won't find out until I get there.

Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much difference between my beliefs on what happens when you're dead and the Christian belief. (Stick with me.)

Anyhow, I was wondering...many of us still have concerns for family and friends who are unsaved. I've read more than one post on this site where people have hoped that Christ will be patient and that we'll have more time before His return in hopes that some loved ones may still yet be saved....

When we get to heaven will we miss them or grieve for them? The Bible tells us that there will be no more saddness or tears...it seems hard for my tiny little human mind to envision people NOT being sad for a daughter, wife, husband, mom etc etc who will spend eternity in the other place...

You know what? That's an excellent question. And a really annoying way of expressing "I don't know*". Really, how is heaven heavenly if you spend all your time being sad about your loved ones in hell? Talk about survivor's guilt!

I feel the same way. I do believe that we will remember them no more. Like you said it is very hard for us to comprehend that while we are still here on earth. I will let someone with more biblical knowledge then myself apply scripture to your question. I can only pray that those that I love who have already passed away DID accept His free gift to us. I have my doubts as to my dad's salvation and also my maternal grandparents as well as a favorite aunt.

Remember them no more? So, your heaven is like my nothing much? Also, what kind of person seriously considers that their "favorite" aunt is being eternally tortured right this minute with such sanguinity?

Answer: Many people say that the first thing they want to do when they arrive in heaven is see all their friends and loved ones who have passed on before them. In eternity, there will be plenty of time to see, know, and spend time with our friends and family members. However, that will not be our primary focus in heaven. We will be far more occupied with worshipping God and enjoying the wonders of heaven. Our reunions with loved ones are more likely to be filled with recounting the grace and glory of God in our lives, His wondrous love, and His mighty works. We will rejoice all the more because we can praise and worship the Lord in the company of other believers, especially those we loved on earth.

Doesn't answer the question and doesn't sound like fun. "Recounting the grace and glory of god in our lives"? I'd rather set my gums on fire.

The bolded part is the crux of the matter. God says that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. We aren't capable of understanding and rationalizing everything about God. I have a hard time rationalizing God Himself, I have a hard time rationalizing Jesus performing the miracles He did, I can't rationalize living with a sinless and inccoruptable body forever...............in fact, alot of my "understanding" is based 100% on faith because for the things I can't "wrap my head around", my faith is my eyes and my "reasoning". Alot of times we just have to step out in faith and leave it at that.

I'll take "Ineffable for $200, Alex."

I think heaven will be such a joyful place that, the pain of knowing others who didn't make it will be grounded out.... I thank God that all my family are saved, but I do have alot of friends who are not yet saved at this point, and it does concern me, but when the rapture takes place will our joy in the presence of the Lord be robbed because they chose not to follow God?... I doubt it.

So that's what that third prong is for! Effectively, either you're as brain dead in heaven as you are in my scenario, or you're a selfish, selfish fuck who's so happy about winning you don't care what the penalty for losing is.

*My mother asked me last week what IDK means. Without thinking, I replied, "I don't know" and the conversation devolved into an Abbot and Costello routine from there.

At the Intersection of Not Funny and Treason

I'm not on Facebook, mostly because of the status updates. This latest Christian/Conservative misunderstanding of the definition of humor is even less amusing than most status updates:

DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN.

Yes, it's just hilarious to publicly wish the President of the United States dead. And so very Christian to pray for it. Hahaha.

Asshats.

pic link.

Don't Worry, I'm an Anteater

link

I'm bogged down with the craziest case ever, but don't worry, there's an anteater here to help! Just clear the area and let him work. (What really gets me about this picture is that apparently the above scene is so normal that someone took a picture instead of screaming and running away.)

On the Border

The Arizona Senate passed a law that would make citizens of Arizona responsible for asking for proof of citizenship when they have reason to suspect any random person they see is in the US illegally.

Stop and think about that.

How would any random person know whether or not any other person was legally residing in the US? Honestly, I can't say I've seen any proof of citizenship of most people I know. I've seen my boss' driver's license, but I've never seen any of my coworkers, for example. They could all be illegal aliens, should I call the police?

HAHA. Of course not. My coworkers are all white. What am I thinking?

I lived in El Paso, TX, about 2 miles from the border with Mexico, for 3 years, so let me tell you that the above is no exaggeration. We used to see Border Patrol trucks all the time. My family never got stopped by Border Patrol, even when our license plate was stolen and we drove around for a week without one. My friends, my Hispanic, dusky, black-haired, black-eyed friends? They got stopped at least once a week. My fair-haired, pale-skinned Hispanic friends, on the other hand, got stopped as often as I did. Never.

I knew, for a fact, that my friends in El Paso were legals. I know because they had to pull out identification regularly to show to Border Patrol. Well, I knew that my brown friends in El Paso were legal, I have no idea if my fairer friends were or not. Actually, this one girl in gym was illegal*, and being a blue-eyed blonde**, she was there at graduation.

This law, if the Governor signs it, will require the citizens of Arizona to be racists, to judge their neighbors and coworkers by skin colour alone. They will have no other way of judging. Ah, the 21st Century, bringing me useless 3D movies (I lack sufficient depth perception), increased homophobia and now legally required racism. Fantastic!

*Don't be shocked. I don't particularly care about legal or illegal. She got teased for her terrible English, I got teased in general, so we naturally gravitated towards one another.

**Yes, there are very white Mexicans out there. I admit I was pretty surprised when I figured that out, and then really ashamed of being surprised.

pic link

The Crazy 8's* of Bigotry

The Opine Editorials, best known for bigotry with a side order of wtf, has a new contributor: Renee. Whilst On Lawn enjoys sly homophobia and The Playful Walrus barely contained contempt for the other, Renee's style is more about splaying random words upon the screen that may or may not relate to any subject matter anywhere.

Exhibit 1:

From National Public Radio.... How I Met Your Father: A Mom's Memories And how many individuals today will not hear a positive story of their own parents meeting, because they don't love each other and too painful to remember? Why did it matter to the author to capture this memory?

This relates to same sex marriage how? Societal breakdown maybe? I don't know. It's definitely ungrammatical, in that VERBS: USE THEM is what I shouted upon reading it, but further reading didn't help me grasp any point at all.

Exhibit 2:

I just saw this article regarding fathers ability to prevent smoking in teenagers. 'Communicative Fathers' Help Reduce Teenage Smoking from Science Daily While many fathers are present at birth, who may not be married to the mother we have to ask where is that father 15 years down the road? Is he a just a child support check? Is he seen every other weekend? How does someone have consistent communication with his child, when the father does not live under the same roof. Does facebook count for personal communication? Can one parent online to a teenager? Another study to note is the disparity in blacks and whites regarding lung cancer. Blacks suffer from lung cancer at a much higher rate then whites. Now with 70% of all children, who are black being born out of wedlock what are their chances that there will be a communicative father down the road in their own lives?

COMMAS: LEARN THE RULES** is, of course, my first thought, because I don't think 70% of all children are black, which quickly turned into GOOGLE: USE IT so I did. Guess what I found? That's right. African Americans smoke less than whites. In fact, the reason blacks are more likely to die of lung cancer is lack of access to adequate health care, not smoking:

• Despite lower smoking rates, African Americans are more likely to develop and die of lung cancer than whites.
• African American men are 37 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than white men, even though their overall exposure to cigarette smoke – the primary risk factor for lung cancer – is lower.
• African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed later, when cancer is more advanced.
• African Americans are more likely to wait longer after diagnosis to receive treatment, to refuse treatment, and to die in the hospital after surgery.

That has nothing to do with raising children via Facebook, Renee. Thanks for playing!

*What? You've never played Crazy 8's? It's fun! I don't recommend Slapjack, although kids always think it's the best game ever.

** Let's eat, Fred! being a far different sort of day than Let's eat Fred!