Crispy Critters Cereal

The eighties were so nice.  We had jingles for consumer products.  We had little mascots, little representatives for those products.

"Oh here comes Crispy Critters, a good wholesome bunch; the low sugar cereal with lots of c-rr-runch.  ...Indubitably delicious."  It was a wonderful, happy, or at the very least, caring and sincere era in which to grow up.

Not like nowadays with all their postmodern jaded ironic people.  "What, you want to be sincere and un-ironic and straightforward and honest and open, and say exactly what you mean?  You’re saying you _don't_ want to leave people wondering if they got your meaning, by speaking in passive-aggressive tones of ironic code and sarcasm?  You’re saying you _don't_ want to leave people slightly offended and insulted by speaking in underhanded insults?  What, you want to make sure you two in the conversation understand each other and have a polite civilized discourse?  ohmigosh, so lame and uncool.  What, you want fun and passion for your work?  So boring."

Stupid cynical ironic.  Oh you’re just too cool for Christmas, aren't you?  Ungrateful too-cool-for-school jackazzez.

Insincerity And Irony Are Cool

totally insincere at all times.  bc they are too afraid of looking liek they care or are happy peppy energentci.

they are too afraid of getting hurt.  so they exhibit a total lack of feelings, a total lack of wearng their heart on their sleeves.  a total lack of not expressing theie loving heart.s  they see this lack of feelings as sternthg.  if they don't have feelings, if nothing registers on theier feeligns, then nothing can hurt them.  they wonj't get hurt.

It's like as if they are overly concerned w impressing the cool kids.  Then they won’t be laughed at.  then they won't be made fun of.  in high school, the kids that were really involved inthe commnnjiyt, doing cimmunuyr outreach programs, doing volunteer, work , volunteering at a soup ktichen, giving the homeless showers or whatever.  these were the preppy good do-gooder kids with way too much eneryg and team spirit and always trying to rally up the student bodyy to get them to havfe some school spirit.  how incredibly dorky.  "come on, gang!  we can do it!"

it's cool not to care.  it's cool not to be sincere.  it's cool not to ever show your trye feelings, it's cool to display to everyone that nothing touches you, that nothing affects you, that nothing slices through that cool metallic esxterior to get at the warm soft sponginess underneath.
never coming right out and *saying what they mean.*  alwasy talking in cirecle,s aleawyas speaking in code.  always beaitn around the bush.

The Subject of Smoking versus Drinking

We have all these laws everywhere that put an iron foot down with the notion that smoking is bad.  Smoking anything at all.  Cigarettes, marijuana.

Okay, fair enough.  Yet the laws are unbelievably lax when it comes to drinking alcohol.  Tequila, liquor, beer, wine, vodka.

This is even though alcohol leads to a multitude of crime and other social problems.  Drunken frat parties on college campuses.  Date rape.  College campus rapes.  Drunk driving.

Just so we're clear, in no way whatsoever am I excusing people's behaviors when they are drunk.  There is no such thing as "under the influence" in the sense that it therefore absolves people's behaviors when they are drunk.  Drunk people voluntarily, consciously chose to get drunk.  Drunk people chose to get behind the wheel and endanger the lives of innocent people on the road.

Drunk people chose to
Alcohol is not some sort of mystical powerful force, wherein ingesting it [[conveys]] possession by an evil spirit.

But where is the consistency?

If drinking anything at all is okay, then smoking anything at all should equivalently be okay.

From what I have read in studies and polls and seen on news reports, smoking cigarettes does not lead to severely impaired driving.  Smoking cigarettes does not lead to foggy thinking nor slurred speech, [[bad judgment,  Smoking cigarettes does not lead to violent crime.

Alcohol leads to a hell of a lot more

I personally have never touched a drug or cigarette, etc. in my life.  But I can easily detect the ridiculous inconsistency in the laws regarding any and all kinds of chemical dependencies.

Blustering Bravado CEOs

The vast majority of women's magazines are a severe insult to my intelligence.  Not to mention an insult to my morals.  (Sigh of boredom and wanting to move on.)  I am well aware that it is not cool to mention morals.  But no one has ever accused me of being "cool."  Nope.  I wear the badges of Nerd and Geek with immense pride.

For all their blustering bravado that they are "career women" [[[[whow done't have time]]]]] and therefore we should regard them with awe......

...Their careers are surprisingly... dull.

When I was at the mediocre private women's college, all those girls did the exact same core thing.  They all majored in silly fluff majors akin to those featured in checkout-aisle magazines.  They went to college as a distraction until they got their M.R.S.  They were probably relieved if and when they managed to find a guy to which they could attach themselves, like leeches.

Or like sea lampreys.  You know, those scary looking worm-fish that superficially resemble eel except they have rows and rows of endless teeth.  It is mesmerizing to see one.  Their teeth are circular formations (more accurately than rows) that spiral in concentric rings.

You know what else this reminds me of?  I remember watching a wonderful, fascinating educational video called Donald Duck in Math-Magic Land.  (A much happier memory than the sea lampreys.)  There was at one point a demonstration of a perfectly formed geometric illustration.  It was a series of shapes that nested into each other, a triangle that had inside it another triangle; and that it turn had inside it another triangle; and when you zoomed in closer, this one in turn had inside it another triangle.  A hierarchy of shapes.  It was an infinite amount of detail that could venture into the sub-subatomic level of organization.  (Also too kind of like Russian stacking dolls.)  It is dizzying to behold a set of sea lamprey's chompers.  Anyway, I digress.

But at least they were more or less honest about it.  They never put up a pretense of being strong capable women in charge of their own life.  They were wimps, they were spoiled pampered princesses.  They were whiny, racist, pain-in-the-ass, middle class white kids.  They went to college as a distraction until they got married or found a boyfriend or something (Doogie Howser paraphrased).  And they never pretended any different.

Groundbreaking New Claim About Accepting Opinions Automatically

I think we can safely make another true claim, that just because something is counter-culture does not automatically mean it is good.

There already exists the well-justified, addressed notion that just because something received accolades from the establishment, such as Grammy awards, or Academy awards, or if an artist achieves commercial success, none of this automatically means that the recipient of that stuff is actually any good.  Talented, original, etc.  I think that one is pretty well-established in the lexicon of the middle-class-white-kid-who-wants-to-play-free-thinker-intellectual-for-a-day.

They absolutely cannot stand an honest critique of a so-called artisan's work.  Don't you dare offering a differing opinion from what the counter-culture alterna-circuit approves as accepted dogma.

The only opinion they tolerate is their own.  That something is "groundbreaking, controversial, trailblazing, dance to the beat of their own drum."etc.
This is outside the mainstream, this is deviant.  Therefore on principle it is automatically better than the mainstream.  You better accept this as being better than the mainstream.  Or else.  "ohyourre not being true to yourself, oh you're just putting on a façade."

They do not want anyone to say what they <truly> think.

Well, what if I think it is utter trash?
What if I think there is just a whole lot of pomp and circumstance selling this crap to the public?  And not a whole lot of talent being utilized to make this stuff?  Not to mention, there is not a whole lot of evidence of talent displayed at all.

Then they spring back a whole lot of irritating blathering natter about how, "you are closed-minded; you are not truly expanding your horizons; you are not truly possessing artistic sensibility."  They pipe up with, "you are not truly possessing a discerning eye; you are just looking at a gut reaction rather than taking the time to dig deep and find a more profound meaning."

Let us get one thing straight.  The counter-culture types are every bit as adamant as mainstream folks are about enforcing their opinions onto others. They are shoving their viewpoints down people's throats.

If you do not like their brand of judgment, you are closed-minded.  They hype up their endorsement of entertainment expression things that they want to impose and inflict on others.

But now I think we can [[[follow, trace, document, chronicle]]]] another one emerging.

I think this has been well established, it is now common knowledge that, just because something is mainstream does not automatically mean it is of good quality.  Songs and musicians that win Grammies, The oscars movies, tv shows that receive much critical acclaim, et cetera -- these are not necessarily the best offerings out there.  This idea has been successfully [[[grafted welded branded]]]] into people's collective skulls.

But I think now we need to address another issue that has risen to prominence.  Just because something is counterculture, alternative, like "indie movies" does not automatically mean they are good, either.  There is a sizable lot of entertainment material, which according to them is "unique, dance to the beat of their own drum, rebellious, goes against the grain," all that crap -- that actually sucks.  Just because they purposely rebel against the established authority does not automatically mean they are better.

I'm sorry, did I shock you?  I'm sure this revelation must jolt your sensibilities.

Much Ado About Blustering For Free Speech

Now I realize that for all their preaching and blustering about free speech, freedom of expression, express yourself, etc., liberals are not very tolerating of opposing viewpoints at all.  These self-proclaimed "liberals" are in fact exceedingly closed-minded.  They cannot stand when anyone expresses disgust or disapproval.

Liberals always say they are in favor of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and freedom of religion.  They say they want people to be more open-minded and to practice tolerance.

Unless it is the liberals themselves that have to showcase some tolerance.  Unless it is the liberals themselves that have to show some respect for others' beliefs.

Case in point:  the dude that wanted the Ten Commandments plaque removed from the front of his child's school.

Geez, liberal.  If you have a problem with it, then don't look at it.  It's as simple as that.  Just don't look at it.  Isn't this exactly the same advice you give to parents, uptight people, and Christians anytime they have a problem with sex and violence on TV?  Just look away.  Just change the channel.  Just turn the TV off.

So why the hell can you liberals not practice what you preach?  Are you not capable of this?  Do you not possess the capacity for self-regulation and control of your own actions?

If you don't like the religious stuff in front of your child's school, then don't look at it.  Just ignore it as you walk by it.  Don't make it a problem for others.  According to your own heavily-thumped doctrine, you have no right to do so.

So, what is it?  It is not okay for them to impose their beliefs on you, but it IS okay for you atheists to impose your beliefs onto Christians,?

you say that they should not be allowed to express their religious beliefs.  why not?  and you think it is okay to tell them not to pray in public.  you say that that the Ten Commandments should not be displayed outside of courthouses or outside of schools.  you think it is okay to tell them where they can and cannot express their religious views.

YOU are oppressing THEM.
You say they should not be allowed to express their religious beliefs.  But why not?  Because you feel that it oppresses you?

And yet you are doing the exact same thing.  By enacting law that they cannot express t___, you are effectively oppressing them.  Why should your rights be more important than Christians' rights?

You say that it offends you?  Well, guess what.  You are offending them.  There seems to be quite a bit of hypocrisy here.

**mention about the thing in high school ""meet me at the flag pole.""

*also the thing about having a problem w prayer in public school
-erm excuse me but couldn't you just, like, not pray?

Oh.  So what you are saying is that you don't **really__ respect other people's opinions.  You are not welcoming to diverse ideas.

No, you do not.  You are not truly open-minded and free speech and freedom of thought.  Freedom of thought means freedom of thought for everybody -- including Christians.

Either practice what you preach and DO be truly open-minded -- or be honest and admit that you are not.

Same with controversial books.  Read the interviews carefully whenever an author is asked whether or not they think it's a good idea for children under the age of twelve to read their books (or under age eighteen for that matter).  These are books that by rights are grown-up books that contain a lot of gruesome subject matter.  If you'll notice, they never come right out and say what they really mean or what they are really thinking.  They kind of give an equivocal response____
Okay, then about when someone--

HHow about you come right out and plainly state that you do not think little 12-year-old kids should be reading those kind of books?  Or do not think little kids should be playing those violent, sickening video games?  If you truly believed in free speech, then you should have no qualms whatsoever to voicing your true opinion.

Sorry sweetie pie, but freedom of speech works both ways.  If you liberals get to express whatever you want, then so too do conservatives have the same privileges extended to them.

 I don't know why destruction of emotional health, erosion of personal barriers, and desensitization to violence are all considered okay.  Especially by way of forms of entertainment.  What is wrong with just having kids play normal, cute video games where they don't savagely rip apart women's limbs?

Back in the day, we played Super Mario Bros. on a Nintendo Entertainment System.  We were thankful for it and we were happy with it.  It was fun, and it was all the fun we needed.  That and Tetris on a little handheld gameboy thing, hehe.  We did not need scenes of gruesome violence to sate our entertainments needs.  We did not feel somehow deprived of some formative experience because of lack of TV screen trauma.

About Beautiful Women

I have no problem at all admitting if another woman is beautiful.  When I express disgust at pornography, strippers, the way women are portrayed in ghetto rap culture, etc.  For some reason some people have an automatic, knee-jerk reflex, go-to stock response-reaction that the reason I am disgusted absolutely must be because I feel jealous, unworthy of love, afraid that I would disappoint a man, unable to reach that "standard" (laugh of laughs), some shit like that.

Oh, Christ.  (Roll eyes.)  Give me a freakin break.  This sort of "logic" completely eludes me. Okay so, that person is the one demeaning themselves, reducing themselves to less than the sum of their body parts...  And you think _I_ am the one that feels inadequate? Really?

I like art and drawing and painting, so I regard beautiful-looking people, both men and women, as being akin to art.  Similar to admiring a breathtaking panorama nature scene in autumn, the Mona Lisa, classical Greek statues, traditional Chinese tapestry works and painted silks.

I think a beautiful woman who has glorious natural curves (I do not mean a euphemism for fat/obese), such as when Jewel and Renee Zellweger used to be sexy, gorgeous, are the ideal of feminine beauty.  I think Christina Hendricks and Nigella Lawson are two of the most beautiful people on the planet. Catherine Zeta-Jones is practically off the charts, she is the embodiment of perfection (although in honesty not nearly as curvy as the former).  And I love that she has a sexy, kind of a growling voice.  Other beautiful women are Kristen Kreuk; Emily Browning (although I feel kind of ooky referring to her as a “beautiful woman -- she’s only a child); Uma Thurman, Salma Hayek (I think she's smarter than people give her credit for), Scarlett Johanssen (in a weird way I respect her as per hollywood standards -- she is really young yet as far as I know she has never done one of those stupid high school teenager movies), Thandie Newton, Angelina Jolie from about five years ago (lately she looks like s---).

Plus, it will sound really not-credible, but some of the girls at my high school were absolutely breathtaking.  Not in the typical small-town average-person way, which is to say cheap-looking, bleached hair, slutty-dressing.  They were actually gorgeous -- hollywood celebrities ain't got nothing on them.  (For the record --same with many of the boys at my high school.  Somehow, the town I grew up in seemed to have an inordinate-sized population of beautiful-looking people.  I will admit to not being one of them.)  They did not have the benefit of plastic surgery, diva-esque personal lackeys staff of twelve, or airbrushing.  I am telling you, they were gorgeous.

Like I said, I have no problem admitting if another woman is beautiful.  But please do not insult my intelligence and try to tell me that those disgusting, disease-ridden, infested, insect-riddled creatures in porn and strip clubs and walking the streets are somehow an ideal of beauty.  I grew up knowing what genuinely beautiful people look like, so I am not falling for this trash that the media tries to pimp out at us.

About Actresses

I read some interview with crappy actresses where they defended their constant need to not wear clothes.  (Then again, the phrase "crappy actress" is a bit redundant, I'll admit.)

I find it condescendingly amusing how you are all sitting there trying to act all intellectual and academic.  You are pretending that there is some profound hidden meaning because it is sooooo complex that there are layers that one couldn't possibly hope to find unless they really take the time to delve and do not judge-a-book-by-its-cover/jump-to-conclusions/be-closed-minded/etc.

There are a handful of stupid glib liberal responses:  "There is a profound hidden meaning buried deep inside and the only way to understand is that you should be more open-minded" and "should not be afraid to take risks, break free from the shackles," some crap like that.

They are serenading it with some bullcrap soliloquy about how, "oh look at how it gracefully and profoundly offers commentary on the human plight, on the human condition, oh this is true artistic expression, this transcends and defies a simple straightforward explanation."

Some gibberish like that.  I rather prefer to call them out point-blank on the empty philosobabble they are spewing.  I would like to have the guts to come right out and speak my mind.  Sometimes the search is in vain.  It does not consist of layer upon layer of enigmatic blathering natter.  Sometimes it is simply meaningless drivel, plain as the nose on your face.

Same Thing Everywhere

Look around you.  All those silly so-called “women's magazines” in the checkout aisle of the supermarket or drugstore.  (I dislike using the phrase “women’s magazines” to describe them because that seems like an insult to real human women.  I hope that real human women are not that stupid.)  It’s the same mistakes repeated by countless dumbarse females, over and over again.  I have gotten to the point that I really don't have any sympathy for the females that get themselves into these stupid situations.  Reason being, they usually did this of their own volition and their own bad judgment.

The same stupid self-destructive behavior keeps cropping up time and time again.  These dumbazzes keep saying crap like they “think promiscuity is liberating."  But then they have the ludicrously obtuse gall to say that males are the ones who don't have maturity, who don't follow through on commitments, who don't know how to take care of their responsibilities when they get an unwanted pregnancy.

Really?  So you're supposedly liberated and empowered enough to make your own decisions, but your situation is still somehow someone else's fault?  These females are shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that they actually have to answer for their own mistakes.

Equality means equality.  If males have to answer for their relationship quaffles and have to take responsibility for screwing up and having bad judgment, then so too do females.

I even wondered, is this crap for real?  Or are these magazine producers just spitting out a bunch of bullshyte to sell magazines?  So I began looking around me in real life.  Listening to stories that social workers tell, reading that book that Judge Judy wrote.  (Don’t look at me like that.  She appears crazy on TV but she is a smart woman.)  Listening to stuff that counselors report, who work with teenagers and young females.

After a while of hearing these repeating patterns and depressingly similar stories for a while, it gets to be common sense what to do. Like algebra.  It becomes quite plainly obvious what is the right, healthy, smart, safe thing to do.

Don’t eff random people.  Have some goddamn self-respect.  Especially regarding matters of sex.

Dating Complaints, Can't Make Up Their Minds

I see the same dating complaints repeated over and over and over again in relationship advice columns, dating advice columns, tons of general magazines.  I am seeing tons of equivocal, vapid, empty reasons that these females decide they don't want to make a commitment.

"Oh I need to grow some more as a human being, oh the timing just wasn't right, ohh we were at different stages in our lives, ohh I need to go and find out who I am, ohh I need to find myself."  Middle-class white people love talking about "finding themselves."

And yet at the same time, these females agonize over every single little meager detail that they experienced on a date with a guy.  They pore over and obsess over every imaginable insignificant change in voice tone, or aa syllable drawn out longer than normally socially acceptable.  They analyze every single line of conversation, every offhand gesture for any perceived hidden meaning.  They will attach profundity to trivial crap that probably didn't mean anything.

I already grew weary of this crap back in high school. I find this thread of discussion to be, simply put, boring as hell.  Those girls may or may not have been having sex, but their dating complaints were always aggravating to listen to.

Now that we are in 2000 with the asinine, idiotic sex and the city TV show, the social climate has only gotten worse.  Because now they are adults.  This does not mean they are smarter or making better decisions.  It just means they adding sex to their bad decisions.  They are not necessarily the exact same girls, but they are the same demographic, so you get the idea.

If they are single, they are miserable and lonely, and they think of themselves as uncool losers that will never find love.  But Yet when they are in a dating relationship, all they do is complain about their boyfriend.  About how “he doesn't listen, ohh he's so selfish, oh he never pays attention to anything I say;” blah blah I don't even remember what else.  These are evidently, by the way, all the same females that spew crap about body confidence, about how they are strong capable women that don't need a man to define their sense of self-worth, etc.

I just stop listening within a very short while of the commencement of their spiel because it is so goddamn boring.  Not to mention predictable.  Hmm.  This might be why I don't have a whole lot of girl friends.  I don't have a lot of patience to listen to them.  It gets very irritating hearing the same crap regurgitated time and time again.  All these dating complaints are the same.

The Only Thing Preventing You From Having Respect For Yourself...

What really irks me is that some females think that the only reason they would ever not sleep with a male on the first date is because the male might think she's a slut.

Pause.  Really??  You’re telling me that that is truly the only reason you can think of for not jumping into bed the second you meet someone?  Oh, so your logic is that since you no longer have to care about what men think about you, therefore this absconds you from any responsibility to yourself.

Yeah, you're probably right.  Legions of women who cared about their own emotional stability, not to mention their own safety and physical health, don't need to do that anymore.  Because the men have lifted their disapproval, and after all, a man's reaction is totally the only reason women do anything.  Yeah, they should totally stop because after all, the only reason a woman would do anything is for a man's approval.  Certainly not because that is important for herself, certainly not to preserve her own health and sanity.  Perish the thought.