Thursday, March 31, 2005
Drugs
Why does the government waste so much money every year to combat illegal drugs? Because they're illegal. To my mind, the obvious solution is this: legalize the fucking drugs.
"That's a terrible idea!" wail the right-wingers. But have you ever stopped to think about it?
First of all, anyone who wants to use drugs is going to use them, regardless of their legality. Laws against drugs won't stop anyone who's determined to get high. And the laws certainly don't discourage our impressionable youth from experimenting either. Legalizing drugs won't swell the ranks of drug addicts because everyone who is inclined to do drugs is already doing them. Rather, the opposite effect will occur. Like alcohol during Prohibition, one of the reasons illegal drugs are so popular is simply that they are illegal. If we legalize them, that appeal will be gone, and there will be fewer addicts.
Sure, drugs are bad for you, but so are lots of perfectly legal things, like tobacco and alcohol. Outlawing alcohol didn't stop drinking, it just drove it underground. The same thing is happening with drugs. People who do drugs, like alcoholics and smokers, are idiots, so who cares if they do something that's bad for them? Idiots who want to get stoned are going to get stoned whether it's legal or not. No more lives are going to be ruined by legal drugs than were ruined by illegal drugs, so why exactly are they illegal at all?
Drugs should not be legalized for their own sake, but because the government funds currently being used to fight drugs could definitely be better spent. If we used it for education, for instance, maybe our public schools wouldn't be such shitholes. No one benefits from drugs being illegal, and that money could be put to better use practically anywhere. No matter how hard we try, we'll never catch all of the drug smugglers, drug dealers, or drug addicts (or even most of them), so why try at all? Even if all of them could be caught, the laws aren't fairly enforced anyway. The government turns a blind eye to the rampant drug use that occurs in celebrity circles, which is ridiculously hypocritical.
Legalizing drugs won't make them more popular. In fact, it will probably make them less popular. No one is going to be screwed over by drugs who isn't already being screwed over. Legalizing drugs definitely won't make the situation worse, and even if it doesn't help, it will free up money that can be used for more important things. The government has to pick its battles, and drugs are one thing that just aren't worth fighting over.
"That's a terrible idea!" wail the right-wingers. But have you ever stopped to think about it?
First of all, anyone who wants to use drugs is going to use them, regardless of their legality. Laws against drugs won't stop anyone who's determined to get high. And the laws certainly don't discourage our impressionable youth from experimenting either. Legalizing drugs won't swell the ranks of drug addicts because everyone who is inclined to do drugs is already doing them. Rather, the opposite effect will occur. Like alcohol during Prohibition, one of the reasons illegal drugs are so popular is simply that they are illegal. If we legalize them, that appeal will be gone, and there will be fewer addicts.
Sure, drugs are bad for you, but so are lots of perfectly legal things, like tobacco and alcohol. Outlawing alcohol didn't stop drinking, it just drove it underground. The same thing is happening with drugs. People who do drugs, like alcoholics and smokers, are idiots, so who cares if they do something that's bad for them? Idiots who want to get stoned are going to get stoned whether it's legal or not. No more lives are going to be ruined by legal drugs than were ruined by illegal drugs, so why exactly are they illegal at all?
Drugs should not be legalized for their own sake, but because the government funds currently being used to fight drugs could definitely be better spent. If we used it for education, for instance, maybe our public schools wouldn't be such shitholes. No one benefits from drugs being illegal, and that money could be put to better use practically anywhere. No matter how hard we try, we'll never catch all of the drug smugglers, drug dealers, or drug addicts (or even most of them), so why try at all? Even if all of them could be caught, the laws aren't fairly enforced anyway. The government turns a blind eye to the rampant drug use that occurs in celebrity circles, which is ridiculously hypocritical.
Legalizing drugs won't make them more popular. In fact, it will probably make them less popular. No one is going to be screwed over by drugs who isn't already being screwed over. Legalizing drugs definitely won't make the situation worse, and even if it doesn't help, it will free up money that can be used for more important things. The government has to pick its battles, and drugs are one thing that just aren't worth fighting over.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Guest Rant: Wal-Mart
Let me start by thanking my friend for allowing me to write a guest rant on this fine and quite angry site.
Wal-Mart is a multi-billion dollar international corporation, which (as is generally known of anything that big) makes most of its buisness off of screwing people over. Currently, I (and all of my neighbors now that I come to think about it) am being screwed over royally. How, you ask? The simple answer: less than two blocks away from my house, construction has begun on the largest Wal-Mart in the country. Let's look at the potential gains: more tax money for the city. This could be advantageous in the long run. Now the drawbacks: pollution of all types, increased crime, increased road traffic, much lower property value, and possibly even more unforseen effects.
If you weigh all of the possible gains and all of the drawbacks, I'm sure you'll find that we are getting totally screwed. Here's what sucks, though: this didn't have to happen. Our friendly neighbors on the other side of town were originally planned to carry this burden, but through intense lobbying they managed to dump their refuse onto us. Now, there is nowhere else it can go. Taking the "not in my backyard!" approach like they did is not only a disgusting disregard of other people's rights, but it is also a good display of the average attitude of humans towards other humans.
Finally, just so you don't think that I'm a hypocrite, I don't take the "not in my backyard!" approach, I take the "not the fuck at all, assholes!!" approach, mostly (but not entirely) because of the numerous reasons describe above. My other reasons are the company's employment policies and total economic dominance. Instead of providing useful jobs for the workforce, Wal-Mart provides many dead-end minimum wage jobs. Lastly, Wal-Mart will destroy any competition in the area, essentially pronouncing death for any locally run business. Thanks Wal-Mart!!
Wal-Mart is a multi-billion dollar international corporation, which (as is generally known of anything that big) makes most of its buisness off of screwing people over. Currently, I (and all of my neighbors now that I come to think about it) am being screwed over royally. How, you ask? The simple answer: less than two blocks away from my house, construction has begun on the largest Wal-Mart in the country. Let's look at the potential gains: more tax money for the city. This could be advantageous in the long run. Now the drawbacks: pollution of all types, increased crime, increased road traffic, much lower property value, and possibly even more unforseen effects.
If you weigh all of the possible gains and all of the drawbacks, I'm sure you'll find that we are getting totally screwed. Here's what sucks, though: this didn't have to happen. Our friendly neighbors on the other side of town were originally planned to carry this burden, but through intense lobbying they managed to dump their refuse onto us. Now, there is nowhere else it can go. Taking the "not in my backyard!" approach like they did is not only a disgusting disregard of other people's rights, but it is also a good display of the average attitude of humans towards other humans.
Finally, just so you don't think that I'm a hypocrite, I don't take the "not in my backyard!" approach, I take the "not the fuck at all, assholes!!" approach, mostly (but not entirely) because of the numerous reasons describe above. My other reasons are the company's employment policies and total economic dominance. Instead of providing useful jobs for the workforce, Wal-Mart provides many dead-end minimum wage jobs. Lastly, Wal-Mart will destroy any competition in the area, essentially pronouncing death for any locally run business. Thanks Wal-Mart!!
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
AOL
Internet access has, in the ultraconnected world of the 21st century, become a necessity on par with electricity and running water. There are literally hundreds of ISPs out there, but for some reason an overwhelming percentage of prospective customers choose America Online over more qualified candidates.
Why? AOL is a scam that preys on the elderly and the uninformed. AOL achieves an extremely high degree of name recognition by clogging the postal system with millions of its CDs. If you have a mailing address, you've doubtlessly received dozens of the things. So when people (especially old people, who are for the most part completely clueless when it comes to computers) sign up for internet service, they flock to AOL because it's a name that's well-known and, they assume, respected.
So what makes AOL a scam apart from the success they have in selling their so-called product? AOL users are willing to cough up $23.95 each and every month because they think AOL offers more and more user-friendly services than other ISPs (if they think at all, which is unlikely).
So does AOL really offer more services for the money? Let's take a look.
Internet access: The $23.95 monthly charge is for standard 56K internet. Rates of ten dollars a month and below are easy to find elsewhere.
Email: AOL's monthly fee gets you a paltry 100 megs of email storage. With a Gmail account you get 1000 megs, and Yahoo and even Hotmail, the absolute bottom of the barrel for webmail service, give you 250. How much do these cost? Absolutely nothing.
Instant messenger: This is somehow a selling point even though you can get it separately for free.
Radio: Everyone likes listening to music, but if you think you have to pay to do it, you're wrong. You can get the same service from Yahoo for free.
Personalization: That's nice. While you're getting ripped off, you can turn your start page different colors. Whoopee.
Clearly, AOL offers nothing that justifies the exorbitant fee, and this is for dialup. It would be easier to forgive this obvious ripoff if AOL was at least more user-friendly than the competition, but it's not. User-friendliness is a myth formulated by AOL to lure in unsuspecting, computerphobic senior citizens. Even simple tasks are excruciatingly complicated, and anything more involved than sending email is a nightmare. AOL is not friendly in any way, least of all to your bank account.
If you're reading this right now, then either you're using AOL or some other ISP. If you're using AOL, do yourself and the world a favor by cancelling your subscription so you can enjoy the satisfaction of supporting one fewer megacorporation this month.
Why? AOL is a scam that preys on the elderly and the uninformed. AOL achieves an extremely high degree of name recognition by clogging the postal system with millions of its CDs. If you have a mailing address, you've doubtlessly received dozens of the things. So when people (especially old people, who are for the most part completely clueless when it comes to computers) sign up for internet service, they flock to AOL because it's a name that's well-known and, they assume, respected.
So what makes AOL a scam apart from the success they have in selling their so-called product? AOL users are willing to cough up $23.95 each and every month because they think AOL offers more and more user-friendly services than other ISPs (if they think at all, which is unlikely).
So does AOL really offer more services for the money? Let's take a look.
Internet access: The $23.95 monthly charge is for standard 56K internet. Rates of ten dollars a month and below are easy to find elsewhere.
Email: AOL's monthly fee gets you a paltry 100 megs of email storage. With a Gmail account you get 1000 megs, and Yahoo and even Hotmail, the absolute bottom of the barrel for webmail service, give you 250. How much do these cost? Absolutely nothing.
Instant messenger: This is somehow a selling point even though you can get it separately for free.
Radio: Everyone likes listening to music, but if you think you have to pay to do it, you're wrong. You can get the same service from Yahoo for free.
Personalization: That's nice. While you're getting ripped off, you can turn your start page different colors. Whoopee.
Clearly, AOL offers nothing that justifies the exorbitant fee, and this is for dialup. It would be easier to forgive this obvious ripoff if AOL was at least more user-friendly than the competition, but it's not. User-friendliness is a myth formulated by AOL to lure in unsuspecting, computerphobic senior citizens. Even simple tasks are excruciatingly complicated, and anything more involved than sending email is a nightmare. AOL is not friendly in any way, least of all to your bank account.
If you're reading this right now, then either you're using AOL or some other ISP. If you're using AOL, do yourself and the world a favor by cancelling your subscription so you can enjoy the satisfaction of supporting one fewer megacorporation this month.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
The Philadelphia Story
Last night I watched a terrible movie called The Philadelphia Story (1940), which I suppose some people would call a classic. Here's what I learned from it.
1. It's OK to hit your wife. (In the opening scene, Cary Grant is seen flooring Katharine Hepburn with a blow to the face after she breaks his golf club.)
2. Class boundaries must be upheld at all costs. (Hepburn's character is planning to marry George Kittredge, played by John Howard, who is clearly "beneath" her, according to ex-spouse C. K. Dexter Haven (Grant). Luckily, Hepburn repents in the nick of time and remarries the aristocratic Grant, despite his alcoholism and violent tendencies. We can all heave a sigh of relief that the sanctity of the upper class has been upheld once more.)
3. A man can't be blamed for having an affair. It's his daughter's fault. (After Hepburn confronts her father (John Halliday) about his affair with a dancer, he pins the blame on her for not loving him enough. No one seems to object to this, including Hepburn herself. She later apologizes.)
4. The best solution to thorny problems is to drown them in liquor. (The film's main conflict is resolved only after everyone involved is safely under the influence and staggering around comically.)
5. Marrying a confirmed drunkard who hits women is a good idea. (Hepburn agrees to remarry her ex-husband, apparently because she's now a boozer herself and will be better equipped to put up with Grant's drinking.)
6. Your wedding day is a good time to be severely hung over. (After an all-night binge which she can barely remember, Hepburn is looking lively as the hour of her wedding draws near.)
7. The night before your wedding is the best time for affairs with other men. (A tipsy Hepburn has fun with Jimmy Stewart in the pool the night before she is supposed to marry Howard.)
8. Driving drunk is perfectly fine. (After the supply of champagne dries up, Hepburn, who can barely stand, gets the job of transporting herself and Stewart back home, where greater reserves of alcohol are waiting for them.)
9. No one likes you unless you're an alcoholic. (Hepburn's character is accused of being chaste, aloof, and cold, as well as being unable to tolerate other people's excessive drinking. She manages to correct all of these faults after a few glasses of the bubbly.)
So basically, the whole point of this movie is to show how much better life is when you're hammered. It's like one long beer commercial without the gratuitous sexual innuendo that is the hallmark of that noble genre, and with champagne instead of beer. And this is the kind of shit that people call a classic film?
1. It's OK to hit your wife. (In the opening scene, Cary Grant is seen flooring Katharine Hepburn with a blow to the face after she breaks his golf club.)
2. Class boundaries must be upheld at all costs. (Hepburn's character is planning to marry George Kittredge, played by John Howard, who is clearly "beneath" her, according to ex-spouse C. K. Dexter Haven (Grant). Luckily, Hepburn repents in the nick of time and remarries the aristocratic Grant, despite his alcoholism and violent tendencies. We can all heave a sigh of relief that the sanctity of the upper class has been upheld once more.)
3. A man can't be blamed for having an affair. It's his daughter's fault. (After Hepburn confronts her father (John Halliday) about his affair with a dancer, he pins the blame on her for not loving him enough. No one seems to object to this, including Hepburn herself. She later apologizes.)
4. The best solution to thorny problems is to drown them in liquor. (The film's main conflict is resolved only after everyone involved is safely under the influence and staggering around comically.)
5. Marrying a confirmed drunkard who hits women is a good idea. (Hepburn agrees to remarry her ex-husband, apparently because she's now a boozer herself and will be better equipped to put up with Grant's drinking.)
6. Your wedding day is a good time to be severely hung over. (After an all-night binge which she can barely remember, Hepburn is looking lively as the hour of her wedding draws near.)
7. The night before your wedding is the best time for affairs with other men. (A tipsy Hepburn has fun with Jimmy Stewart in the pool the night before she is supposed to marry Howard.)
8. Driving drunk is perfectly fine. (After the supply of champagne dries up, Hepburn, who can barely stand, gets the job of transporting herself and Stewart back home, where greater reserves of alcohol are waiting for them.)
9. No one likes you unless you're an alcoholic. (Hepburn's character is accused of being chaste, aloof, and cold, as well as being unable to tolerate other people's excessive drinking. She manages to correct all of these faults after a few glasses of the bubbly.)
So basically, the whole point of this movie is to show how much better life is when you're hammered. It's like one long beer commercial without the gratuitous sexual innuendo that is the hallmark of that noble genre, and with champagne instead of beer. And this is the kind of shit that people call a classic film?
Friday, March 25, 2005
Porn
Why are you on the internet right now? If you're a male aged 10 to 50*, I think I have a pretty good idea. We live in a sex-obsessed culture, and the majority of the internet is devoted to its trappings. Admit it: you probably only found this rant because of the title, and probably you're already furiously punching your browser's "back" button because it's become apparent that there is not a single naked female to be found here. *Males over 50 enjoy porn too, but are too computer-inept to find it online.
Why does everyone enjoy looking at porn so much? There's one simple answer: Every single one of you cyber-assholes is too much of a pathetic loser to ever get any real sex, so instead you glue your nose to whatever two-dimensional slut you can find, and are perfectly willing to fork over cash for the dubious privilege. Unfortunately, enough of you lowlife scum actually manage to have children that you aren't dying out like you should be, and the population of porn addicts actually seems to be increasing.
If you have to ask why looking at porn makes you a dumbshit, you're even more of a dumbshit than I thought. What enlightenment, happiness, or lasting satisfaction can you possibly derive from ogling high-res photos of some poor girl who wasted her life? Porn is about exploitation. Satisfying you drooling bastards is not a career. It's not fulfilling or satisfying. It's humiliating and degrading, and your daily $2.95 is financing this exploitation. Girls with poor prospects all over the world are denied a chance at a real career because of you. If you listened to your brain instead of your penis, you might have arrived at this obvious realization yourself. Maybe. Probably you're such a dumbass that thinking with your penis is more effective than using your brain anyway.
Prostitution is illegal in most of the United States. Cyberprostitution, which essentially is what porn is, is not. The First Amendment says you can put pretty much whatever you want on the internet, but if no one looked at porn, there wouldn't be so damn much of it. Not only are you bastards funding sexploitation, but you're also contributing to the trashiness of the internet by creating a market for porn sites. The entire porn "industry" would collapse overnight without an audience of breathless losers to generate profits.
I'm sure none of you hopeless dumbshits are still reading at this point because it hurts too much to hear the truth, but if you are, think about what you're reading if thinking is within the capacity of your feeble gray matter. If you feel motivated and want to become less of a pathetic moron, you could turn off your computer right now, go to a bar, and meet some women. If you're still committed to your dumbshit ways, I'll stop wasting your time so you can get back to the important things in life.
Why does everyone enjoy looking at porn so much? There's one simple answer: Every single one of you cyber-assholes is too much of a pathetic loser to ever get any real sex, so instead you glue your nose to whatever two-dimensional slut you can find, and are perfectly willing to fork over cash for the dubious privilege. Unfortunately, enough of you lowlife scum actually manage to have children that you aren't dying out like you should be, and the population of porn addicts actually seems to be increasing.
If you have to ask why looking at porn makes you a dumbshit, you're even more of a dumbshit than I thought. What enlightenment, happiness, or lasting satisfaction can you possibly derive from ogling high-res photos of some poor girl who wasted her life? Porn is about exploitation. Satisfying you drooling bastards is not a career. It's not fulfilling or satisfying. It's humiliating and degrading, and your daily $2.95 is financing this exploitation. Girls with poor prospects all over the world are denied a chance at a real career because of you. If you listened to your brain instead of your penis, you might have arrived at this obvious realization yourself. Maybe. Probably you're such a dumbass that thinking with your penis is more effective than using your brain anyway.
Prostitution is illegal in most of the United States. Cyberprostitution, which essentially is what porn is, is not. The First Amendment says you can put pretty much whatever you want on the internet, but if no one looked at porn, there wouldn't be so damn much of it. Not only are you bastards funding sexploitation, but you're also contributing to the trashiness of the internet by creating a market for porn sites. The entire porn "industry" would collapse overnight without an audience of breathless losers to generate profits.
I'm sure none of you hopeless dumbshits are still reading at this point because it hurts too much to hear the truth, but if you are, think about what you're reading if thinking is within the capacity of your feeble gray matter. If you feel motivated and want to become less of a pathetic moron, you could turn off your computer right now, go to a bar, and meet some women. If you're still committed to your dumbshit ways, I'll stop wasting your time so you can get back to the important things in life.
