oh Manasshole, how i miss you not at all

What better way to celebrate a glorious Memorial Day weekend than to stage a police shootout between a crack dealer and skimask-shrouded narcotics agents in the busiest (and most 'upscale') shopping center in Manassas? I held my first job ever just one store down from the scene of the shootout, at Borders Books and Cafe. Oh the sweet memories.

And sadly, as retarded as this whole situation is, it'll take a lot more to upset Manasshole's current claim to fame--severed dick hurled from speeding car.

But here's hopin'!

i will never go into a lake ever ever ever again

My GOD but this thing is obscene. It is fat and gross and awful. How appropriate that it is to be displayed at a Cabela's Outfitter store. Sometime in the near future I will expect a story about some overly-curious redneck kid who climbed into its tank only to be devoured alive.

Uggghh.

where do we go from here?

Recently the House Armed Services Committee passed a measure that would give Congress more control over which military units are open to women, effectively legalizing current Department of Defense policy that bans placing women in “direct ground combat” units below the brigade level. In response, angry opponents are citing examples of women succeeding in combat during the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq and some are accusing DoD of conspiring to shut out women from its top positions, promotions to which require combat experience. Meanwhile, proponents of the measure argue that women are physically, emotionally and/or mentally unfit for combat, that their presence at the front line diminishes combat unit cohesion and effectiveness, that they are more vulnerable to rape and abuse at the hands of captors, that the killing, wounding, abuse and rape of female soldiers damages American public morale, and that it is morally reprehensible to send a chick to do a man’s job (ie. kill, maim, live in a tent, etc.).

This whole mess brings up some interesting issues. Here are some of the most pressing:

Issue #1: Women are physically, emotionally and/or mentally unfit for combat. First, the physical argument. True—the average American woman is not as strong as the average American man. Most people who use this argument question the ability of a female soldier to drag a heavy man off the battlefield. (Funny how this was never an issue when female nurses were busy heaving wounded men around in the midst of battle.) Furthermore, as Karl Dishaw so aptly argues, “considering that American women average the same size as Vietnamese men, we might want to think about whether size makes for good fighters.”

Next, the emotional and mental argument. Does anyone really doubt that a woman can ignore her civil instincts long enough to kill an enemy combatant? The Soviets used women for years as snipers. And here at home we have our own poster-child for mental and emotional detachment—Pfc. Lynndie England. Apparently, her femininity posed no obstacle to her willingness to torture and humiliate helpless prisoners. In fact, as was revealed in testimony during her recent military mistrial, she didn’t know that she was doing anything wrong when she helped stack naked men in a human pyramid for an impromptu photoshoot.

Issue #2: The killing/wounding/abuse/rape of female soldiers hurts public morale. Women are killed, wounded, abused and raped in every conflict, regardless of whether or not they are wearing a uniform. Female soldiers have been killed and wounded in the past three wars—Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again—but their sex doesn’t really seem to be an issue with the public. Moreover, arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed into combat because they might be raped and tortured if captured is a little hypocritical (what with the fact that it was a life-threatening situation that got them into the whole torture-and-rape-problem in the first place). Why is it that a woman’s vagina is still considered the most important organ in her body—especially in situations that really don’t concern it?

Issue #3: Combat vs. non-combat zones. How is the US government going to distinguish between combat and non-combat zones? Although we are not officially at war with anyone we do currently have some guerilla warfare issues in Iraq. Will they draw lines in the sand? Put the women in protective, hamsterball-like bubbles? Or maybe the solution is simpler. As Rep. Loretta Sanchez (Calif.) declared, “if we don’t want to see women killed, then maybe [we] should make a law that says women can’t be in Iraq.” ZIIING!! Brilliant.

Oh wait.

Issue #4: The US Army is facing its lowest recruiting levels in the history of voluntary service. Apparently, high school grads are more willing to face a tough job market rather than rocket attacks and roadside bombs. Who knew? As a result, Army recruiters are having a hard time filling their quotas, and some are resorting to threats and belittlement to try to coerce young people into signing their souls into uniform. I saw one story on the news about a high school student who received a voicemail from a recruiter who expressed his frustration at her decision not to join the Army by calling her a “hood rat” whose “fat ass” could continue working for UPS instead. Because of such reports the Army has now called for a “stand down” of recruiting operations so that it can reaffirm its recruiting mission—without coercion this time.

Issue #5: The rest of the world is extremely busy trying to look too busy to send any more troops into our Iraqi quagmire. Besides, who’s going to bail us out of Korea if Kim Jong Il gets trigger-happy?

Issue #6: No one wants a draft. No one in government even wants to say “draft.” There are still a lot of people around who remember the last one—and they vote.

Issue #7: So, what is the government’s plan for troop coverage in Iraq? Not women. Or gays, if we can help it. And Aragorn’s already released the Army of the Dead. But not to worry—we’re the greatest country in the world, with the biggest and baddest military in the world! Surely our Pentagon officials have it all planned out and are just holding us in suspense before they reveal the Master Plan. Right?

(I would Mapquest an escape route to Canada, just in case.)

fun birthday facts

Celebrities born on May 21:
- Mr. T: Famous for massive gold chains, scowl, catch-phrases, afrohawk.

- Notorious BIG: Famous for making music, being fat, being dead.

- Judge Reinhold: Famous for Beverly Hills Cop I, II & III, Santa Clause 3 (in production).

Obscure historical events that occurred on my birthday:
- Ford Motor Company issues a recall for the 1981 Ford F-250 because some trucks were manufactured without a portion of the floor pan insulation material.

- The US Senate approves a $20 billion program to reinstate full-scale American production of chemical and nerve gas weapons. Some of these weapons are later transferred to Saddam Hussein. Rummy and Saddam shake on it.

- Francois Mitterrand becomes President of France. This reminds me of a joke:

One day President Mitterrand called an aide into his office.

Mitterrand: When I die I must be buried somewhere grand—somewhere befitting my status as the notable leader of a great nation.

So the aide immediately began researching the best and most famous burial plots in the world, searching for the perfect place for the President to be buried. Finally, he found one.

Aide: President Mitterrand, I have found the perfect place for you to be buried.

Mitterrand: Well, where is it?

Aide: In the tomb of Jesus Christ, sir. The Israeli government is asking $10 million as the burial fee.

The President paused, contemplating the offer. Then,

Mitterrand: Ten million? Isn’t that a bit expensive for three days?

if at first you don’t succeed

One broken minidisk player bought from Canadian jerk on ebay: $70.
One pound of salmon on sale for $3.99/lb but incorrectly labeled “colossal shrimp”: $15.
One ticket for violation of parking regulations: $300.
Starting over: Priceless.

Due to cosmic difficulties Jed’s 25th birthday has been rescheduled for Saturday, 14 May 2005. (No gifts are necessary but cash donations are appreciated.)

monkey debate (part II)

This week the Kansas State Board of Education is hosting debates on whether or not “intelligent design” theory should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. In protest, and perhaps a little out of shock that such debates are occurring 80 years post-Scopes, all self-respecting scientists are boycotting the debates. Although intelligent design-supporters have been very careful not to specify an alleged creative genius behind the Earth’s design, opponents argue that the existence of God is implied. Therefore, many who support evolution as the only valid theory of the Earth’s origin are angered by what they believe is an attempted moral hijacking of public education by religious conservatives. Scientists and evolution supporters are bristling at the fact that while their theory relies on years of research and numerous pieces of evidence, their opponents’ theory relies on the as yet unverifiable assumption that there is a God. Understandably, they are extremely resentful that the theory that many have worked so hard to establish could soon be sharing valuable tax-funded educational time with what basically adds up to a fairytale explanation.

But my dear frustrated brethren, while these are trying times, do not despair. Although evolution may soon have to share the spotlight with a creationist theory, prevailing scientific reason can still be protected from any religious imposition—and thanks to a loophole in intelligent design theory no less. Even though proponents of intelligent design correctly assume that their theory implies the existence of God, because they have neglected to specify the identity of the intelligent designer there is no need for science teachers to limit their response when answering students’ questions about the alleged creator’s identity. When a young person demands what creative force is behind Earth’s design the teacher may answer anything he chooses—in the spirit of rampant theorization, anything remotely plausible is fair game.

Teacher: …and although evolution has been the prevailing theory for decades, some people believe that the world was designed by an intelligent being.
Student: An intelligent being? Like who?
Teacher: Well, like aliens from a far-away universe. Or perhaps mischievous fairies. Like that impish Puck—he’s always causing trouble.
Student: Well who made the aliens and the fairies, then?
Teacher: Oh, that’s not covered in this class—you’ll learn that in college.

And thus, the integrity of the public education system’s scientific curriculum shall be preserved.

ode to a pizza

Oh glorious pizza,
with your melted cheese and crunchy crust,
and your mushroom, bell pepper and olive toppings,
you are a giant edible frisbee of perfection.
You fill my tummy when it is rumbly,
and even hardened criminals cannot resist you.
Whether there is nothing in my fridge,
or I have forgotten to thaw meat for dinner,
or there is a hostage situation at a maximum security prison,
you always pull through.
I love you.

monkey debate (part I)

Recently the state of Kansas has become the center of a debate concerning which theory of the Earth’s origin should be taught in public schools. Conservative groups and pro-Creation agencies contend that the theory of evolution does not provide enough scientific evidence to secure it as the only logical explanation for life on Earth. They argue that gaps in evolutionary theory indicate the presence of a creator who played a guiding role in the planet’s creation. They are therefore fighting to include the theory of “intelligent design” alongside the theory of evolution in the public school curriculum, and have launched a fanatical campaign to undercut the theory of evolution in every way possible.

Although the scientific community was initially dumbfounded by the fact that moral conservatism could threaten even the most widely accepted scientific facts, it quickly recovered to initiate damage control and launch rejoinders at its challengers. The debates that ensued between the two sides range from the intellectual and provocative to the petty and hilarious.

At one point, in an effort to prove that a large number of scientists support other explanations of the Earth’s origin, the Discovery Institute (the strongest advocate of the “intelligent design” theory) published a list of 356 scientists who questioned evolution. In return, the National Center for Science Education released its own list of 543 scientists ‘overwhelmingly in favor’ of evolution—all named Steve.

Who knew evolutionary scientists could be so goddamned funny? Wouldn’t it be ironic and strangely satisfying if these nerds won the debate not based on the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory of common ancestry, but on their clever wit and ensuing popularity?

so creepy

We just finished watching Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” and now my loving boyfriend wants to start smoking just so that he can freak me out in the middle of the night. Fantastic.