i hate this new fad that's going around. that, what's it called? oh, yeah, "Politically Correct". that, dear readers, is pure, grade-A crapola! i figure, as long as someone can be kind and decent, there would be no need to be so overly-polite, it's actually more offensive.
i'm not talking something simple, like "African-American" instead of "black." (although, my friend in my art class told me he thinks that's stoopid -- "I never been to Africa; I'm black!") i'm talking something more along the lines of "SLOW" being an acceptable term for for anyone with a mental -- and, sometimes, physical -- detriment. call them what they are -- not what the social populace is most comfortable with.
"SLOW" could mean "retarded", and, yeah i know that word is majorly frowned upon, due to all the idiots (not socially "slow" people -- the people who actually fit in, but are jerks anyway) who use this word to describe everything they find unappealing (that, and "gay," which, if i were going freud on their butts, i'd say it's because they secretly were gay, and wanted to kill that part of themselves... psych class... gotta love it... anyway, digression...). so, because of those non-retarded, possibly gay jerk-wads, "retarded" is a word that freaks everyone out.
but the word "SLOW" is way worse! "retarded," your mind just functions on a different plane, and that's kinda cool. but "SLOW" is like those people who find a retarded kid, and sart talking to him, "heeeeeeeyy theeeeeerre, buuuuu-dyyyyy! myyyy naaaaaame jeeeeeeerrrrrrrrkk-waaaaaaaaaa-duh! dooooooo yooooooouuuuuu uuuuun-duuuurr-staaaaaahhhhhhnnnnn-duh?!" and, first of all, no, they can't understand you, because, unlike you seem to think, he exists at the same vocal speed you do. second of all, they're looking at you, giggling, because you're the one that looks retarded, right now.
the word "SLOW" is also used to describe the autistic, and, on occasion, the dislexic, which is really dumb, considering that, no matter what you say they are to put down their mental capabilities, they're probably twice as smart as you are, in one subject or another. if anything, you should call them "FAST" or, better yet, "UNDERDOG" (i love that cartoon), because they perseveare, despite what they have holding them back.
"SLOW" is also used to indicate sevantism, which is one part selective mutism, and two parts obsession. sevants, i find personally fascinating, because every ounce of energy, every waking moment is dedicated to one thing, and one thing only, be it playing the piano, drawing flowers, or eventually getting to the final numerical digit of pi. it's hard to find where this particular obsession stems from, and even harder to find a way for the public populace to deal with it. most sevants of the world spend their entire lives locked up in a room, or a group facility, where they can carry out their obsessions in peace.
then there's physical ailments that may make the person appear as though they have a mental ailment, such as cerebral paulsey, getting them lumped in with the "SLOW" descriptions. but i can prove this is pure Bubble Snot, because i have personal experience. not me, in particular, but i went to school, from kindergarten all through graduation, with a girl in a wheelchair, who had cerebral paulsey. she controlled her chair with a joystick, had to have her feet strapped down, and couldn't speak coherently, so she used a state-of-the-art touch-screen computer to do her talking for her. now, this is where people start to feel awkward: this girl was obviously not mentally retarded, or anything else. She was smart, and deviously cunning. and a total [witch]. yeah, feel that uneasy churn in your stomach as you read that? that was socially-induced political correctness subconsciously drilled into your head. that's the way everyone felt when i'd gone to them for help, as this girl decided my make my life miserable, getting me in trouble, running over my feet with her weels, throwing herself out of her chair, saying i pushed her, all kinds of crap. but they all thought, she's got a physical ailment, she wouldnt' do that on purpose! of flippin' course she would! because she knew she could get away with it! being in a wheelchair doesn't automatically make you a good person!
anyway, too much rant. next time you use the word "SLOW" think about its meaning, then feel free to use the proper description.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
if my life had a sound track (part 2)....
you know how important i believe the sound track is to a movie, and that's why i rarely find an art film that tickles my fancy, artist that i am.
so, anyway, i decided on several more musically-based scenes in my not really that possible movie of my life.
first, when i make my grand enterance at the beginning of the film, i'll be walking onto campus in rhythm to the openning riff of AC/DC's "Back in Black" as the camera pans up from my chunky gothic combat boots, up fishnet tights, to a black dress and paint-splattered denim apron, to my spikey brown hair with the big, black bow in it, and then pull away so that, by the time it gets to the part about "cat's eyes" i will be in full frame, and completely awesome. then, a good old-fashioned record scratch as i trip and fall head-first into a metal trash can and roll into the nearest wall. that's a great enterance sequence.
i've also always been fond of high-adreneline chase sequences. car chases, in particular ("Death Race" rocks -- basically ALL car chase! love it!). but, set this to a four-part chorus (soprano, alto, tennor, and base) singing in latin. why latin? because i like the language, and because of the fabulous juxtaposition of car chases, something very modern, and singing in latin, something so old, it's actually a dead language. (think the opening sequence to Disney's version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" where judge claude frollo is chasing the gypsey woman, quasimodo's mother, through the streets of paris to the church steps. i have a lot to say about this movie, and Disney's interperatation of it, but we'll save that for later.)
a sequence shared between me and my best friends would be wonderful set, as a montage without sound, to Meat-Loaf's "i'd lie for you (and that's the truth!)" just a properly cut sequence of scenes where we are all going to the drive in, or laughing at the lunch table, or behind the scenes in the school play. this song always reminds me of my friends.
also, at some point, i think it would be great to get in a cameo of david bowie. just 'cause.
anyway, thanks for reading this latest issue of "if my life had a sound track..." the question remains, though; what would you have as YOUR sound track?
so, anyway, i decided on several more musically-based scenes in my not really that possible movie of my life.
first, when i make my grand enterance at the beginning of the film, i'll be walking onto campus in rhythm to the openning riff of AC/DC's "Back in Black" as the camera pans up from my chunky gothic combat boots, up fishnet tights, to a black dress and paint-splattered denim apron, to my spikey brown hair with the big, black bow in it, and then pull away so that, by the time it gets to the part about "cat's eyes" i will be in full frame, and completely awesome. then, a good old-fashioned record scratch as i trip and fall head-first into a metal trash can and roll into the nearest wall. that's a great enterance sequence.
i've also always been fond of high-adreneline chase sequences. car chases, in particular ("Death Race" rocks -- basically ALL car chase! love it!). but, set this to a four-part chorus (soprano, alto, tennor, and base) singing in latin. why latin? because i like the language, and because of the fabulous juxtaposition of car chases, something very modern, and singing in latin, something so old, it's actually a dead language. (think the opening sequence to Disney's version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" where judge claude frollo is chasing the gypsey woman, quasimodo's mother, through the streets of paris to the church steps. i have a lot to say about this movie, and Disney's interperatation of it, but we'll save that for later.)
a sequence shared between me and my best friends would be wonderful set, as a montage without sound, to Meat-Loaf's "i'd lie for you (and that's the truth!)" just a properly cut sequence of scenes where we are all going to the drive in, or laughing at the lunch table, or behind the scenes in the school play. this song always reminds me of my friends.
also, at some point, i think it would be great to get in a cameo of david bowie. just 'cause.
anyway, thanks for reading this latest issue of "if my life had a sound track..." the question remains, though; what would you have as YOUR sound track?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
FIGHT THE POWER! QUESTION THE MEDIA! LEARN THE REAL TRUTH!
i have a problem with authority -- like everyone seems to, these days, i guess. but most people hate authority because another authority tells them to: the antichrist corruption of information known as the "MEDIA". but what the media tells us to hate about the government is just the superficial icing on a whole cake of corruption!
get your foil helmet on, and tripple-lock your vault-lined bedroom, and transmit confusing noises as you read on! here come the conspericy theories! and i dare ya to prove me wrong!
the media told us to hate george w. bush for his inarticulation and inability to keep his campaign promises to bring world peace and take down a terrorist state accross seas. they used these devices to distract the world from the far more sinister aspects of his position: dirty deals. it just wouldn't be a proper presidency if he didn't deal with dirty laundry, such as taking and doling out bribes, playing one side of a schism against another, and more. i guarrintee every president in history (every LEADER) has committed these crimes, no matter the reasoning behind them (some actually had a somewhat noble cause -- that's right, lookin' at you, lincoln), but even with good intentions, a crime is a crime. unless, as they say, you get caught. when these leaders DID get caught, the very people who were partaking of these crimes as much, if not more, vigor would be the ones taring them down to the media (there's that word, again), and it's the guilty ones who are the first to suggest indictment, before the media can distract, again, to keep the american public at ease, with a proper scandal to gossip about (think bill clinton: was on trial for bribes, 'till media distracted with the sexual oval office affair, and everyone forgot everything about the crime, and foccussed on adultery).
now, the "war on terrorism", taking place all over the middle east. iraq, iran, afganistan... the media (say, how about we count all the times this awful word comes into play! like a game! okay, 6) says to hate the war because it's gone on so long, they've lost so many american lives, etc. well, i'm sure the entire middle east would like it finished, as well, considering how many times they sent messages to the american gov't to "remove your troops immediately!". what was the media's (7) excuse for invading their territory, anyway? oh, yeah, "nukes." they got an annonymous tip that, somewhere in the middle east there were nuclear weaponrey, which they were prepared to use on the american devils. frankly, i want to know where our leaders got this information, because i don't remember seeing osama on the 11:00 news, presenting this threat firsthand. coincidentially, it was some of OUR people, presenting this rumor as fact, using the media (8) to spread panic, to keep the country's mind off the other crap they had going down, a few more layers concealed, at that time. you think they really care about the millions of american lives? heack no! in their mind, that's what these people signed up for! and as for the lives of the billions of middle eastern soldiers, let alone trillions of civillian lives, who had nothing to do with the establishment of this war? cattle.
but there's more to the war than that. i agree that, after the attacks early on in the century, a war was a fair response. sometimes it's a necissary response. but they did it wrong. they jumped without thinking. who was it, exactly, that put the moves on our landmarks? well, they were already dead. you can't win in a fight with someone who's eager to martyr themselves for their cause (hey, at least they're committed...). their great puppetmaster? osama bin laden. HIS nationality? no one can remember, exactly, considering how far the war has spread out, territorially. just middle eastern, is all anyone can think of.
speaking of territory, another reason the war doesn't work: we're fighting with an entire country at a time. each country is merely a boundry line. inside each country are dozens of different territories that may not agree with each other culturally, historically, or even financially. we tend to act like each country has the same type of people throughout it, when, in fact, the differences between cultural territories inside the boundry lines are as different as if the american government decreed that san fransisco and new york city were to now live together in the very center of idaho, along with all the people who already live in idaho, and expect them all to not only get along, but to share ideals and work together as one single unit. can't be done! they would all be constantly at war within idaho. that is any given country in the middle east. misrepresented, misinterperated, and misplaced. they all hate each other, and that's enough pressure without our troops coming in, trying to get them to all get along, under OUR ideals.
that brings up another point. after no nukes were found in the middle east territories, the government/media (9) collaboration had to find another reason for which our troops were still there. the descision was finally reached to establish a new, democratic government in the place of the one they could easily overthrow. of course, as soon as this happened, american soldiers started complaining that the new government wasn't working out. uh... friggin' DUH! for one thing, it took our own country over a century to get where we are today. and the place we invaded was already ten times more rigid a society than early america ever was -- and we're expecting them to take up on the plan right away??!! how much of a presumptuous idiot can a unified country be?! (that, i'm afraid, would be us.) how dumb and selfish can our own leadership get?
speaking of THAT (and i promise this is my last point), consider all the disasters that have occorred to this country in the last decade. starting with the fall of the towers: a fund was taken, countrywide, to support the families who had lost someone to the towers until they could support themselves. but, even today, a vast percentage of that money is STILL SITTING IN A BANK VAULT SOMEWHERE!! also, about that disaster, it's been ten years! the people who lost everything, and got nothing, i'm sure, ARE SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT! like salt to a wound, and butter to a burn -- all this memorial stuff just adds insult to injury. i'm not the only one who wishes the media (10) would just shut up about it and MOVE ON to something else they didn't witness to brood about. and that huge hurricane, katrina. yeah, it sucks that it devistated new orleans. it sucks that fema was so friggin' slow to help these people. but katrina was a dang ENORMOUS hurricane. new orleans wasn't the only place to suffer. but that's the only place we ever heard about. the only place reported to have gotten ANY help, whatsoever. florida was hit real bad, too, as well as texas, a huge amount of mexico, and, you know that little island that no one has heard about till the earthquake this january, haiti? had to practacly re-establish the entire island. speaking of haiti, the whole stupid country seemed to care more about the sudden disaster there, than the eventual disaster completely taking our nation: homelessnes, poverty, and the overall proof that this nation, this world, even, would be better off in a post-apocolyptic industrial wasteland (which, according to certain OTHER conspiracy theorists -- not me -- is on it's way in two years).
don't be a mindless media (11 -- well, 12, including the title) following puppet who believes all you are told on the news. fight the power. question the media (lucky 13). learn the real truth --not their version of the truth.
get your foil helmet on, and tripple-lock your vault-lined bedroom, and transmit confusing noises as you read on! here come the conspericy theories! and i dare ya to prove me wrong!
the media told us to hate george w. bush for his inarticulation and inability to keep his campaign promises to bring world peace and take down a terrorist state accross seas. they used these devices to distract the world from the far more sinister aspects of his position: dirty deals. it just wouldn't be a proper presidency if he didn't deal with dirty laundry, such as taking and doling out bribes, playing one side of a schism against another, and more. i guarrintee every president in history (every LEADER) has committed these crimes, no matter the reasoning behind them (some actually had a somewhat noble cause -- that's right, lookin' at you, lincoln), but even with good intentions, a crime is a crime. unless, as they say, you get caught. when these leaders DID get caught, the very people who were partaking of these crimes as much, if not more, vigor would be the ones taring them down to the media (there's that word, again), and it's the guilty ones who are the first to suggest indictment, before the media can distract, again, to keep the american public at ease, with a proper scandal to gossip about (think bill clinton: was on trial for bribes, 'till media distracted with the sexual oval office affair, and everyone forgot everything about the crime, and foccussed on adultery).
now, the "war on terrorism", taking place all over the middle east. iraq, iran, afganistan... the media (say, how about we count all the times this awful word comes into play! like a game! okay, 6) says to hate the war because it's gone on so long, they've lost so many american lives, etc. well, i'm sure the entire middle east would like it finished, as well, considering how many times they sent messages to the american gov't to "remove your troops immediately!". what was the media's (7) excuse for invading their territory, anyway? oh, yeah, "nukes." they got an annonymous tip that, somewhere in the middle east there were nuclear weaponrey, which they were prepared to use on the american devils. frankly, i want to know where our leaders got this information, because i don't remember seeing osama on the 11:00 news, presenting this threat firsthand. coincidentially, it was some of OUR people, presenting this rumor as fact, using the media (8) to spread panic, to keep the country's mind off the other crap they had going down, a few more layers concealed, at that time. you think they really care about the millions of american lives? heack no! in their mind, that's what these people signed up for! and as for the lives of the billions of middle eastern soldiers, let alone trillions of civillian lives, who had nothing to do with the establishment of this war? cattle.
but there's more to the war than that. i agree that, after the attacks early on in the century, a war was a fair response. sometimes it's a necissary response. but they did it wrong. they jumped without thinking. who was it, exactly, that put the moves on our landmarks? well, they were already dead. you can't win in a fight with someone who's eager to martyr themselves for their cause (hey, at least they're committed...). their great puppetmaster? osama bin laden. HIS nationality? no one can remember, exactly, considering how far the war has spread out, territorially. just middle eastern, is all anyone can think of.
speaking of territory, another reason the war doesn't work: we're fighting with an entire country at a time. each country is merely a boundry line. inside each country are dozens of different territories that may not agree with each other culturally, historically, or even financially. we tend to act like each country has the same type of people throughout it, when, in fact, the differences between cultural territories inside the boundry lines are as different as if the american government decreed that san fransisco and new york city were to now live together in the very center of idaho, along with all the people who already live in idaho, and expect them all to not only get along, but to share ideals and work together as one single unit. can't be done! they would all be constantly at war within idaho. that is any given country in the middle east. misrepresented, misinterperated, and misplaced. they all hate each other, and that's enough pressure without our troops coming in, trying to get them to all get along, under OUR ideals.
that brings up another point. after no nukes were found in the middle east territories, the government/media (9) collaboration had to find another reason for which our troops were still there. the descision was finally reached to establish a new, democratic government in the place of the one they could easily overthrow. of course, as soon as this happened, american soldiers started complaining that the new government wasn't working out. uh... friggin' DUH! for one thing, it took our own country over a century to get where we are today. and the place we invaded was already ten times more rigid a society than early america ever was -- and we're expecting them to take up on the plan right away??!! how much of a presumptuous idiot can a unified country be?! (that, i'm afraid, would be us.) how dumb and selfish can our own leadership get?
speaking of THAT (and i promise this is my last point), consider all the disasters that have occorred to this country in the last decade. starting with the fall of the towers: a fund was taken, countrywide, to support the families who had lost someone to the towers until they could support themselves. but, even today, a vast percentage of that money is STILL SITTING IN A BANK VAULT SOMEWHERE!! also, about that disaster, it's been ten years! the people who lost everything, and got nothing, i'm sure, ARE SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT! like salt to a wound, and butter to a burn -- all this memorial stuff just adds insult to injury. i'm not the only one who wishes the media (10) would just shut up about it and MOVE ON to something else they didn't witness to brood about. and that huge hurricane, katrina. yeah, it sucks that it devistated new orleans. it sucks that fema was so friggin' slow to help these people. but katrina was a dang ENORMOUS hurricane. new orleans wasn't the only place to suffer. but that's the only place we ever heard about. the only place reported to have gotten ANY help, whatsoever. florida was hit real bad, too, as well as texas, a huge amount of mexico, and, you know that little island that no one has heard about till the earthquake this january, haiti? had to practacly re-establish the entire island. speaking of haiti, the whole stupid country seemed to care more about the sudden disaster there, than the eventual disaster completely taking our nation: homelessnes, poverty, and the overall proof that this nation, this world, even, would be better off in a post-apocolyptic industrial wasteland (which, according to certain OTHER conspiracy theorists -- not me -- is on it's way in two years).
don't be a mindless media (11 -- well, 12, including the title) following puppet who believes all you are told on the news. fight the power. question the media (lucky 13). learn the real truth --not their version of the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)