2009 predictions revisited

Well ladies and germs, it's that special time of year again. I know, I know, I can hardly believe it either -- 58 years since the Marshall Plan expired! Can you believe it? Coincidentally, it's also the last day of 2009, which means it's time for me to revisit those predictions I made exactly a year ago. So in the immortal words of Castor Troy, "Let's go, let's go, I'm bored, let's go," I will review my predictions with no further ado:

The following things will take place in the year 2009:

* I actually do get that darn job this time. I'm very effing due.
Yes, although very different than what I had in mind. I actually ended up going back to school to get my Master of Divinity at Bethel Seminary, and just got hired to work in the library there. That, combined with my financial aid [aka the first debt I've ever had... not sure how I feel about that] and a couple of days a week at my old job at The Remington Club gives me enough money to survive on my own.

* Some schmuck will try to kill President Obama. He will not be successful.
I'm sure there were multiple attempts, but the two that stand out to me are the incredibly ill-conceived plot by white supremacists to shoot Obama during his inauguration speech, and the guy who mailed him an envelope of HIV-infected blood (and included his return address and a photo of himself, no less).

* Brent, naturally, will contract a baker's dozen STIs. He's very effing due.
Once again, like shooting fish in a barrel. He got so many this year, I even wrote a song about it.

* Caleb gets a swinging bachelor pad, a new chair, and an embarrassing rash.
I wish I could say I only got two out of the three, but alas, I'm batting 1.0 thus far.

* Someone I know will get in an auto accident.
My best friend Stacey got in a multi-car pileup earlier this year, rendering her car totally, um, totalled. Then, just a few nights ago, we were driving in her new car and got rear ended in a parking lot! Luckily the second one was just a scratch.

* Charles really will be the gentleman caller to a female acquaintance for at least 45 minutes. He's very effing due.
Not to my knowledge, but he did get a Lord of the Dance t-shirt.

* At least three massive political scandals. Not just little Larry Craig style, either. I'm talking Duke Cunningham and Rod Blagojevich calibre scandals that make Jay Leno not even have to try anymore.
Boy, if I just omitted the word "political" from that one, I'd have been right on with David Letterman and Tiger Woods. But rules is rules, and I said political scandals, which were surprisingly tame this year. We had Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) sleeping with his treasurer and Gov. Mark Sanford (SC) hastily skipping town without warning to hike the Appalachian Trail nail his Argentine adulteress. Both men declined to resign, despite the ridiculousness of their corruption, especially on the part of Sanford (who violated 37 ethics laws). We also saw [now former] CA Assemblyman Michael Duvall bragging to his friend about his multiple affairs with lobbyists over a hot mic on live TV. Woops! This was particularly outrageous because this clown has a long history of denying rights in the name of "family values"... but I guess adultery is more morally upright than same-sex marriage, eh Mike?

* Someone extremely unlikely gets engaged. Heads explode.
Brent (of multiple STI fame)'s sister Erica got engaged and subsequently married within the same week. Another Erika just announced her engagement to another guy named Brent (apparently going for the confusion factor), and my buddy Andy got engaged to his ladyfriend Courtney not long ago as well. I'm also told that my friend Washburn from high school got engaged within the past month or so, too. And then there's the engagement of former youth ministry student Peter to former youth ministry leader Meg (don't worry, it only sounds sketchy) And, according to some rumors I've heard, I may or may not have gotten engaged this year, as well. Funny how I'm always the last one to hear about the major events in my life.

* Sheer madness, the likes of which hasn't been seen since 2005. The kind of madness that'd make King George seem pretty straightforward.
I don't know if there was actually grand-scale madness of this sort, but there was definitely a high amount of small-scale madness, so that may average out about the same.

There we have it. Seven accurate predictions and two not-quite-there ones. Not too bad, I think. Hopefully I'll do even better in 2010.

Happy new year!
-cbr

a lesson from history's knucklebrains

I read this passage in my Systematic Theology textbook just now, and was reminded of some of the popular responses in the American Church to the election of our two most recent Presidents. The last one caused a lot of us to have to eat our hats. The current one, well, it's far too early to tell how history will remember him. But we can be pretty certain that the nigh-deification we've been seeing is at best misguided, and at worst idolatry.

We need to be careful as to what we identify as God's providence. The most notable instance of a too ready identification of historical events with God's will is probably the "German Christians" who in 1934 endorsed the action of Adolf Hitler as God's working in history. The words of their statement are sobering to us who now read them: "We are full of thanks to God that He, as Lord of history, has given us Adolf Hitler our leader and savior from our difficult lot. We acknowledge that we, with body and soul, are bound and dedicated to the German state and to its Führer. This bondage and duty contains for us, as evangelical Christians, its deepest and most holy significance in its obedience to the command of God."¹ A statement a year earlier had said, "To this turn of history [i.e., Hitler's taking power] we say a thankful Yes. God has given him to us. To Him be the glory. As bound to God's Word, we recognize in the great events of our day a new commission of God to His church."² From our perspective, the folly of such statements seems obvious. But are we perhaps making some pronouncements today that will be seen as similarly mistaken by those who come a few decades after us?

-Excerpted from Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (2nd edition) (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998)

Now I'm not in any way comparing the President to Hitler. I'm not comparing the last one to him, either. I'm simply pointing out that, with both of them, a lot of evangelical Christians acted as though they were the anointed ones of God, when in fact they're just men. The religious zeal of the German Christians for Hitler is but an extreme example of the folly inherent in such conclusions. Let us act more wisely going forward.

¹ Quoted from Berkouwer, Providence of God, pp. 176-77.
² Quoted from Karl Barth, Theologische Existenz Huete (Munich: C. Kaiser, 1934), p. 10.

a letter to the library, written in the library

Dear San Diego Public Library Head Honcho,

I'm writing today with a concern about the evolving library culture in San Diego. I remember a time, not so long ago (really not that long ago; I'm not even 30), when libraries were quiet places where we spoke in hushed tones and were careful not to disturb patrons who were there to read or study. I've noticed a change over the past few years, though. People now speak at conversational volume. What's worse is that it's primarily library staff members doing this! These are the people who are supposed to shush us, with scowls on their faces, when we speak above a whisper; now the roles are reversed, and I'm scowling at them as they're breaking my concentration while I'm trying to study.

I can't speak to all of the branches in San Diego, but I can attest that this is common at the Rancho Bernardo and Carmel Mountain Ranch locations. I always hoped I wouldn't turn into that guy who writes letters to complain about the times a-changin' until at least my 60th birthday (coinciding with my debut as the old man who yells at kids to stay off his lawn, by the way), but I figured it'd be better to address this earlier rather than later, as I'll hopefully be done with grad school by then and it won't be as big a deal for me.

Thanks so much for your time, and for providing an outstanding (albeit sometimes noisy) public library system. Keep up the great work.

-Caleb Ruggiero

feminism, logic, and (ir)rational debate

The following is an exchange I had with a colleague via the comments section of a link she posted on Facebook. I'm not disclosing her name or how I know her, but for context I will say that she's an adult female, several years my junior, and despite the impression this exchange may give, I really do like her and consider her a friend.

The initial link she posted was an essay entitled "Feminist arguments: A good argument against feminism". Having a basic understanding of logic and rhetoric, it didn't take me long to recognize that this piece is so wrought with fallacy and condescension that it's not even worth finishing.

Once I got about half way through, I quit reading and wrote a quick response. Little did I realize that this would lead to me spending my afternoon debating instead of getting the alignment on my Saturn done. Here's the exchange:

Me:
I read the first few paragraphs, and couldn't bring myself to continue.

Let's just take a moment to clear up what feminism is, and what it is not.

Feminism is the theory that women should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as men.

Feminism is NOT about women and men being exactly the same. It's not about women being better than men. It's not about burning bras, male-bashing, lesbianism, or anything else this author would like to convince us it is.

It's just the theory that men and women should be afforded equal opportunity and equal rights. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Me:
And yes, there do exist feminist sub-theories which advocate misandry (reverse sexism), transgenderism (eg., not shaving, acting "butch"), and various other concepts which most people would consider "fringe".

But keep in mind there are some conservatives who advocate misogyny, the suspension of the Bill of Rights, and racial bigotry. But these views are not representative of what it means to be a conservative.

And there are some liberals who advocate voting rights for noncitizens, the abolition of capitalism, and eliminating our police and military forces. But these are certainly not reflective of classic liberalism.

And also, there are some Christian groups which promote anitsemitism, homophobia, violence, and greed. And you and I know these have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Just as it would be dishonest and reckless to generalize any of these fringe sub-theories as representative of their metatheories, we must take care not to do the same with feminist theory.

Her:
whatever the theory originally was, or what feminism is "defined as", is irrelevant. I did not post this article to say that women are inferior to men, but rather, that women should stop ACTING like the victim. Yes, men and women are of equal value, but it cannot be argued that they are the same. They're not, and that's a good thing...something to be celebrated, not fought. For the most part, feminism has become an agent for women to complain and act picked on. Interestingly enough, it is not uncommon for feminists to have had crappy, loser fathers. Hmmmmm..... a little pent up anger?

Maybe you should read the whole article?

Her:
More support for my belief: http://www.drlaura.com/letters/index.html?mode=view&tile=1&id=18102
[Ironically, I was thinking of using this very letter as an example of the kind of illogical and senseless argument one should avoid... obviously that would not have gone over very well in this discussion.]

Me:
Ironically, in describing your opposition to feminism, you are actually describing feminism itself. And what you are describing as feminism is, as I pointed out in my last comment, not actually what feminism is about. But of course, that's "irrelevant" isn't it?

Me:
Also, do you have any statistics to back up your suggestion that feminism is related to having bad fathers?

Her:
Do I have any statistics? No. Could I find some? Probably. I can list a number of women that I KNOW who are pissed off, liberal-minded, traditional-hating, men-bashing, feminists whose fathers were crap.

I'm sure that you will have some argument for anything I say regarding this issue. I will go on believing that modern feminism is ridiculous, that it is a huge contributor to the breakdown of the American family, and that it's has become a way for women to feel sorry for themselves. I believe these things about feminism TODAY; regardless of its ORIGINAL intent, there is NO denying what it has become.

Shall we agree to disagree?

Her:
And did I mention that these women tend to be miserable?

Me:
And I can list a number of conservatives I know who are anti-women, anti-environment, anti-minority, and anti-intellectual, but I'd be a fool to use that as evidence that those traits are reflective of mainstream conservativism.

You're free to stereotype and pigeonhole if that's what you really want to do. But I'd like to suggest you instead take the time to really understand the subject matter you're talking about instead of closing your ears and your mind to logical arguments that don't necessarily support what you've already chosen to believe is true. You just might find the world is much more complex and beautiful and textured than you'd realized.

Her:
dito

Her:
wait...have you not already chosen that what you believe is true as well? are you not closing your ears and your mind to MY logical arguments? We are both guilty of the same thing; we both want to be right. Maybe there is more than one way to look at something? Like I said, we can agree to disagree.

Her:
And I have taken the time to understand the subject matter, extensively. Just because I have come to a different conclusion than you on it, doesn't mean I'm wrong or close-minded.

Her:
It's also interesting that you made incredibly strong statements on an article that you didn't even read. Hmm.

Me:
The statements I made aren't about the article; they're about the logical position you're arguing.

Her:
I think we are both arguing about different aspects of this issue. You certainly have made some great points, and I really respect them.

Me:
I think so too. You're arguing against a particular brand of feminism which denies inherent differences between men and women, and tends to favor reverse sexism. I'm arguing that this brand of feminism is a fringe view and doesn't reflect the mainstream position that men and women ARE different, but should be afforded equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.

We both know that there are innate sex differences, and that believing otherwise is inconsistent with mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. There's no disagreement there.

Me:
I guess the real debate here is how to define feminism. I'll take your word for it that you've encountered lots of wackos who call themselves feminists, and who have been the proverbial bad apples that spoil the whole bushel. I've encountered plenty of them myself. But that's only one view out of many which all fall under the "feminism" umbrella.

You've indicated that you agree with popular feminist theory, yet won't call yourself a feminist because you associate the term with the radical groups. I used to hesitate to use the term too, for the same reason. But we'd do well to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting true feminism along with its radical subcultures.

I guess the take-home lesson, if I had one, would be this: Don't let crazy minorities redefine definitions. It's human nature and we all do it, but it's very dangerous. We need only look at any political debate, religious strife, or racial conflict as evidence of this.

Me:
Last comment: I really enjoyed this debate, and I hope you did too :-)

Her:
Good conclusion. I actually did enjoy it too. Truce?

Me:
Sure. Let's join forces and gang up on someone else now. Any suggestions?

Am I not getting something here? Is the logic really that difficult to understand? Or am I really doing that bad a job of explaining that just because A=B, B doesn't necessarily equal A? Were my examples insufficient? Or does this go deeper than that? Am I the one being illogical? I sure hope not.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: After I posted this initially, the debate continued on for a while longer, leaving this account only about 50% complete. I've gone back and included the conversation in its entirety, which negates my original conclusion, as we did end up coming to a consensus. As usual, it ended up being more about semantics than actual content. Psh. Just once I'd like to come out of a debate having vanquished an opponent instead of realizing that we agree with each other and are just too tenacious to realize it. Oh well.

granny rents sexy movie for kids, outraged at sexual content

Outrage is mounting in Brooklyn after a grandma checked out a copy of Austin Powers at her local library, and found someone had taped over the end, replacing it with porno (LOL). According to The New York Post, she grossly overreacted to the incident, going straight to her assemblyman to complain. The assemblyman, who apparently thinks that representing his constituents means behaving exactly like them, responded with an even greater overreaction, demanding that all VHS tapes be removed from New York public libraries. Wait, what?

But it gets better. Quoth the Post:

Esther Klein got the tape from the Borough Park branch for her three grandkids, ages 7 to 15. The X-rated footage appeared as the credits rolled at the end.

Seriously, lady? You let your 7-year-old grandkid watch a PG-13 movie, which is well known for its strong sexual content (and has an MPAA notation clearly stating this fact right on the box), and then freak out when some porn shows up during the end credits? What's the matter with you? If I were your assemblyman, my response to your complaint would not be to launch an asinine campaign against VHS, but to tell you to be a responsible adult, to stop showing adult material to second graders, and to generally start using your brain. Oh yeah, and not to waste the state assembly's time with matters that should be dealt with by your local branch librarian.

Seriously, what's the matter with people? Every time I start thinking maybe humanity isn't all that bad...

am i the only one who sees a huge problem with this?

Michael Jackson's memorial service will be taking place tomorrow at Los Angeles' Staples Center, and promises to be a massive spectacle. Streets will be blocked off, a basketball arena will be filled to capacity, and tickets to the service are being scalped for tens of thousands of dollars (in a depressed economy, no less). It will be a circus the likes of which the world has never seen. And if that's how the Jacksons want to honor the King of Pop, that's up to them. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem, however, with the way this memorial service is being paid for: not by the Jackson family, or by Michael's estate, or by his plethora of obscenely wealthy friends, but by the City of Los Angeles.

In case you glossed over that, let me repeat it: A private citizen's memorial service is being paid for, 100%, by taxpayer dollars. Millions of them.

If you live in LA, this should piss you off big time. This kind of squandering is not only incredibly irresponsible, it's practically criminal. Heck, it almost makes San Diego look pretty good by comparison.

at least now someone's there to keep mr humphries company

Well, Mrs. Slocombe is now an official member of the June Deadlebrities club. Yeah, I know it's technically July, but just barely, and I think she made it in close enough to the others to warrant being on the same list.

No word yet on the health condition of her pussy.

(Relax, relax, the lady just loves her cat).

talk about june gloom...

June 2009 has sure been a monumental month for celebrity deaths, hasn't it? Those of you who know me know that I usually don't pay much mind to celebrities, and that famous people dying don't tend to concern me nearly as much as, say, the 30,000 children under age 5 who die every day from stupid causes like diarrhea and lack of food. But even I have to step back and say hot damn, we've got a lot of celebrities dying this month!

First we had Ed McMahon on 6/23. Ok, he was 86 years old, so nobody was too surprised. Everybody dies eventually, if they live long enough. America moved on before it even stopped to necessitate moving on.

But then, apparently-that-was-considered-hot-in-the-70's Charlie's Angels actress Farrah Fawcett died of cancer two days later, on 6/25. That one seemed to catch America off guard, although she'd been fighting cancer for a long time, so it wasn't entirely unexpected. What was unexpected, at least to me, was the collective mass disappointment that she never got to marry some guy I'd never heard of named Ryan O'Neal. Seriously, why are you people so emotionally involved in a total stranger's personal life? No wonder your own marriage is falling apart.

Not to be outdone, however, legendary freakshow and "King of Pop" Michael Jackson suddenly dropped dead mere hours after Fawcett, causing the entire world to exclaim, "Farrah who? Nevermind that drivel, someone important just died!" The entirety of Planet Earth reacted to the news as if every king, president, duke, and PM had just merged into one amazing superhuman demigod, and then imploded on itself, taking the sun, moon, and every firstborn male along with it. Lenin banged in vain on the sides of his glass coffin for attention, Eva Peron wondered why she got such a pauper's treatment, and Princess Diana still hasn't stopped pointing out the fact that a fake "king" gets more attention than a real duchess. Seven heads of state stepped down or killed themselves in acts of solidarity, and Ireland instituted a second potato famine as an expression of mourning. And all of this was seen as a right and proper response to such a tragedy.

The entire world was still in a state of mourning three days later (and now forgetting to even ask, Farrah who?), and it was just assumed that the Pope would fast-track Jackson to sainthood by the week's end. One man dared question the world's collective Jackomania, though, and that man was legendary infomercial yelling man Billy Mays. He knew what he had to do. On the morning of 6/28, Mays heroically died in a valiant effort to take the deadlebrity spotlight off of Michael Jackson, and thereby save humanity from itself. Unfortunately for humanity, though, Billy Mays' star power was not strong enough to distract a spiraling-to-the-depths mankind from its hopelessly mournful trajectory, and his untimely death proved to be in vain; he simply could not compete. It's exactly like when The Thirteenth Floor came out one month after The Matrix.

Needless to say, humanity remains on the fast track to Michael-Jackson-induced self-destruction, and I have no idea what can save her at this point. Even Billy Mays was powerlesss to stop it. I just hope it doesn't take an infomercial pitchman double whammy, because I really like this guy:

another day, another digit

Aaaaand today marks day #10,000. Five digits, baby. The greatest number of digits I'll ever have, unless I manage to live until November 3, 2255, and which point I'll hit the 100k mark.. I'm not optimistic about that event taking place, though.

sweet effing eff!

Sweet merciful crap, this is amazing.




Part of me is really excited for this, but the more rational part of me knows it's only a matter of time before Milo becomes self aware, and we all know what happens after that. Also, the prospect of children growing up with A.I. friends is more than a little off-putting.

Those concerns aside, though, this is probably the most bad ass thing I've seen since the new Rambo movie came out last year... and that was the most bad ass thing since James K. Polk.

What do you think? Is Milo as bad ass as James K. Polk?

having missed pi day and square root day, i am excited to catch this one

Today is not my birthday, or even my half birthday, but it is a pretty cool day that has to do with my birth: Today marks exactly 9,999 days since I was expelled from my mother's uterus and forced to live a life of toil in order to survive. And by a life of toil, of course, I mean having to spend time awake instead of sleeping in warm liquid, and having to eat my own food rather than have it delivered to me through a tube in my belly.

Sigh. How great my life was ten thousand days ago.

they should have called it 4chat

I was introduced today to an interesting concept called Omegle.com, which pairs you up with a total stranger in a private chat room, in which both of you are anonymous. It's like the 4chan of chat, only far less disturbing, and with at least 90% less tentacle porn.

I don't think I'll be frequenting this site, as it seems to me to be likely inhabited primarily by kids and predators, but I did have some amusing encounters in the few minutes I spent tooling around there.

Here's the entirety of my first anonymous chat with a stranger:

Obviously, this stranger is not down with today's modern vernacular.

My second attempt reminded me of this for some reason:

And that was the end of that.

And coming up next, we have... oh geez...


Eventually, I did have some semblance of a conversation, although only in the most liberal use of the word:

Hell yeah! I like that enthusiasm! Sadly, though, it did not last:

LOL, that's beautiful. I can just picture this Stranger hanging his head in dejection as he delivers that pitiful "ooh.." and signs off. A classic hangup if I ever saw one. What really gets me is that he left immediately upon discovering I'm not a Lady Gaga fan, and to him, that was a perfectly reasonable response. Just like how the Men Without Hats felt it perfectly reasonable to refuse friendship with anybody who doesn't dance.

All in all, I recommend Omegle for a quick jaunt when you're bored, but nothing more. Being anonymous and random, it's ideal breeding grounds for trolls, and you'll probably spend half your time being bothered by them, as well as being asked "a/s/l?", which is internet shorthand for "I am not someone you want to waste your time talking to."

Do give it a shot if you feel so inclined, though, and let me know about any humorous incidents that occur as a result.

a psa from me to you

Behold, my first attempt at singing outside of a karaoke bar.



Remember, the only 100% effective protection is abstinence.

everything to be said has already been said, but i'm going to say something anyway

The other day, my friend mentioned to me that she was surprised I hadn't posted anything about the Miss USA pageant controversy, as it is standard practice for me to comment on such things. I had no idea what she was talking about, as I hadn't yet read the internets that day, so I made my way to YouTube to find the incident in question. And I must admit, I was more than a little disappointed. Sorry, but beauty queens stammering out goofy drivel has been a little played out this past year, and it really isn't worth my time to comment on such old-hat anymore.

But then tonight, while enjoying a generator of random images, I found this cartoon, and couldn't resist posting it:



So now you can be happy, Kris; I've commented on your pageant scandal. Now I'm going to bed.

socks revolution, day 35

All is well on the socks front.

socks revolution, day 6

I went out and bought a dozen new black socks today, eliminating my need to sort any socks at all, save for my brown and green ones. But those are easy.

who is chius, anyway?

I have no idea who Chius is. All I know is that he lived in or around ancient Pompeii, had an unfortunate dermatological condition, and managed to fall out of the good graces of some smart ass with a disregard for public property.

That's right, ol' Chius was the subject of some ancient graffiti. He's not the only one in his town to befall this fate, either. Turns out Pompeii was chock full of graffiti, much of which shows strikingly how little man has changed since ancient times. Here are some of my favorites:
(sources: 1, 2, 3)

O Chius, I hope that your ulcerous pustules reopen and burn even more than they did before!

Pyrrhus to his colleague Chius: I grieve because I hear you have died; and so farewell.

Whoever loves, go to hell. I want to break Venus' ribs with blows and deform her hips. If she can break my tender heart, why can't I hit her over the head?

Atimetus got me pregnant.

Litus, you are a mediocre man.

Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!

We pissed our beds. I know, O Host, we were wrong.
Ask why? There was no chamber pot.

On the 9th of November Quintus Postumius invited Aulus Attius to have homosexual intercourse with me.

Celadus the Thracier makes the girls moan!

Someone at whose table I do not dine, Lucius Istacidius, is a barbarian to me.

Here Harpocras has had a good fuck with Drauca for a denarius.

Watch it, you that shits in this place! May you have Jove's anger if you ignore this.

Myrtis, you do great blow jobs.

We two dear men, friends forever, were here. If you want to know our names, they are Gaius and Aulus.

At Nuceria, near the Roman gate, is the district of Venus. Ask for Novellia Primigenia.

I screwed the barmaid. (written on a tavern wall)

Theophilus, don’t perform oral sex on girls against the city wall like a dog.

Marcus loves Spendusa.

Celadus the Thracian gladiator is the delight of all the girls.

I have buggered men. (written on someone's house)

If anyone does not believe in Venus, they should gaze at my girlfriend.

Secundus likes to screw boys.

I screwed a lot of girls here.

Sollemnes, you screw well!

If anyone sits here, let him read this first of all: if anyone wants a fuck, he should look for Attice; the price is four asses.

Epaphra, you are bald!

Phileros is a eunuch!

Samius to Cornelius: go hang yourself!

Epaphra is not good at ball games.

Secundus defecated here. (written three times on one wall!)

Apollinaris, the doctor of the emperor Titus, defecated well here.

O walls, you have held up so much tedious graffiti that I am amazed that you have not already collapsed in ruin.

This is not a place for idlers. Leave, you who have nothing to do.

in the critical thinking gang, the initiation is to use google

The forwards are going around. Perhaps you've already gotten one (or seven). I just started getting the mass text message forwards about an hour ago, which warn of a shooting to take place at Walmart in which you, or someone you know, may be a target:

Do not go to wal-mart. Gang initiation to shoot 3 women tonight. Not sure which wal-mart. Confirmed on tv. Send to all girls.

I immediately dismissed this as a hoax, as it has more red flags than a Chinese New Year parade. First off, there are no specifics details included – no mention of a city, metro area, or even state in which this is supposed to take place. It could be anywhere! It may not happen at my local Walmart... but it could! What better way to cause widespread panic among people who don't use Google than to imply that it could happen anywhere in the country (including where you are right now!).

Second red flag is the lack of credible source. Someone writing a genuine warning would be sure to include where the information is coming from, so that others will take it seriously; that source would most likely be a police department or local news outlet. "Confirmed on tv" doesn't cut it, except for those among us who tend to forward first and think critically later.

Third red flag is the sheer implausibility of the situation. For one, gang initiations generally involve some form of property crime (stealing stuff, breaking into things), and/or getting your ass kicked by the other gangsters. Shooting random people as an initiation is purely the stuff of urban legends and "Fwd: Fwd: FW: Fwd: Fwd:Fwd:" emails your grandma sends you. Even if a gang did institute such an initiation, though, you wouldn't be hearing about it through a text or email forward. The initiation would be first known to the police, who would probably not release it to the general public (hopefully), as widespread panic is generally something police departments absolutely want to avoid. You and I would probably never even know about said initiation, except for the news report later that night about a group of plainclothes cops who gunned down a wannabe gangster when he tried to shoot somebody in the Health & Beauty aisle.

EDIT: Although random murder as a rite of passage is uncommon, I didn't mean to imply that it never happens. Unfortunately for people like these girls and this man, it is indeed a sad, albeit rare, reality.

So please, ladies and gentlemen, use your heads before you forward warnings about gang initiations, poison dog food, and waking up in a bathtub full of ice without your kidneys. Does it seem implausible, vague, or incredible? It's probably crap. If you think it might be credible, or you just would rather be safe than sorry, please check out Snopes first, or at least run a simple Google search to make sure you're not simply perpetuating a problem.

socks revolution, day 3

I think I've pretty much completely acclimated to the ankle socks now. I'm wearing jeans today (vs. khakis yesterday), and the exposure problem doesn't seem to be an issue. Maybe the solution is to wear dress socks (which are crew length) with my khakis, and my regular (ankle) socks with jeans and shorts. Which reminds me, I think I need to revolutionize my dress socks, too. They're even worse to sort than my (old) white ones.

socks revolution, day 2

I'm now used to the feeling of wearing ankle socks, but I feel I look sloppy when I cross my legs and part of my bare leg is exposed between my pant leg and my shoe. I briefly considered the possibility of wearing ankle socks with shorts and crew socks with long pants, but this would defeat the whole purpose behind the socks revolution (not having to match up socks).

Does anybody have any suggestions for me?

socks revolution, day 1

It felt strange putting my socks on this morning and not tugging beyond a few inches. My legs felt naked, bare, exposed. Vulnerable to attack. I hope I made the right decision.

socks revolution, prelude

Ladies and gentlemen, I have done something radical.

I have just bought 20 pair of new socks to replace the motley rabble of white socks I've spent a lifetime using. The rabble consisted of countless varieties and ages of socks, requiring me to pair them up individually (no quick task), when putting away my laundry. The new socks are all exactly the same, which means I don't have to pair them up at all; I can just toss them all into a drawer with no folding, no sorting, and no problems. It'll be amazing.

I've never had all uniform socks before, and I haven't had a new pair of socks since I was in high school. I feel very extravagant, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a little guilty about this luxury.

But now for the radical part:

Being that it's 2009 (The Best Year Ever™), I decided to make a drastic change. I went with ankle length socks. After wearing exclusively crew socks for 27 years, this is quite a change. Will my socks always feel like they are falling down? Will the elastic last longer due to less stretching? Will my legs get cold more easily? These are all questions I must face, and to which I will soon know the answers.

Either way, though, I think I made the right decision. 2009: A Year of Changes ™.

another open letter to michael steele

Dear Mr. Steele,

In light of your rescinding your comments about Limbaugh, I rescind my comments about your good leadership.

Sincerely,
Caleb B. Ruggiero
San Diego, CA

an open letter to michael steele

Chairman Steele,

I just got through reading some shocking comments that some hardline Republicans have made about you in response to your recent comments about Rush Limbaugh. No doubt some of these comments have made their way to your inbox by now, so you're aware of the venom I'm referencing. I just wanted to write you to express my support for your stance against the incendiary, divisive rhetoric that too often comes from the mouths and pens of partisan windbags who reside on AM radio and the dark corners of the blogosphere.

I have never cared for Rush Limbaugh and his fellow AM blowhards, and quite frankly, I never thought anybody took him seriously until recently. He's such a caricature of himself that I just assumed he was kind of an inside joke in the GOP. But now that I've become aware that many Republicans not only take him seriously, but actually view him as their party leader, I am terrified. Really, truly, terrified.

You certainly have a full plate in front of you, don't you Mr. Chairman? There seems to be a civil war within the party between conservatives and neoconservatives. It is my hope that, like the great first leader of your party, you will be able to end this civil war and neutralize this dangerous rebel faction. I hope for this not because I'm particularly concerned about the future of the GOP (I'm a proud independent), but because I'm concerned about the future of our nation. Working to ensure the failure of our President and his economic recovery policies, whether we agree with them or not, is not only childish, but gravely irresponsible politics. I commend you for taking a stand against such behavior. It's a shame to see that, for many Republicans, "Country First" was nothing more than a campaign slogan.

It's not very often I find a Republican politician I can proudly support, but you have earned my support today. Keep up the good work in supporting responsibility in politics.

Sincerely,
Caleb B. Ruggiero
San Diego, CA

[In addition to posting this blog, I also emailed the same letter to Mr. Steele. I encourage you to join me in supporting Mr. Steele's stance against divisiveness with an email of your own, directed to Chairman [at] GOP [dot] com]

four loves

The love for equals is a human thing – of friend for friend, brother for brother. It is to love what is loving and lovely. The world smiles.

The love for the less fortunate is a beautiful thing – the love for those who suffer, for those who are poor, the sick, the failures, the unlovely. This is compassion, and it touches the heart of the world.

The love for the more fortunate is a rare thing – to love those who succeed where we fail, to rejoice without envy with those who rejoice, the love of the poor for the rich, of the black man for the white man. The world is always bewildered by its saints.

And then there is the love for the enemy – love for the one who does not love you but mocks, threatens, and inflicts pain. The tortured's love for the torturer. This is God's love. It conquers the world.

– Frederick Buechner

mrs. watson-parker was unavailable for comment

Well, I got on the boat pretty late, and chances are you did too. Did you know that a website has been set up for citizens to suggest and vote on policies for Obama's incoming administration? Apparently the Top 10 ideas, as determined by voting, will be presented to Obama and the 111th Congress for full consideration. That doesn't mean the Top 10 ideas will automatically be enacted, naturally (and once you see some of the top votes, you'll be glad that's the case), but Obama does seem pretty keen on involving the electorate in shaping his administration, so I wouldn't discount the contest as a waste of time, either.

While I'm wholeheartedly against the use of "voter guides", I do think it's a valuable exercise to discuss the issues on the table. I'd love to write about each of the ten initiatives I voted for (and some of the ones I didn't), but I simply don't have the time for that today. I will, however, tackle one of the issues. I'm writing about this one because it is, at the time of this writing, in first place among all the dozens of initiatives on the website, so it's obviously important to a lot of people. And obviously, since I voted for it, it's important to me too.

Ideas for Change: Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana.

Before I go any further, let me just say that using any recreational drugs, including marijuana, is stupid, and I do not endorse drug use or abuse in any way. Having said that, though, I do endorse the idea that adults should have the right to make their own personal health decisions, and the federal government has no right whatsoever to dictate what can and cannot be consumed by an individual, provided it doesn't harm anyone besides the moron doing it. The government acknowledges that we should be allowed to destroy our bodies and minds with tobacco and alcohol, yet doing the same with cannabis is prohibited. It simply doesn't make sense.

But restoring individual rights isn't the only benefit to decriminalizing the reefer; it would also make a pretty decent dent in the federal defecit, and right now we need whatever dents we can get. Think about it: We currently have pigovian taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and other harmful taxable items, ostensibly to discourage use and help pay for any damage they cause. Marijuana would certainly be a candidate for such a tax, so why not legalize it for the sake of the much-needed tax revenue it would generate? Even greater than the money it would bring in, is the money it would save. How much cash are we pouring into police, FBI, DEA, state and federal courts, county jails, state and federal prisons, probation and parole departments, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam, in order to combat marijuana? Now imagine not spending all those millions every year.

Decriminalizing pot would drastically reduce crime, too – particularly organized crime. If marijuana could be grown openly on American farms, the drug cartels would lose much of their power. This would result in a drop in violent crime, which would not only save lives, but law enforcement and emergency services resources as well (and again, the tax dollars that support such services). Now I'm not so naive as to think that the cartels wouldn't bounce back, finding other drugs to subsidize their losses... which is why I also advocate legalizing many other illicit drugs, thereby taking away pretty much all of their power... but we're talking about a marijuana initiative, so I won't spend any more time talking about other drugs. Perhaps I'll delve further into it in a future post.

But wait, this isn't Denmark! I don't want to be running into long-haired stoners every time I turn a corner, or share the highways with reefer-headed space cadets! Hey, neither do I, and don't worry, that won't happen. There are already laws in place in all 50 states (correct me if I'm wrong) against public intoxication, DUI, and DWI, and it'll remain just as illegal to swagger around stoned as it is to stumble around drunk. Let's not throw the baby our common sense out with the bathwater ridiculous and unconstitutional federal laws.

So that's my rationale behind voting to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. It may be controversial, but I stand by it. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin would stand by it too.

is that rounded up or down?

Maybe there's actually π of them.

i hope his judgment is better than mine...

Good heavens, is this really happening?

President-elect Obama has reportedly chosen former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta to head the CIA, despite his having no experience whatsoever with intelligence [insert painfully obvious, minimally funny joke here]. What's going on, Mr. Obama? You're not George Bush; we elected you on the understanding that you're intelligent enough to not pull this kind of crap.

As of this writing, the Panetta pick is just a leak, and has not been officially announced. That means you still have time, Mr. Obama, to scrap this bad idea and choose someone remotely highly qualified for one of the most important jobs on the planet. You can even save face by telling the press that the leak, like freedom, oh freedom, was just some people talking.

Please don't screw this up, Mr. Obama. Now is not the time to be appointing inexperienced leaders. The guys over at FOX News would just have too much fun with that.

for the serious DYI-er

Don't you wish you could perform surgery without any formal training? Sure, we all do. And now, thanks to the magic of video games, you can!


Live your dream of cutting people open with no training whatsoever.

In Alan Probe: Amateur Surgeon, you control Alan Probe: Amateur Surgeon as he uses tools from the back of his pizza van, and the encouragement of a drunken derelict, to do complicated surgery on bums, criminals, and area lowlifes.

It's probably not the greatest flash game you'll ever play, but I found it amusing.

hello, i love you

if you like pina coladas, and getting caught in the rain hiding naked in the closet by a jealous husband with a loaded gun

I saw an ad a couple of years ago for a divorce lawyer that was truly tasteless, and really shocking. Now keep in mind that I've viewed – multiple times – goatse, lemon party, and well, a lot of 4chan... so when I find something tasteless and shocking, it really means something.

Sandwiched between two soap opera-esque pseudo-suggestive photos (soap-core porn, perhaps?) was the text, "Life's short. Get a divorce." Now if I have to explain my problems with this, I doubt that any explanation would actually get the point through... so I'm just going to assume that everyone reading this is in agreement that this particular divorce lawyer is scum both a prime symptom of, and a contributor to, our woefully depraved culture.


The ad in question, which I guess is sexy for people who were into cheap hookers in the mid 80s.

For all the impact that ad made in my mind, it came and left my memory about as quickly as that punch bowl of Spamburger Helper I put down in 2001 (ie., it took a few days, but when it did leave, it did so with great haste). I hadn't thought of it since.

Until tonight.

I was perusing the internets this evening when my eye was caught by an ad with a very similar slogan to the one on that sleazy lawyer's mobile billboard:


Life is short. Just like that window in the 90s when this ad's layout actually looked edgy.

Did I seriously just see that? Curious as to whether this was a legitimate ad or some sort of gag link, I decided to visit the website (entering the url manually, so as to not benefit slime like this with a clickthrough) to see what I could find. Sure enough, it was exactly what the ad, um, advertised.


Join today, and blow/get blown by a hot, lecherous harlot tomorrow!

Yes ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a dating site specifically designed for married men and women who want to cheat on their spouses. I can't even put into words how sleazy this is. It's like a bar that drums up business at the local AA meeting. Only not at all, really. Sorry, that was a really contrived simile. Like I said, words can't describe.

And, just in case you thought it couldn't possible get any slimier, get a load of this excerpt from their FAQ section:


Just like NAMBLA does not encourage pedophilia.

Slime city! So slimy, in fact, that I spontaneously erupted in a TMNT-era interjection just now! Granted that's not hard to make me do, but still! What a bold lie statement to make. If you read the rest of the FAQ, you'll find a whole page of nothing but lies and spin to make Ashley Madison feel better about herself for facilitating the destruction of countless relationships. It's like listening to George Bush in the 2004 debates. I'm not sure whether to be angry with such obvious attempts at justifying the overwhelming sleaze, or to pity her for resorting to such wafer-thin delusions in order to stave off acceptance of being an opportunistic, money-grubbing pervert.

The maximizer in me wants to bridge an alliance between the adultery-is-the-new-skydiving webmaster and the divorce-is-the-new-Corvette lawyer to create a one-stop "Life Is Short" home wrecking shop. It'd be like an ambulance driver that cuts the brakes on all the cars in the parking lot. But of course, the part of me that's not a life-sucking bastard would rather spend my energy encouraging people to honor the sanctity of their vows, not piss all over them.