| The Dach Russell |
[Feb. 5th, 2007|01:52 pm] |
|
I wish to take this oppurtunity to trademark the Dach Russell designer dog breed, Napoleon being the prime example of this breed. |
|
|
| The spirit of Agriculture |
[May. 8th, 2006|01:30 am] |
I was thinking about UCD's mascot(s)....the horsey thing and the Aggie, the spirit of agriculture.
I'm not familiar with any official personification of the Aggie, but upon further consideration, I figured that the real spirit of agriculture (at least in California) is the illegal migrant worker.
So I propose that the Aggie be given new life as a highly stereotypical wetback Mexican-type, replete with sombrero and cigar.
Send hate mail to:
Grow A Sense of Humor
10001 You Suck Drive
Uranus, 99999 |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 16th, 2006|03:44 pm] |
I have yet to decide whether this letter will leave my desk. Rest assured that should you be reading this now, it is only after hours of agonizing over whether you need to know (or, perhaps, have a right to know) what I have to say. If there were one thing I have learned about our friendship it is that honesty is paramount to all other concerns; that you would be happier in the long run knowing something bad I told you truthfully than learning of a lie told to hide a mistake. The ability to talk to you about anything without judgement is probably the most fundamentally significant aspect of our friendship. However developing that level of trust with many of my friends proves exceedingly difficult.
I have the unfortunate and embarrassing habit (of which you are no doubt at least casually aware of) of becoming infatuated with my straight friends to such a degree that my feelings often evolve into full-blown unrequited love, Rome and Juliet style. Whether this is because there is truly something "wrong" with me or I just hate gay people on the whole, I do not know. But it nonetheless forces me to balance my fielty to my friends with my internal censors that suppress my unwarranted, albeit natural, feelings. This is what being gay in today's society means for me. The Montagues and Capulets wage their war inside me over the right to my free and honest emotions.
As you have likely now become aware (or, worst yet, known all along), such a battle now storms in my mind over you. It is manifest by every awkward silence between us and every moment that summons you to ask if I am alright, bothered, or otherwise upset. The fact that you are at least peripherally aware of the pain this causes me makes it all the worse.
You have been my friend for more than a decade now and it would be a lie for me to say I have not thought about you like this before. But in the past nine months my appreciation of you as a friend has been eclipsed by my appreciation of you as a man. Like Mercutio and Tybalt, footmen in the Padua of my mind, I fear there is no way to reconcile these mutual antagonists without destorying one or the other. Melodrama and metaphor aside, this really scares me. I have lost what I considered very important relationships under near identical circumstances and I do not want that to happen here.
"No, the hurt's not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve: ask for me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man."
~Aaron |
|
|
| Gay cowboys eating pudding |
[Jan. 7th, 2006|08:52 pm] |
I saw Brokeback Mountain. It had its moments.
But I found this and thought it was hilarious.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48076
My Response:
Everything from the script to the directing to the camera work to the acting, which in "Brokeback Mountain" is brilliant, serve the purpose of making the movie-makers' vision seem like reality – even if it's twisted and perverse."
Mr. Kupelian,
One of the major premises of Brokeback Mountain, which perhaps is only truly evident to gay people, is that the pain and suffering endured by every character -- the drama -- arises not from the "infiltration" of homosexuality into the otherwise saintly and beloved world of midwestern Christian wholesomeness but from the perception of homosexuality as, as you put it, "twisted and perverse."
The film is not about two gay cowboys. It's not about the demolition of a cherished archtype of American masculinity. It's about two people's nascent incompatibility in one particular society.
While I respect your religious beliefs, I can't help but think they limit you from viewing the world only from within them -- from the inside out -- and keep you from appreciating (or even tolerating) those that choose not to limit themselves to your position.
Your discussion of love demonstrates this perfectly. You liken the love between two gay men to a mere "obsession" You asked, "Do we really want to call such an obsession – especially one that destroys marriages and is based on constant lies, deceit and neglect of one's children – "love"?" because you saw the relationship between two men as the preeminant cause of the destruction of their later marriages. But, uh, duh, they didn't get married because they wanted to. They didn't get married BECAUSE they were gay. They got married because society demanded them to. |
|
|
| First Civil-Union Couple Parting Ways |
[Dec. 15th, 2005|02:43 pm] |
Dec 15 3:37 PM US/Eastern
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - A lesbian couple who entered into the nation's first same-sex civil union are splitting up amid allegations of violent behavior. Carolyn Conrad, 35, asked a court in October to end her relationship with Kathleen Peterson, 46.
Conrad also obtained a restraining order Wednesday against her partner, saying Peterson punched a hole in the wall during an argument and threatened to harm a friend.
"All I want to say is that the civil union was a big source of pride for me, and now it's not," Peterson said.
The two had been together for five years when they were legally joined in Brattleboro minutes after Vermont's civil-union law took effect on July 1, 2000. Two years ago, the couple were offering relationship advice on the gay-rights Web site.
All I can say is "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA." But really, this is positive in that shows that gay couples can be just as violent, dysfunctional, and divorce-prone as heterosexual couples. |
|
|
| Goodbye, Tucci |
[Dec. 13th, 2005|01:36 pm] |
So Tucci was executed last night after Arnie refused his final clemency appeal. The rationale, as I understand it, was that Tucci's claims of self-redemption were baseless because he never expressed remorse for the crimes he was convicted of.
Now the moral logic gets a little tricky here. Tucci maintained his innocence of the murders he was convicted of in 1979, but his clemency appeals were based on the notion that he had reformed from his gang banging way of life and dedicated himself to youth gang prevention. In other words, he thought he shouldn't be executed for crimes he said he didn't commit because he realized that co-founding the Crips was bad. Now this just doesn't make any sense to me for a few reasons. First of all, since he maintained his innocence for 26 years, his clemency appeal should have been based on that. It's obviously wrong to execute someone for a crime they didn't commit but not obviously wrong to execute someone for a crime they say they didn't commit because they repented for the lifestyle that promoted such violence.
But even if he didn't commit the murders he was convicted of or had nothing to do with them, I'm still not convinced he didn't deserve to be executed. While I disagree with capital punishment in most cases, I believe it's perfectly acceptable to be carried out on people who have perpetrated numerous murders or inflicted pain and suffering on countless victims. Considering Tucci admits to being a co-founder of quite possibly the most notorious gang in recent American history, responsible for upwards of 3,000 murders, doesn't it make sense that the organization's co-founders were either intimately involved in at least some of those crimes or, at the minimum, peripherally responsible for them?
By this rationale, executing Tucci seems perfectly acceptable to me, regardless of his reformation and realization of the error of his ways. While it might seem unethical to condemn a man to death under the auspicies of crimes he might now have committed, such an argument doesn't really mean anything when considered in conjunction with the fact that the man was no-doubt in involved in countless other murders, robberies, drug deals, beatings, etc. for which nothing other than sheer common sense is needed to realize. |
|
|
| Neglected far too long... |
[Dec. 12th, 2005|01:26 am] |
For anyone reading this, yes, I am alive.
I figure updating this thing is worthwhile because today, after simmering all too long in a personal limbo of sorts, I realized the difference between loving something and loving the idea of something.
Frankly, I'm quite surprised this relatively straightforward concept didn't resonate with me earlier.
Applying this realization to personal relationships is going to prove particularly important, I believe, because it is central to learning to like something for what it is rather than what I want it to be.
I don't love him. I love the idea of him.
Oh, I'm also a college graduate now. Go me. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jun. 26th, 2005|12:17 pm] |
How do you tell a friend, "Look, dude, I'm sorry but you're just too amazingly fucking hot to spend time with. I mean, fuck, when you stand there all it takes 99% of my willpower not to fall to my knees right there and...."
FUCK
I should just stop being friends with any straight guy I find attractive. |
|
|
| Google |
[May. 27th, 2005|05:02 pm] |
After finally forwarding my school email to my gmail account, I realized Google's business model. Take something that everyone uses and thinks really can't be improved upon and then make it better by about 10,000 times.
No wonder the company is worth more than GM and AOL Time Warner combined. |
|
|
| sci fi, na na na |
[May. 19th, 2005|07:42 pm] |
Star Wars III was awesome. It's awesomeness is so awesome it requires no further elaboration.
But I still like Star Trek more. You might think Star Wars is more hardcore, but that's only because you haven't seen the DS9 episode in which Vanessa Williams talks about fucking Curzon Dax to death (death by jamaharon). |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[May. 9th, 2005|01:46 am] |
You really need to admit I have made an effort to touch you less.
-Nikky Hogan |
|
|
| intelligent design |
[May. 1st, 2005|03:21 pm] |
this idea has been discussed more and more as of late, and i feel like i need to respond to some of its base arguments.
the "most definitive" argument for intelligent design involves the structure of bacterial flagellum:
Supporters of intelligent design say that some things in the universe - things even as tiny as that single cell - are far too complex in design to be a result of time and random chance. They say such design required thoughtful engineering.
To demonstrate this, they often refer to something called the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum, which can be seen only with an electron microscope, appears to be a long tail that helps bacteria move about.
Upon examination, it looks like a biological machine with a high-speed rotary motor made up of at least 40 interlocking components. Intelligent design backers believe these tails were present in the very earliest bacteria, billions of years ago. They also contend these tails won't work unless all parts are present at once.
They refer to the tail and its multipart motor as an example of what they call “irreducible complexity.” The presence of all these parts, they conclude, means the tail couldn't have assembled by accident but must have been designed.
What does this argument not take into account?
1) Random mutation. Lifeforms change everyday in incredibly random and unexpected ways, producing things no one could have predicted. Yes, this is a little "X-Men"-ish, but it's true. Human evolutionary biology teaches us that random mutation is the driving force of evolutionary change.
2) The universe is BIG. It's REALLY big. It's REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY BIG. There are millions of galaxies each with millions upon billions of stars. If one out of a billion of those stars has planets and one out of a billion of those planets can support life that leaves literally billions of planets on which life can "find a way," to quote Jurassic Park. It is not unreasonable to predict that something as complex as a bacterial flagellum come into being at least once. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 22nd, 2005|10:26 pm] |
Jane Fonda is an incredibly lucid and intelligent woman.
Too bad she's a fucking idiot. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 21st, 2005|10:56 pm] |
|
I'd like to note that earlier I was able to bust out, in perfect Italian, the lyrics to La Donna Mobile from Rigoletto and really impress my history professor. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 16th, 2005|08:49 pm] |
|
i have resurrected my ph(x). |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 1st, 2005|04:49 pm] |
It's the anniversary of the Three Mile Island Incident, so there have been a series of documentaries on it as of late. After doing some of my own research, I've basically come to the conclusion that in a libertarian nation this problem would have never occurred.
The incident sufficiently demonized the nuclear power industry in the minds of Americans so as to further our dependence on foreign oil even though the technology itself -- nuclear reactors with positive coefficients of reactivity -- is near-flawless in design. At Three Mile Island, one reactor's primary coolant pump failed. Under normal circumstances, this would not have caused any alarm because the system was triply redundant. One of the three backups should have engaged thus solving the problem but the system's pressure sensors were fucked over by government cutbacks in construction costs.
In a libertarian nation, the commercial utilization of nuclear energy wouldn't be impeded by a federal bureaucracy (like the Department of Energy) and Three Mile Island would have been built like any of the nuclear reactors (the size of corn silos) that dot the landscapes of civilized nations like France and Japan.
(France and Japan, civilized? Just kidding, but they have sound energy policy!) |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 31st, 2005|09:01 pm] |
Dear Friends,
If I am ever in a persistent vegetative state, please, for the love of God, don't show me on national TV in that state.
And let me die.
-Aaron |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
bigtimecohen's journal