Colorless Green Ideas Unintentionally Amusing In Person
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Oh My Fucking Christ on a God-Damn Fucking Crutch
Well, I was going to gripe about something totally different this morning, because I’m in a fairly bitchy mood as a result of getting to bed later that usual (see below for a discussion of that joy!)
However, upon opening my email at work this morning, I discovered this piece of nasty religious propaganda in my Inbox. I received this astonishing bit of bilge from a business contact that I have never met, who apparently thinks this it’s acceptable to forward this sort of crap to everyone in their Contacts.
I have no idea what the most appropriate response to this affront is on a business level, but on a personal level, if I had direct physical access to this person, I think that the appropriate response would be to smack this person upside the head with a copy of the Koran, or perhaps the teachings of Confucius, and say “Funny how Christians are invariably certain that they corner the market on moral, courteous, and respectful behavior, and yet think that it’s perfectly ok to “persuade” others, by force if necessary, to share their moral and spiritual codes—a practice which Christians condemn so forcefully in other religions that bombing them “into the stone age” is considered an appropriate way of dealing with it.”
Are you laughing?
> Subject: THINKING
> In light of the many perversions and jokes we send along to one another
> for a laugh, this is a little different:
> This joke today is not intended to be a joke, it's not intended to be
> funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
> Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane
> Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (
> regarding the attacks on Sept. 11 ).
> Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said
> "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years
> we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our
> government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I
> believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His
> blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
> In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I
> think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body
> found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we
> said OK.
> Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school... the Bible
> says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as
> yourself. And we said OK.
> Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they
> misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might
> damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an
> expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
> Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our
> children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty
> member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because
> we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.
> There's a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating,
> smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.).
> And we said OK.
> Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want,
> and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said OK.
> Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and
> they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they
> want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell
> their parents they got them at school. And we said OK.
> Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do
> in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it
> doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in
> private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.
> Then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and
> call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the
> female body. And we said OK.
> And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and published
> pictures of nude children and then further again by making them available
> on the Internet. And we said OK, they're entitled to free speech.
> Then the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that
> promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let's record music that
> encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said
> it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it
> seriously anyway, so go right ahead.
> Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they
> don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill
> strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
> Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it
> out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
> Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the
> world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but
> question what the Bible says.
> Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like
> wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people
> think twice about sharing.
> Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through
> cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and
> Are you laughing?
> Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on
> your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they
> WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about
> what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
> Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no
> one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't
> sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in!
> Are you thinking?
He deserves to have his wrists and ankles Spello-Taped together, have his entire body soaked in pumpkin juice, and then be dropped into a vat of Flesh-Eating Slugs!
For turning a series of sweet, enchanting books (and they are engaging books, in spite of their shortcomings) into a coma-inducing drag-ass pile of crap with good visuals, which is what he has currently done with Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and has already done with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
We went to see the movie tonight. I tried not to get my hopes up. I really did, because I was bitterly disappointed by the first movie. But I heard that this one was better, and I really wanted it to be great, so I was hoping that this would be an improvement. And, to be fair, it was. I mean, in the first one, I was suicidally bored and horribly disappointed within the first half hour. In this movie, I wasn't horribly disappointed. That's something, I guess.
However, it seems to me that he must be monstrously incompetent in order to turn out these horrible movies when he has such great material to start with. And if he was not completely fucking these movies up, he'd have a guaranteed audience of 30 million and make enough money to buy half of the land mass in Africa. But noooooo. He has to trounce all over a clever, cute little story and Petrify it into a chunk of over-produced claptrap. And what's worse is that he's so awful that he's managing to mess up some of the stuff that was okay in the first movie! I mean, the kid who plays Harry Potter can't act worth shit. I'm sorry to be mean about a 13-year-old, but he can't. He couldn't act for shit in the first movie, and he still can't. He's just taller. That's it. But the kid who plays Ron Weasley was great in the first movie-- animated, genuine, and relatively believable. Ron was great! In the second movie, Ron is edging dangerously close to becoming a Muppet as a result of chronic overacting. And who bears the blame for guiding these poor young actors to their doom and telling them that "acting scared" requires bugging your eyes out so far that they're perilously close to rebounding off the camera lens? Or making sure that your "Uh-oh" expression is fully engaging every cell in your entire body? That's right, the director.
(And by the way, do not tell me that kids can't act. I was a child actor, and I have seem good child actors in films. The kid in Hearts in Atlantis rocked, and I am absolutely sure that there is at least one 11-13-year-old boy in England who could do better than this kid. I mean, the kid who plays Malfoy is at least passable, and he auditioned for Harry Potter and didn't get cast. Obviously, either Chris or his casting director does not know their asshole from a hole in the wall.)
There were a few bright spots, of course. Alan Rickman once more kicks ass as Severus Snape. Maggie Smith, who plays Minerva McGonagall, was, again, spectacular. Kenneth Branagh was a delightfully-smarmy Gilderoy Lockhart.
But the movie overall blows.
Now, I know that someone out there is thinking "Whoa, cool your jets… it's just a movie!" and that's true. But it’s also true that it's a terrible shame that the movie industry has such low standards that this sort of thing is acceptable. And, what's worse, is that even though this movie is horrid, it will still make a billion dollars, and will therefore be considered a success and "good enough". Never mind that it could have been truly magical and innovative, and probably made even more money-- it will be "good enough". Which will reinforce the idea that you can cut corners and produce a shoddy product and still make money, which is all anyone seems to care about.
And it's always a shame when something that could be spectacular crashes miserably to the ground. And that's a big part of the reason I despise these movies-- they should be wonderful.
So apparently, if you want to see a good movie based on an even better book, just go see The Two Towers. They cared enough to make a seriously devoted and truly transporting movie the first time around, and I have no doubt that the second installment will once more fill me with awe.
And, now that I've vented my rage, I'm going to bed...
I know my mother doesn’t really, deep down in her heart, agree with what I’m about to say, but that doesn’t change the truth. Want to know what the terrible truth is? Do you really?
If you’re sure you’re ready for it...
I don’t really think that there is any inherent difference between a long-term committed relationship and a marriage.
Now I know that there is a legal difference, and that narrow-minded homophobes think that Marriage constitutes some kind of Deity-sanctioned Bond between a Man and a Woman (probably for purposes of Propagation), but that is clearly just a bunch of crap that someone’s PR person made up because it sounds kind of defensible if you don’t think about it very hard.
However, purely legal differences aside, I don’t think that there is really, truly, any inherent difference. I mean, I have been in a non-marriage relationship for nearly 7 years now, and, aside from not having any kids, I don’t see any big difference between married couples and us. And actually, most of the time, our relationship is better. And the whole kids thing could change at some point. I mean, our relationship is monogamous, it’s committed, it’s pretty-well-permanent, it’s loving. Obviously, if our respective lives diverge massively over time, we might eventually break up—but married people get divorced over that too.
I know that there is often a social difference, but I have come to the conclusion that this is based on the flawed perception that being married is better in some way. In actual fact, however, it’s the quality, not the legality, of the relationship that makes a difference. It’s also true that I occasionally feel like a failure because I’m not married—but I think that that is the result of insidious social training. I’m not married because I haven’t attempted to bully my boyfriend into it—this is probably a good thing, not an indicator that I am a flawed in some way.
My dad says that the difference is that marriage has an “m” in it. I totally love that my dad says things like that.
In case you’re wondering why I chose to go off on this today, you should know that every major family event causes me to reevaluate my stand on this, in order to be prepared for the onslaught of questions from relatives about Why We Are Not Married Yet.
Now, I have already amassed a fairly solid body of evidence indicating that I am, in spite of any appearance or claim to the contrary, a terribly shallow and superficial person. For example, I developed a major crush on Ben Affleck (Ben Affleck!! I’ll be buying Teen Beat next!) after watching Chasing Amy, and my boyfriend developed a crush on Kevin Smith. I’m pretty sure that this proves, definitely, that I am the more shallow half of this partnership. I got all gushy about the tall slender cute guy saying the touching-and-clever lines, and he got all gushy about the short fat funny guy who wrote the touching-and-clever lines. See? Shallow. You just have to have a pretty face and a good delivery, and (apparently) I’ll just drop my panties right there. If I wasn’t in a relationship I’d probably be dating the modern equivalent of Christian in Cyrano de Bergerac, totally unaware the he wasn’t writing his own material because I was mesmerized by the shiny waves of his perfectly-coiffed hair.
Another stellar example of my total lack of personal integrity is my response to the fact that I’ve been making (undoubtedly far too lengthy) posts so this website for a whole week, and no one has left a single comment. I got all whiny about the lack of comments on Friday, and pointed out to my boyfriend that there are all these other people who have this type of website who get thirty thousand comments if they so much as burp online. (Well, one or two anyway.) I said that I should, by rights, have some sort of evidence that someone else is at least reading this site by now. Even a bitchy email would be better than nothing, I whimpered. He pointed out that (outside of himself) no one I know is aware that I’m doing this. I cleverly riposted that I know of at least one highly popular blogger who has developed an online following entirely separate from her real-life friends. He then pointed out that she’s probably been doing this for more than a week—and I was forced to admit the truth of that. (She has.) However, I find the (presumable) lack of readership is dampening my enthusiasm. Sad, sad. Additional evidence that I’m shallow and superficial, you see? I want external reinforcement to continue a project that is supposed to be an exercise for my own personal edification. But I am forced to the conclusion that the fact that no one is commenting on any of this stuff means one of two things. Those two things are:
No one (except me) is reading it
No one (including me) thinks it’s worth commenting on
Now, I admit that wide-spread public recognition of my killingly-funny website is unnecessary (and unlikely, given that Davezilla, Dooce, and Sarah B. are out there floating around being witty), but I’d like to know if anyone at all is looking at this stuff except me. And don’t tell me I should just add one of those free counters. I’ve got enough of that free “I don’t care enough to learn to html this” stuff on here already. It’s humiliating enough that I’m using a blog template (a template!!!) while I try to muddle through constructing one using Dreamweaver during the ten minutes a day that my boyfriend isn’t hogging the computer at home. So I’m not putting a free counter on here. I’m just not.
So the obvious solution is for someone to leave a comment.