LOL!

The first post on this blog was on the subject of Internet smiley faces and my hatred thereof. So, in the glorious tradition of defending the English language, I will now smite the second enemy of intelligent writing: the loathsome Internet acronym. You know what I'm talking about: lol, rotflol, afaik, btw, imho, and all of the other textual abominations that kids these days can't go one sentence without writing. I'm sorry if this offends 99.9% of the people on the Internet, but I simply can't respect any piece of writing that contains an Internet acronym. No matter who you are, if I see a single "lol" in something you write, I will automatically think of you as a bratty 12 year old girl who spends all of her time at the mall texting her stupid friends on her cell phone. You can be a 40 year old man with a beard who disembowels live deer for kicks, but as soon as that acronym shows up, you become a bratty pre-teen mall rat. Enough said.

A big problem with using acronyms is that it homogenizes everyone. When you say "lol", you're expressing your mirth in a way identical to everyone else. When you say "imho" you're providing a disclaimer for your writing with the exact same words as millions of other people. When you say "brb" you're excusing your absence with a phrase that has been used and re-used billions of times before by other people. Your personality is completely lost in translation. Everyone on the Internet with their sloppy writing, acronyms and smileys could all be the same person as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if your screen name is cl3verd4n8 or winn3th3p00h1004cre, if you write stuff using the same acronyms as everyone else on the Internet, you're interchangeable with everyone else on the Internet.

Just think about it this way: before you write an acronym in a post, comment, email, or any other Internet related piece of writing, ask yourself these questions: Would I write this in an actual letter? A letter to my grandma? A letter to my congressman? A letter to the editor? A letter to my pen-pal in Argentina? Would I write this in a book? A book report? An essay for school? Would I write this in a newspaper? In an advice column? In a comic strip? In a family newsletter? If the answer is no, than why on earth would you write it on the Internet? When you post something on the Internet, you're publishing a piece of work that can be potentially viewed by an audience of millions. Why would you lower your standard of writing just because it's going to be displayed on the Internet? And if you're sending a personal email, why should you write it any differently than you would write a real pen and paper letter? It just doesn't make any sense.

Of course, some people say that acronyms are necessary for IM purposes. Those are people who I like to call: "People Who Should Learn How to Type". But seriously, acronyms in IM's are semi-excusable. Because Instant Messaging is, for lack of a better word, instant, time is of the essence. In order to talk in real time, acronyms may be necessary, although discouraged. They may be the lowest form of communication on the planet, but if you're being attacked by a bear and need to tell s friend quickly, nothing gets the job done like ol' IBABAB (I'm Being Attacked By A Bear). In any other form of electronic communication, acronyms are unacceptable. Why do you need to communicate with the smallest amount of typing possible when you're sending an email to a friend, or commenting on a blog post? There's no time limit. You can spend all day writing if you wish. Just because you're writing something digitally doesn't mean you have to become a mindless Internet zombie, spewing tired acronyms, tacky smileys, and sentences with little or no punctuation.

This isn't just an angry rant. This a call to repentance. Many of you out there in the audience have been living in grammatical sin. It's time for you to invite decent English to come live in your heart, to turn from your poorly written ways, and to enjoy all the blessings of not sounding like a bratty pre-teen girl when you communicate.

3 topics: 60% more flavor, 25% less fat.

1. Omaha and smoking in public aren't friends anymore.

One word: kudos. Not just ordinary kudos. The peanut butter kind. People can whine all they want about personal freedom, but quite frankly, emitting toxic fumes in public places isn't something that anyone should have a right to do. In the simplest of terms, smoking in public is recklessly endangering the health of others. If you want to screw up your lungs, do it in the privacy of your own home. Sure, calling 9-1-1 to report public smoking is a tad extreme, but I think the intentions are good. All who wish to point out that Marx also had good intentions, please put a sock in it. Marx was a bitter drunkard with perhaps the worst sense of personal hygiene ever seen in a European intellectual. How can a man like that have good intentions? Marx was evil. Criminalizing smoking in public is good.

2. Iraq violence escalating during the "holy month" of Ramadan.

The religion of peace strikes again. This might even make some sense to my western-ized mind if they were only targeting American soldiers. Apparently some Muslims think that murdering other Muslims is a perfectly acceptable way to celebrate an Islamic holy month. Haven't they heard of carols? Cookies? Tacky decorations? Gifts? Santa? I guess Americans still have a few things to teach Iraq when it comes to commercializing holidays. On a more serious note, I think the current situation in Iraq illustrates the ignorance behind our attempts to create a democratic middle east. Democracy isn't something that you can force on just any group of people. We treat democracy like it's some kind of magic medicine that will instantly turn the most harsh regions of the world into happy American towns with churches, shopping malls, and neatly manicured lawns. This simply isn't the case. If you give democracy to a country where the people still have a 5th century mindset, you end up with a bloody mess. In democratic Afghanistan, Christians are deported and drug-peddling warlords reign. In democratic Iraq, the Sunni's are mad that Shiites dominate the government, so they deal with it in the only way they know how: with terrorist attacks against civilians and government officials. The Shiites respond in kind with brutal revenge killings. "Palestine" holds elections and, to the astonishment of the west, the radical, violent Hamas party comes into power. Democracy does not equal peace. Civilized western-style democracy with all of it's trimmings (freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.) can only be achieved if the people of the country have a civilized western-style mind-set. You can't expect people to become good little citizens of the international community just because they have a new form of government.

3. Barack Obama now says he's considering running in '08

Again, Obama continues to hint at a possible '08 presidential bid. I don't really have anything else to say. Except that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Seriously. This is probably his single greatest political liability.

BHO = JFK(x2)

It seems that these days you can't swing a dead porcupine without hitting a bunch of heated discussion on the topic of everyone's favorite senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, and his 2008 presidential ambitions. But if you're not in the habit of swinging dead porcupines, these are the facts:

Barack Obama is a multi-racial, charismatic, young, religious member of the Democratic party. He became an instant star after his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, and later that year was elected senator in Illinois by 2/3 of the vote. He positions himself as an advocate of bi-partisanship, and has very broad support. He's from Hawaii. He looks moderate. He has a photogenic family. People love him. End of story.

These factors cause me to hereby declare The 1st Law of Obama-Dynamics: If Obama runs, Obama wins. The problem with this is that, despite appearances, Obama is not a moderate. He's a liberal. A very liberal liberal. He's more liberal than Hillary Clinton. And he does a really good job of hiding it.

For example, look at the "on the issues" section of his website. Something immediately stands out: there's no mention of his positions on hot-button issues like gay marriage, abortion, or the war in Iraq. Why? Probably because the site is still under construction, and states that more issues will be added soon. But the fact remains that Obama doesn't spend a lot of his time talking about these classic left-wing issues. Why? Because he takes the liberal (AKA polarizing) position on all of them. Although Obama himself doesn't deny this, he makes it very clear that he wants to bridge the gap between the religious right and the Democratic party by de-emphasizing these issues. By putting the most polarizing issues on the back burner and putting issues that are much less likely to make the religious right angry (decreasing poverty, improving education, etc) on the top of his list, Obama makes himself look like a viable choice for people on both sides of the political aisle.

In this speech, Obama discusses his view on religion and politics. If you want to understand Obama, I suggest you read it. His liberal views come out very clearly, but at the same time he suggests that the far left rethink their view of the religious right. Instead of treating Christians like a bunch of ignorant fanatics, he calls democrats to respect religion in the public square, acknowledge it's power to transform hearts, and to embrace the things that liberals and religious conservatives agree on. I don't think rhetoric like this is going to win over any Christians at the very, very far-right of the political spectrum, but for the more moderate "values voters", this kind of thing could really make an impact.

In addition to all of this, the Republican party really isn't having a good time right now with it's public relations. We have an unpopular Republican president who primarily serves as a punching bag for comedians, a very unpopular war started by the aforementioned president, and ethics scandals among prominent Republicans in the house and senate. It's not a good time to be a Republican. And if the Republicans lose in the upcoming '06 elections, it could be the beginning of the end for Republican power. This is yet another factor that could lead to an Obama victory in '08.

And of course, there's also the factor of every TV journalists favorite group of people: the moderates and the "swing voters". This is a category that Obama could easily sweep in a presidential election. Think of him as a black John F. Kennedy. He's a young, eloquent politician with two adorable kids. People love that kind of thing. With his broad appeal and rhetoric of unity, the "undecided vote" is almost certainly going to decide in favor of Obama.

This makes the million dollar question on everyone's mind: is Obama going to run? So far, the answer is no. But every time the question is brought to him, the answer becomes less of a firm no, and more of a weak yes. Recently, when a reporter for TIME magazine asked him if he would consider running after the '06 elections are over, he stated: "When the election is over and my book tour is done, I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband." In other words, he's probably going to run.

So, essentially, this is the breakdown:

1. Obama is a liberal member of the Democratic party, and has strong support from his base. To members of the Democratic party, he's a rock star. Obama gets 100% of the liberal vote.

2. Obama is charasmatic, eloquent, and a family man. The Republican party is now associated with corruption and failure. To moderates and swing voters, he's also a rock star. Obama gets 99.9% of the "in the middle" voters.

3. Obama treats conservatives like humans instead of dangerous animals. Obama often uses Christian rhetoric, and appears to be a man of integrity. In the midst if Republican failure, Obama may look like a welcome alternative. To conservatives, he may not be a rock-star, but he's still a respected guitar soloist. Obama gets 30% of the conservative vote.

If this guy runs in '08, the Republican party's chances could easily go down in flames. But hopefully, out of the ashes of the Republican party, the NEBRASKA PARTY, like the phoenix of legend, will rise, more glorious than ever before, uniting the religious right with it's rhetoric of hope, morality, reform, and Nebraskan prosperity! Viva La Corn Revolution!

Kofi Anan was the lime jello of UN Secretary Generals. You'll have to interpret that yourself.

So the man who's served as our beloved UN secretary general for ten years is now just another beloved ex-UN secretary general. And in his place is a man from the only country in the world where starcraft is a professional sport.

How does this effect you? Well, according to the worlds most complete and accurate source of information about all things pertaining to world politics, the wikipedia, the UN secretary general: "is the head of the Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the Unitied Nations."

So how does that effect you? Well, according to the worlds most complete and accurate source of information about all things pertaining to the United Nations, the wikipedia, the UN Secretariat: "provides studies, information, and facilities needed by United Nations bodies for their meetings. It also carries out tasks as directed by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Economic and Social Council, and other U.N. bodies."

So, in the end, this change in leadership will probably bring a change in... sanctioning... and peace... and other UN...uh... stuff. You know. All of that important UN stuff that everyone really cares about.

But seriously, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, besides having an inexplicably hilarious name, will also probably reform the UN, leading the charge in the glorious movement to make the worlds biggest bureaucracy less... bureaucratic. Soon the sanctions will be more efficiently un-effective, and human rights abusers will have to ignore more condemnation than ever before.

And Kim "Jong" Jong Il, you better watch your back. Ban Ki-moon is one bad mutha' from South Korea, and he's going to pen so many UN resolutions against your country it'll make your head spin. It's not too late to replace Jay Leno as the most obnoxious man on late night television. Please. Do it for the children.

Nuclear weapons. Meh.

In the past few days the world has been alerted to the fact that North Korea, in all likelihood, has "the bomb". I have two words for this development: so what? North Korea is a country in shambles. It doesn't have resources. It doesn't have friends. All it has is the possibility that it might posess "the bomb", which last time I checked doesn't do much for problems A and B. North Korea is the goth in the high-school of the world, hiding in some dark corner of the hallway wearing a "Nightmare Before Christmas" t-shirt (purchased at hot topic with his mom's credit card), listening to music no one likes, skipping both breakfast AND lunch, posting pseudo-artistic pictures of himself on his myspace, and taking stupid, unpopular positions on political issues just to worry people. North Korea and it's dear leader Kim "possible" Jong Il just want to be noticed, they want to stand out from all the other worthless dictatorships, and like all goth's, they want to shock their parents (China, Russia, etc), by deliberately disobeying them, engaging in behaviors that go against their values, and in general, just seeing how far they can go without getting into major trouble. But anyways, leaving that terribly irrelevant analogy, North Korea really is all bark and no bite. Kim "Chi" Jong Il knows very well that his poverty-stricken country with it's stagnant socialist economy can't survive without foreign aid. He also knows that if it really came down to war, the United States, the EU, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and possibly China would collectively kick his megalomaniac butt. Dear Leader isn't like the president of Iran, whatever his name is, because he isn't a religious dictator. He doesn't have any intention of being a martyr, summoning the apocylypse, and he holds no belief that Allah will assure his victory. Kim "I've run out of nicknames" Jong Il will only fight in a war he thinks he can win. So, in other words, I don't think North Korea is really planning on using their new weapons any time soon. Lil' Kim just wants to be a big man on the international scene. But Kim, I have some news for you. You are a very small man with funny hair and big glasses. Embrace your identity. Become an accountant or a comedian. End this charade.

WWJVF?

There's an interesting article at The Chronicle of Higher education, written by Randall Ballmer, entitled "Jesus Isn't a Republican":
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

First of all I would heartily agree with him on the title. Jesus isn't a Republican. The Republican party is still at heart, a secular political party, and more often than not it's just as (at times, more) corrupt as their friends on the other side of the political aisle. You can be a Christian and disagree with our current war in Iraq, the NSA wiretapping deal, and so on, even though it seems that some theologians include George Bush's foreign policy among the major tenets of the faith. Unfortunately, Mr. Ballmer goes a little further than merely stating that Christians shouldn't be affiliated with any particular party in his article, revealing that he basically believes that Jesus is a democrat.

From the article, on abortion:

" On judicial matters, the religious right demands appointees who would diminish individual rights to privacy with regard to abortion."

This sentence could've easily been copied from the planned parenthood website. What do you think Jesus is more concerned about, the life of an unborn child, or some nebulous concept like the "individual right to privacy"? Does he also think that anyone should be able to set up a meth lab and deal drugs from their own home? After all, don't people have a right to privacy? Not that there's anything wrong with that... I mean, we can all agree that the teachings of bible can be summarized as "respect the individuals right to privacy", can't we? All of those danged right-wingers invading the "Individual right to privacy"! I'm sure that God has some terrible judgement planned for them...

"Especially at a time when the government's surveillance activities are already intruding on the privacy and the civil liberties of Americans, we should consider carefully the wisdom of allowing the government to determine a matter properly left to a woman and her conscience."

Refer to the previous comments.

"I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable. The most effective way to limit the incidence of abortion is to change the moral climate surrounding the issue — through education or even through public-service campaigns similar to those that discourage smoking or drugs or alcohol or spousal abuse."

Why does he want it to be unthinkable? Does he believe that abortion destroys life? If so, than he should agree that because abortion harms a life seperate from the woman, it is no longer a matter of invading individual rights, it's an issue of defending an individuals right to life. People who try to please both sides, believing that abortion is morally despicable, but that people should have a right to do it end up making no sense at all. Also, Republican pro-lifers are already trying to change the moral climate surrounding abortion AS WELL AS limiting it legally, thus defeating his point.

Randall on welfare:

"Jesus spells out the kind of behavior that might be grounds for exclusion from the kingdom of heaven: "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

We could have a lively discussion and even vigorous disagreement over whether it is incumbent upon the government to provide services to the poor, but those who argue against such measures should be prepared with some alternative program or apparatus."

Christians have been prepared with an alternate program or apparatus for some time. There are countless international and national Christian charities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc, that have been running for quite some time on private donations. To take Jesus's command to believers to take care of the poor and to translate it to mean that we should have the government take care of the poor so that we don't have to is a little ridiculous. And since the government is secular, it can't provide the spiritual help that so many of the poor need much more than temporary relief from poverty.

Randall on the consistant ethic of life.

"As early as 1984, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, the late archbishop of Chicago, talked about opposition to abortion as part of a "seamless garment" that included other "life issues": care for the poor and feeding the hungry, advocacy for human rights, and unequivocal opposition to capital punishment. Surely the adoption of what Bernardin called a "consistent ethic of life" carries with it greater moral authority than opposition to abortion alone. "

Last time I checked Right-wing christians have been caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, and advocating human rights. But unequivocal opposition to capital punishment? Can you really read a verse as basic as "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image." (Genesis 9:6), and come to the conclusion that God is opposed to any capital punishment? Come on.

--------------------------------------

Sure Christians should be careful not to get too caught up in political parties, and yes, a few conservative christians are corrupt, and abortion may be in many cases used by the Republicans as a mere political weapon, but taking the left-wing stance on every issue is no better. Proffessor Ballmer implies in his article that all right-wing christians are cold-hearted hard-line capitalists that ignore the needs of minorites and the poor, advocate cruelty and aren't trying to reduce abortions through non-governmental means. And I think he gets it wrong.

Hopefully though, contrarian views on God and politics like this will create more dialogue on this subject. I think that evangelicals have considered the Republican party to be the mouthpiece of God for far too long. When Christians place all of their trust in an earthly institution they become blind to it's shortcomings and refuse to recognize when it goes astray. How many Republican scandals have evangelicals stayed silent about until news had already leaked out from every other source? Answer: a lot.

And please, read the entire article instead of just reading the stuff that I copied and pasted out of it. Maholo for your cooperation.


...
(Yes, the second part of my third paragraph IS sarcasm.)

It's long, but you should still read it... I mean if that's the kind of thing you're into.

Most people would start off a post like this by saying "Well, I know I haven't written in a while..", or "I'm Baaack!!!", or maybe some crappy paragraph about how busy they were, and how they're going to try to post more regularly, or maybe a sob story about how their next door neighbor hired a professional killer to cap their beloved yorkie, and how they had to aid the FBI in a 4 month cross-country manhunt that ended in a shootout in which many close friends had their lives snuffed out in a tragic case of friendly fire, and how much the experience took out of them emotionally. But everyone knows that nobody bothers reading that trash anyways, and how empty such pathetic excuses sound to the brazen ears of their accusing friends that have been nagging them to "post more on their blog", since last January. Deep inside, those people know that they're frauds, and when they're friendless and rejected, so alone that they can hear their frantic thoughts echo inside the hollow tomb of their empty souls, they know, absolutely and surely that... they... completely LOSE AT LIFE.

So instead of wasting a bunch of fluffy words on a big pile of nothing that nobody cares about, I'll start off by diving right into the unique brand of political commentary that made me famous. The kind of political commentary you wish you could write, but you can't because you're too busy writing about hanging out at WalMart/StarBucks/TheMall with your loser friends while taking pictures of yourself (and your loser friends) with that 1.5 Megapixal camera that your great-grandma left you in her will.

---------------------------

I get to vote in 2008. And I don't particularly care. Am I the only one who thinks that the next presidential elections are going to be, for the lack of a better word, retarded*? Who's worth voting for? What Republican candidates are the "Moral Majority" supposed to get excited about? Liberals like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? Maybe Mitt Romney's a good guy... but I don't think he has enough recognition to make it. And his selection of judges while serving as the governor of Massachusetts seems to be questionable. Since George W. Bush, Bill Frist, and all those other guys have pretty much damaged the public reputation of the party to an immeasurable degree, the only hope of the Republicans is someone with a flawless record, who has enough charisma to sway all the opinionless, TV poll fed "swing-voters", that seem to be all the rage these days with politicians. Of course, if the Democrats get someone like Hillary or Dean to run, maybe there's hope after all. The magical thing about Howard Dean is the sheer amount of stupid and offensive things that he's said during the past couple years, which permanently stain his reputation. And of course Hillary is hated by the right and the extreme left, almost guaranteeing failure.

But do you know what I really want? Do you what the one thing I'm looking foward to in 2008 is? The possibility of getting a president that doesn't make an idiot of himself whenever he opens his mouth. I'm not saying that our beloved leader George Bush is stupid, I'm just saying he's a terrible public figure. He has no capicity to inspire, to sway the public, or to just not look dumb. He's a horrible speaker. A terrible speaker. I've seen several 12 year old beginning speakers that sounded better than him. And of course it's not as if he's actually speaking his own words anyways, he's just reading whatever his speach writer wrote for the occasion. He was on TV once, speaking about illegal immigration, and the tele-promptor that was feeding him words shut down. He just sat staring like a monkey at the screen, with absolutely nothing to say. That kind of thing damages America's image. A big part of the presidency is representing our country to the world. The president is our figurehead, he's the person people in other countries think of when they think of America. Is a representative that can speak our language too much to ask?

Think of FDR. Now, personally I dislike FDR. I think he screwed up America. But do you know what? He knew how to communicate. He knew how to write speaches. And he knew how to deliver them. Think of Winston Churchill. His public image had a lot to do with why the people of England didn't give up. Sure, he could make decisions too, but when you're a LEADER, the man who's supposed to be in front of his country leading the charge against it's enemies, image is key. Despite what Barney the dinosaur says, what people think of you does matter. End of story.

So in short, if the Republicans want to have a fighting chance, they need to give the American people a man of conviction, who really believes in restoring moral order, small government, and all that Right-Wing jazz, but someone who can also COMMUNICATE those ideas with the american public, someone who can really look like a leader, not just some wind-up monkey reading off a piece of paper, pronouncing half the words wrong, and accidentally omitting the other half.

--------------------

And George W. Bush, if you're reading this, don't worry. We all love you. You're still better than John Kerry. Just have Karl Rove speak for you, okay? He's cool. I mean, you're cool too, and you can still appoint judges and not veto spending bills and all that stuff that you do in the White-Hizzie... but try to stay out of sight. Thanks.





*My apologies to any retards that might be reading this.