Chickens, Eggs, and Chelsea Clinton

Last night's episode of South Park was delightful. Ms. Garrison finally went full circle and became Mr. Garrison again. And if that was a spoiler to you then, well, fuck you; you should have watched the damn show. Anyway, it is revealed that Mr. Garrison was a man all along. It was not the case that Mr. Garrison was fucked up because he was a woman trapped in a man's body. Rather, Mr. Garrison was always a man and always fucked up.

Which brings us to Chelsea Clinton.

If you couldn't tell from my Chelsea on Monica and more subtly entitled Chelsea Clinton is a whore rants I detest Chelsea Clinton; I hate her so much. The problem with my hatred of Chelsea Clinton is that some would say it is not genuine but rather something else.

If you spend any time reading political articles you'll see that the opinions people have of Clintons are spun and collectivized into a general, societal, pro-Clinton or anti-Clinton groups. Since many people have strong opinions of the Clintons these opinions are taken to be not unique to individuals but rather manifestations of the Platonic Form of Clinton endorsement or Clinton hatred which exists within society. To quote some jackass at blog.washingtonpost.com, "There is no question that the Clintons generate strong responses and reactions, both positive and negative. Fair enough." One may minimize the impact of any particular manifestation of pro-Clinton or anti-Clinton sentiment by generalizing it to be part of that greater whole and not a unique entity unto itself. We can turn the conversation into a chicken and egg question, as it were.

In the Mr. Garrison example we have a chicken and egg question. The chicken is gender confusion and the egg is "fucked up". Did "fucked up" bring about gender confusion or did gender confusion bring about "fucked up"; which came first? With the opinions individuals hold of the Clintons we have this same situation: Did particular hatred or communal hatred come first; is my hatred of Chelsea Clinton the result of a societal hatred or is the societal hatred the result of the hatred of myself and others?

I can understand why people do this and the manner in which the spin is effective. If one can downplay particular hatred to be part of a communal hatred then the particular is less noticeable and powerful; one is simply part of that mindless choir of haters lambishly baaing in unison.

The problem is that not everyone is a mindless drone parroting what they heard from Glenn Beck or Bill'O or Olbermann. Some of us are self-affirmed entities unto ourselves who really fucking hate Chelsea Clinton regardless of what talking heads say or what we think of her mother or father.

For example:

Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and “kid reporter” for Scholastic News, has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls as they’ve campaigned across Iowa this year. But when she approached the 27-year-old Chelsea after a campaign event Sunday, she got a different response.

“Do you think your dad would be a good ‘first man’ in the White House?” Sydney asked, but Chelsea brushed her question aside.

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute,” Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.

It is not a manifestation of some communal hatred to hate Chelsea's bitchy response to a fucking FOURTH GRADER. No delusional, sheepish, mindless conformity is required to be pissed-the-fuck-off by this. Chelsea Clinton is simply a god damned bitch. Don't believe me? Look at how she acts towards fourth graders!

So, sure, lots of people hate the Clintons. Plenty of people love the Clintons. And certainly there is some societal impact on individuals which manipulates their individual views.

But don't try to fucking spin these genuine grievances against Chelsea as some manifestation of baseless hatred rooted in her father getting his cock sucked or her mother being a stubborn, selfish bitch. My opinions of Hillary and Bill are entirely removed from my hatred of Chelsea. There is no chicken or egg here. There is only Chelsea Clinton being a hollow, vapid, opportunistic bitch.

And my calling her on it.

Raeks In the News

Gizmodo has a nice right about the 2008 Dyson award winner. A super raek. This shit can rake leaves and pick them up.

One Raek To Rule Them All, One Raek To Find Them, One Raek To Bring Them All And In The Darkness Bind Them!

There is a video.

Cult or Religion

The following quotes come from an article entitled Children of Polygamy.

"But on the other hand, you're not encouraged to think for yourself or have an imagination and learn and grow. You're encouraged to conform and be a clone."

"In the mind of someone who has a phobia, they can't imagine [living outside the compound] will have a positive result," said Hassan. "They'll develop phobias of losing their salvation or burning in hell."

"It can also be things like [fearing] they'll be raped by the outsiders, or that the outsiders will beat and torture you or that you'll get cancer or AIDS if you leave the compound," said Hassan. "Some believe they'll become drug addicts or will commit suicide if they leave."

"The ideology of the theology of the group is that their boss is ordained by God," said Wood. "Initially it's going to be very difficult for them to trust people."

"Inside extremist organizations the addiction is deliberately induced," said Wood, who said the effect a cult has on an individual is similar to that of a drug or alcohol addiction. "When someone comes out, part of the process of healing and recovering is letting go of the addiction, and this case that means letting go of the theology, ideology of the group."

"As long as they still believe, they're still addicted," added Wood.

"People often do go back," said Wood. "Some come all the way out and then they just fall back into them – they don't find the way to survive as free agents."

The article is about the difficulties children raised on that polygamist ranch will experience when they enter society. But if you read the quotes outside of that particular context and delve into the thoughts and ideas behind them? They're discussing what happens in any religion, any group in which indoctrination occurs.

"You're not encouraged to think for yourself", "Their boss is ordained by God", "They'll develop phobias of losing their salvation or burning in hell". In what way do these not describe Catholicism? "...[fearing] they'll be raped by the outsiders, or that the outsiders will beat and torture you or that you'll get cancer or AIDS if you leave the compound." Replace "outsiders" with "homosexuals", "compound" with "the fold", and then pretend that we're talking about James Dobson's followers.

And then we have the best one: "They don't find the way to survive as free agents." The fucking mantra of every dipshit who embraces the notion of an invisible man in the sky.

So, explain to me the difference between a cult and a religion. Because as far as I can tell? The only difference is semantic. It's ok for Catholics to think that the Pope is ordained by God but it is crazy for a bunch of polygamists to think that their leader was ordained by God? It's ok for Methodists to scare their children with threats of Hell but it's not ok for this polygamist group to scare its children with threats of Hell?

Really?

I don't think this is apples and oranges, that there is some fundamental difference and distinguishing quality to a religion that a cult lacks. Cults and religions are fundamentally the same thing: indoctrinating clubs for weak-minded dipshits terrified of the notion of being "free agents".

And I'm trying to figure out why we can lambaste this polygamist group for indoctrinating its members while just a few months ago people were voting for Mike Huckabee.

Old People hate WoW

Flickr Video

Flickr added a new feature yesterday, flickr video. You have to have a pro account to add video, but anyone can watch. This is a video i shot with my camera a few weeks ago. There is a 90 second limit on video length. They say it is to get people to share personal videos, not rick rolling or Willard Scott being fucked up.



edit: The more i think about it, the more the 90sec limit seems ridiculous. it occurred to me on my walk to work that flickr is already limited video service to people who pay to use flickr. It seems like that is enough to keep people from using the service to share copy righted videos.

Unlike youtube, where one could be banded for uploading videos, all you have to do is start a new free account. Flickr Pro costs 24$ a year. This is a lot of money for someone who wants to share episodes of venture bros just to get banned. One of the best parts of flickr is the social-y sorts of things. I can see when my friends upload pictures, comment on them etc. I have also uploaded nearly 1000 pictures. That is a lot of time and effort and i do not want to lose that.

That is enough reason to not use flickr video for something other than my own videos.

Stephanie Rathbun's Blogging as of the First of the Year

It became apparent to me today as I realized that I had not read any Wrathburn blog posts since December that I have not posted any Wrathburn blog posts since December. Let us then let the righteous rectification commence and be well wrought:

3/07/08 - Hodgepodge

2/19/08 - Normalcy kills

2/15/08 - The Reason I Play Solitaire

2/01/08 - Procrastination Station

1/25/08 - Starstruck: us or him?

1/22/08 - SJR7: What does it stand for?

1/15/08 - Blog Anew

Weapons Grade Hedgehogs

NZ man 'used hedgehog as weapon'

Police said William Singalargh, 27, had hurled the hedgehog about 5m (16ft) at a 15-year-old boy.

"It hit the victim in the leg, causing a large, red welt and several puncture marks," said Senior Sgt Bruce Jenkins, in the North Island town of Whakatane.

It was unclear whether the hedgehog was still alive when it was thrown, though it was dead when collected as evidence.

The police spokesman said the suspect was arrested "for assault with a weapon, namely the hedgehog."

Mr Singalargh is due to appear in court on 17 April. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison.