Not Worth Reading.

Dwindling Readers,

Paris Hilton. She's pretty. She's rich. She's whip smart. She is in possession of a cracklin' wit. She's earned everything she's ever received. And there are still those among us (like Dieter and Sherry) who detest her and want her to do hard time (a decade or more) for poor driving. Well, I for one shall not stand insolently by as one of my fellow citizens is spit upon, again and again, until the saliva drips from her trendy clothing like so much excessive dripping clothing saliva.

We all know Paris' parents, Ken and Marjorie Hilton, the founders of the hugely successful Marriott chain of hotels. These well-run "inns" dotting our spectacular interstate landscape, from Newark to points outside of Newark, feature crisp, clean sheets, delicious cool tap water and complimentary bathroom towels. Ask the maid for an additional ("trial size") bar of soap and guess what? You'll GET it. Now how many of our nation's hotels come through in this fashion, time and time again? "ALL OF THEM" you may counter but you'd probably be missing the point. 'Nuff said.

Some unsavory types (often from Oregon) would whine, "But Paris never earned anything at all!!" Oh, really? Well, when the first Marriott opened in Dayton, OH in 1987, five-year-old Paris and her sister (Doris) routinely helped to clean the rooms, change the air-conditioner filters, and scare defecating ducks away from the tiny swimming pool. It wasn't until 1992 that the 3-story, rundown hotel began to turn a modest profit and, in the ensuing two decades, over 2,200 sparkling franchises appeared across our land.

Is it not logical that, if young Paris worked so hard on the very first hotel, she should share in the incredible resulting wealth? Well, I don't know. It's not my job to "know" but in fact to excite and stimulate. You see, friends, I am skilled at presenting salient points and then stepping back, as if to say, "Why don't you folks debate it all among yourselves and come to your own conclusions." I believe it was John F. Kennedy who said, "Give a man some fish and he eats for a day but loan him your fishing gear and, well, who knows what can happen and stuff." And then he was shot in the head near Houston by a man. A nation grieves still.

So Paris, who enjoys the high life in Hollywood, New York, and San Bernardino, made a few mistakes. No one thinks it's okay to drive poorly. No one believes that a beautiful young woman has any right to change the rules of the road or place traffic signs at a height only she deems optimal (say 3' 4"). NO one is saying that here!! A fair punishment is in order. On that we can all agree. 45 days in jail has been deemed proper by a certain Judge Sendrickson. And Paris shall indeed serve the 45 days (minus time off for good behavior and other relevant matters).

And so she shall emerge in 4-6 days a stronger, more evolved woman, lesson learned. The hard way. And we can all again look forward to her pouty ways and her fetching catwalk struts as the world's best designers drape her lithe, feline form in cottons and other fabrics which aren't cotton. In the meantime, as she stoically serves her sentence, we can go to the YouTube (on the WorldWide Nets) and enjoy her past devilish utterances of "she's hot," "he's hot," "they're hot," or perhaps "that's hot." Hot indeed, Paris. City of lights. Or is that Stuttgart? Either way. Not my job to find out.

In conclusion, whether it's Lindy Loshan, Brittney Speer, or Valerie Bertinelli, we must never stop cherishing our hot young women, those who invigorate our loins and challenge our minds with the words which come from their mouths. Never forget that our young heroes serving in Iraq are (above all) protecting our freedom to pursue the adoration of countless Hollywood starlets and, yes, heartthrobs. NEVER FORGET that (at this writing) 3,506 young Americans have sacrificed their lives to prevent the Taliban from covering up these vixens with ill-fitting tarps and unwieldy beekeeper helmets. If we give up on this epic struggle the terrorists, just like that, shall win and the starlets shall lose. And if that happens, ladies and gentleman, we as a country lose. And that country is the United States of America (The USA).

It's worth protecting.



-Paul C. Rosa

A Return To Form

Friends,

Well, it's been over two weeks since my last BLOG post and I have been deeply moved by the responses from many faithful readers. Some, clearly hoping I am fully rested, suggested that I continue my "vacation" and send e-mails only when "absolutely necessary." Many friends indicated to me that "less is more" and advised that I contact them "rarely if ever." I am moved that they would value my painstaking editing.

Others asked that they be removed from my e-mail list altogether as they simply have too many items to read on a daily basis already and have no time for my fine, lengthy pieces. Understood. We all live busy lives and can't always get to what's most important. A select few had (defective) computer "auto-responses" that indicated my e-mails would be "permanently blocked" and I have sent (hand-written) letters encouraging them to ask their service providers to fix this technology glitch.

A fellow (Mitch) e-mailed me a short while ago asking me, "What's up, dude?" When I read of such clear interest in my writing career, I become a bit emotional. Whether you're an actor, singer, ventriloquist, or writer, in your soul you crave love from your audience as a way of confirming your own self worth. Hearing "what's up dude?" reminds me yet again that I was born to write, to share my intimate creative processes with as many readers as possible in order to entertain, amuse, and (yes), to educate.

And there's always been a playful "give -n- take" with my sizable audience. Reader Nicole R. once responded to one of my pieces by forwarding a collection of photos featuring cute baby animals in amusing situations. Terrific! Rich N., after reading an essay I forwarded in March of this year, in return forwarded a delightful video of "Dads being struck in the groin" by a variety of sports accessories. This let me know, loud and clear, that he appreciated my hard work. Message received, Rich! Again and again my readers have demonstrated how important I am in their lives and and they have richly rewarded me. Indeed, it is my pleasure!

As I prepare myself emotionally for increased summer writing I assure my audience that my dedication to my craft has never been more pronounced. Thank you for making me a regular, welcome guest at your "computer station." In due time I will create a credit-card portion on my BLOG allowing you to make substantial donations which will be utilized for marketing pursuits, office supplies, and cans of compressed air (allowing me to keep my keyboard dust free).

A happy summer to all and blessings to most.

l

-pcr

Harry Back.

Words:

Well, no one saw this coming! The British government has announced that Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq. They explained that, since he would be such a high-priority target, it would be an unacceptable risk to him (and his platoon). This sounds logical on its surface because (yes, indeedy) the mustachioed enemy would be chomping at the bit to display the Prince's skull on a stake, an effective technique used by the Prince's own great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather when his marriages inevitably became a tad "rocky."



But upon further review (and a rudimentary grasp of basic mathematics), it is logical to conclude that an increased risk to Harry's group would, by definition, lessen the overall threat elsewhere. Given there are a fixed number of "enemy combatants" (i.e. bad guys who streamed into Iraq only after the country was occupied) it stands to reason that Harry, the red-headed scamp, would not pose an increased security concern to the fighting force as a whole. And that, math aficionados, completely negates the British government's entire silly premise.

Wouldn't the TRUTH be refreshing every once in a while? A politician revealing an unpopular TRUTH?! I'd be happier than a poo-flinging monkey if the stuffy British spokesman strode to the microphone, cleared his throat and instead explained:

Prince Harry will be going nowhere near the middle east because he comes from a very powerful family of unelected origin. We would no sooner send this freckled imp into a war zone than we would send our OWN sons and daughters. While we are perfectly comfortable sending other families' children into an un-winnable war of dubious origin, when it comes to personal risk of any sort, well....we really don't do that...because we don't have to. In conclusion, it is typically those with few other options who are forced to fight and die. But if the war becomes truly hopeless we are more than eager to let the debacle continue rather than admit any failure. Good day and God bless.

These political bastards might be a little more careful about sending youngsters to war if there was even a 5% chance that their own fighting-age sons and daughters would be forced to serve. How many U.S. Senators (listening, Hillary?) would have voted for the Iraq invasion four years ago if their comfortable children might have been yanked from Dartmouth or Princeton and been asked to serve in Iraq for even a month? It is a sad reality that the very people who decide whether to attack a country are those who have nothing to lose (other than political points). Yes, a few Senators (like Jim Webb, VA) have sons or daughters in Iraq but they all seem to want a quick withdrawal. What a surprise! Personal risk certainly compels folks to think things through.

Prince Harry pretends to be deeply disappointed by his government's decision. But of course he is still free to fight in Iraq. Roughly 40,000 of the combined British and American fighting force is made up of "soldiers of fortune," hired guns not directly affiliated with the military. Harry can simply explain, "This war is critical and I must fight. I am dismissing the long-irrelevant monarchy as well as this prejudicial decision by my government and heading to Iraq in June." This would certainly prove his commitment to fighting. But don't hold your breath.

Our fearless Commander in Chimp constantly reminds Americans that the terrorists will "follow us home" the moment we leave Iraq. Sagely, he explains that we cannot leave until the job is done. He insists that this is a war that must be won. Yet he's never suggested that one of his own daughters might hop off her bar stool and devote a month (not 15 months, like the others!) of her time to fighting the Iraqi insurgency. Bush has never suggested that any influential people sacrifice in order to help win this critical war. Until the "elite" are forced to share a tiny percentage of the "ultimate risk," they will continue to vote on the side of money and power. But...

"The wealthy take up arms only when the impoverished rebel against them." -G. Ehringer

The occupation of Iraq was nothing more than an attempt to make certain Americans more rich and powerful at a time when slack-jawed Americans were eager to support an attack on any country full of light-brown-skinned people. And if we had prevailed (we never will), virtually no one in this country would have the balls to declare, "WE STILL HAD NO RIGHT TO SEND OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN A COUNTRY THAT NEVER THREATENED US!" Cuz' everyone likes a winner.

Those Americans who are against the war (about 200,000,000 of us, all of whom financially support this war) and do absolutely nothing to help end it, are accessories to murder.

In conclusion, I urge each and every one of you to stay well hydrated.

-pcr

Why So Bitter?

Compatriots,

Some citizens have noted that my BLOG entries have been rather bitter and pessimistic of late. It was even suggested that, among other things, I should "lighten up," "get a life," or "shut the fuck up." Interesting notions all, and I shall carefully consider each and every one of them during an unrushed period of introspection and a well-honed dismissal of prayer. I think it's wise, as part of one's personal evolution, to consider any and all suggestions that may come your way. Even if your life is quite happy and your days generally consist of following your heart.

Yesterday, as I was selling comical stickers (which were disrespectful to Republicans) in Times Square, a nice man demanded that I "accept Jesus Christ" as my personal savior. I suppose he could tell by my distaste of certain politicians that I needed Jesus to make me complete. Perhaps I had something to gain by listening. I asked him to give me any proof whatsoever that Jesus Christ (not WMD's) existed and he smiled warmly at me, as though I were a retarded child playing with colorful yarn. He responded, "The Bible is the word of God and proof that Jesus existed" and seemed to consider patting me on the head. I queried, "But where's the proof, any proof, that the Bible is the word of God?" Moving on, the fellow crisply suggested that I "get right with the Lord or burn in Hell." Well that sounds unpleasant so I shall indeed look into this "Jesus tale" and see if this bearded fellow can make me happier. If only I could convince myself that he actually existed (like unicorns and angels). Sadly, I did not get a chance to ask the pedestrian how Jesus could possibly become my personal savior when he already seems to be the savior of millions of Christians worldwide. But I cannot discount the possibility that Jesus will eventually become my non-personal savior and indeed make me happier. After all, happiness is the key, not bitterness.

Another helpful gentleman in Times Square roared, "Go back to the Soviet Union, you communist!" Since I had never traveled to this land to begin with, I found the suggestion confusing. Also baffling was the man's implication that I was capable of traveling back in time fifteen years in order to visit this (now-democratic) land which now goes by another name(s). He also clamored "support the troops, asshole!" patiently teaching me that if one's nation is at war it is our patriotic duty to support said war regardless of reasons for engagement or likelihood of success. If I fully grasp this lesson, will I be a less bitter, more optimistic chap? If I simply accept, at all times, what our elected politicians suggest, will it bring me inner calm? By cracky, now that's worth exploring. More introspection without prayer lies ahead.

But some of my encounters have not been of a conflicted nature. A woman I met (I'll call her "Abbe") was, among others, supportive of my thoughts and I, in turn, enjoyed her wise views very much. Drawn to this free-thinking, dynamic, liberal woman, I was fortunate enough to speak with her again and again over a period of several weeks (with a remarkable "cordless phone"). It was quietly confirmed that our opinions, even the aggressive ones, are perfectly acceptable and "letting them out" can be a rich, rewarding experience. Indeed, such views can even serve to draw people closer and closer together! Yes, here's yet another potential path to happiness I would be wise to continue exploring while carefully avoiding prayer.

So there's plenty to think about. A spiritual retreat is surely in order this month. But where to go? Hmmmm. Seattle, I've heard, is a great place to visit in order to explore personal growth and happiness without prayer. Yes, I shall go to Seattle.

In conclusion, I was again recently reminded that embracing anger actually keeps one from becoming bitter. It has been written that rage and depression are nothing more than "anger turned inward." So true. In fact, if you just speak your mind, wonderful people like "Abbe" (real name "Abbe") may just take an interest in you. And that, that my friends, can make you happy. Even more so than pie. And without prayer.

hi.



I feel good,
pcr

A Letter From Karl Rove.

From: The Subconscious of Karl Rove
To: Fellow Republicans

"Christian" Gentlemen and Ladies,

Two words: "Fear Not." The Republican party is NOT in its last throes (ha, ha, remember that gem?) and our future is bright. Certainly not our near future (there will be no Republican President in 08') but our long-term future, beginning four years later. So relax.

Admittedly, the war in Iraq did not turn out at ALL like we planned. You must admit that four years ago it was brilliant that we claimed Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat, but not until after 9/11, when Americans were content to blame any people who had light-brown skin and names typically containing at least three "K's." Even though Iraq had as much to do with 9/11 as Peru, the morons actually fell for it. Ah, good memories.

But alas, it didn't work out and plenty of naysayers now claim we are in trouble. They say this Iraqi debacle will set back our agenda for decades. WRONG! Let me explain. In twenty months a Democrat will take over the White House (yawn). It will be that negro fellow, the lesbian Clinton, or that tree hugger, Al Gore. In order to become President, the eventual winner must guarantee a quick pull-out from Iraq as soon as he/she takes office. All we have to do is keep insisting that victory in Iraq must not come with a deadline and it will fall on the Democrats to end this war.

Well, my wealthy friends, at THIS point we can blame them for any terrorism that may follow (for decades!) by simply shrugging and saying, "The Democrats were the ones who insisted on cutting and running." And you know what?! A large percentage of the country (the same folks who actually believed the entire "uranium from Africa" fantasy) will actually believe it! Remember, they quickly forgot that 9/11 happened on our watch, months after we were told that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil and we did nothing. So for now, even though it has been clear for three years that America has no chance of prevailing in Iraq, we will allow Americans to continue dying in a country that never threatened us. It's for the greater good. But remember, before mourning these thousands of dead Americans, that none of OUR sons and daughters need to sacrifice in any way. And the sacrifice of those who are fighting for the U.S.? Consider it as their opportunity to assure the success of the Republican party once again in 2012. A noble sacrifice, indeed.

Also, as far as "losing in Iraq," let's not be so hasty with our assessments. American contractors in Iraq (usually supporting Republican politicians) have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars on (ha, ha) no-bid contracts. You have no idea how much money Dick Cheney has made over the past four years through Halliburton! Do you think he might share that loot with Republicans in the future? Does a liberal serve valiantly in Vietnam and get effectively smeared by those who had 7 deferments or went AWOL from the National Guard? Man, I love that one. Hard to declare a war a loss when you profit like this, am I RIGHT?!

So we lay low for four years, blame the Democrats for not having the stomach for war and prepare for the next election. But we will not be docile on conservative issues. After all, the Supreme Court just passed a law forbidding third-trimester abortions (watch out Roe -v- Wade!). Most Americans actually believed us when we implied that these abortions are essentially demanded by slutty hippie women who decide, after eight months of pregnancy, to yank out the squirming, perfectly healthy babies from their wombs. Ha, ha. So few people realize that the vast, vast majority of these babies are horrifically damaged. Brains growing outside of skulls, massive skeletal disorders, and future lives of unimaginable suffering. I imagine if America knew that third-trimester abortions are performed almost exclusively after gut-wrenching personal decisions by anguished parents who want to end immense suffering, they would NEVER support our agenda. But thankfully they are not educated.

And remember, Republicans, education is our worst enemy. Keep pushing that Bible stuff (and other fairy tales) on the kids. The younger the better. The earth is 6,000 years old? You betcha!' Homosexuality is a sin? Oh yeah, but don't mention gluttony! Seventy percent of the Earth is going to hell because they don't accept Jesus? Sure, why not? People in red states will believe anything! After all, they actually believe in ANGELS!

So chin up, Republicans. We may have lost the (Iraq) battle but we will win the war. The Dems will once again be labeled cowards whenever they pull the troops out, women's bodies will (more and more) be regulated by Republican men, and the cash (the sweet, sweet cash) will continue to roll in.

Life is still good.



-K. Rove

Selective Prejudice.

People reading my formed words (with a special shout-out to "Abbe"),

Well, it's been a couple of weeks since the VA Tech massacre and I've heard plenty of blame to go around. I've heard NRA-types and pacifists shrieking at each other. I've heard psychologists (aka "crazy hippies") preaching the importance of inclusion. And I've seen meat-eaters and vegans engaged in ultimate fighting while Metallica blares from the speakers. Admittedly, this one confuses me.

Surprisingly, I have come to (essentially) agree with the NRA when they say, "Guns don't kill people, insane NRA members kill people." As Michael Moore pointed out in his brilliant documentary "Bowling For Columbine," Canada has far more guns per capita than we do but far, far fewer murders per capita. A more civilized, empathetic culture? Yep. Guns are illegal in Japan and there are virtually zero murders. But is it really so hard for a determined Japanese citizen to get a gun? Doubt it. Canada (many guns) and Japan (few guns) both have a tiny fraction of the murders we endure in the U.S. because, well, they CHOOSE not to kill each other when they get grouchy. It is American society, not guns, that causes this nightmare. I am not particularly knowledgeable on WHY we are such a violent people but I think it has something to do with the "We're number one, greatest country on earth" bullshit we stuff into our kids' heads at an early age. The same age as Kim Jong Il convinces the North Korean kids that he is God. I would welcome any thoughts from readers.

Many people have argued that we need to make campuses safer. That certainly is worth exploring. But how much safer is debatable. Nobody supports the idea of huge walls around campuses and iris scans at every door. Society as a whole agrees that risk, safety, and freedom must be balanced. Some would say (and conservatives supporting Bush have suggested it) that greater safety is what's most important. Worried about phone taps? Why, if you have nothing to hide? Opposed to subway searches? Don't pack a bomb! Of course both sides have valid arguments. For instance, few liberals argue against the legality of suitcase searches at airports. It's an invasion of privacy, sure, but acceptable to (almost) all. When Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither," he probably didn't consider the emegence of Al Qaeda but he very well may have envisioned the actions of our current administration. Gray areas, my friends. By the way, is that the way you spell "gray?" "Grey?" Who cares.

But those who ALWAYS argue on the side of safety are ALWAYS fools. "If it makes us safer, do it!" is just nonsense. I ask these mouth-breathers why we then simply don't reduce the national speed limit to 22 miles per hour and save tens of thousands of lives. They then seem to be in a hurry to get somewhere and the discussion abruptly ends. Compromise, compromise. Safety and freedom. So most people (probably most at VA Tech) would prefer that college campuses remain open and accessible and everyone (just like interstate drivers) will TAKE THEIR CHANCES! It's part of a free society, an acceptable risk if you will.

Changing gears. Many people have been blaming rappers for promoting violence and disrespect for authority. Guys like Bill ("Peabody Award") O'Reilly routinely blame rap artists like 50 Cent and Ludacris for fomenting violence. Yet they never blame (white) folks like Martin Scorcese, Brian DePalma, and Vin Diesel. "What the HELL are you talking about?!" you may roar, Jumbo Snickers bar in hand. Well Scorcese and DePalma routinely direct vicious movies and Vin Diesel (often) portrays violent characters. But most of us (correctly) absolve them of any blame for society's ills because they are just portraying characters. It's art, good or bad. And yet when a guy like Ludacris leads a crime-free life and only portrays a vicious character to sell CD's, racists like O'Reilly are quick to assign blame. Inconsistent, faulty logic (from the bloated phone pervert).

But blaming any rappers, directors, actors or producers of violent video games is ludicrous (tee hee!) in itself. In Asian cultures (remember, no gun violence) their citizens absorb far more violence and pornography than we do and (voila!) there's no corresponding criminal impact on the streets to speak of. It's so easy to lay blame and lump others together in groups, but where's the supporting evidence? I encounter countless Americans who support this (illegal) Iraq war because of what "they" did to us on 9/11. When I ask who "they" are, conservatives (consistently) answer "the Muslims." And yet nobody blamed "Christians" for what Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh did. Scream all you will about Janet Reno but SHE did not ignite the Branch Davidian house. Crazy Christians did. We never seem to lump ourselves together in a "negative group" if part of our group does wrong.

Being too lazy to edit, I look back at this stream-of-consciousness blog entry and realize I was all over the map. But on another map, several hundred Iraqi citizens died on the same day as 32 students at VA Tech. And I did not hear the President say one word about this tragic loss of life beyond our borders. Clearly it's because "those people" don't count as much as "our people." Because they're not part of "our group." Inexcusable.


American Asshole.

-pcr

Disgraceful.

Americans,

In case you're living in a cable-free cave, by now you've learned of the stunning tragedy at Virginia Tech University. Thirty-three people were slaughtered by a student (Cho Seung-Hui) who apparently did not foresee a bright future for himself and decided to eliminate that possibility for as many others as made possible by semi-automatic weaponry and a lust for blood. This young man was responsible for one of the worst acts of mass murder in U.S. history.

Unless of course you include George Bush and his mischievous pack of scamps. "HOW DARE YOU!!!" you may thunder. Oh, I dare, I dare. You may bristle, "This was enough of a tragedy without it being made into a wider argument against the important war on terror!" Perhaps we should concentrate on one topic at a time, out of respect for the families of the victims in Blacksburg, VA? I disagree strongly. In fact, I believe what I am now writing shows the utmost respect for the grieving families of the lost students and teachers.

The day after the tragedy, on April 17, George Bush flew to VA to preside over the healing "convocation" at the university. He expressed the powerful words written (in their entirety) by his skilled writers and scrunched up his face in a variety of ways indicating sorrow, concern, and (of course) closure & hope. It was a moving presentation, one that no doubt brought comfort to thousands (millions!) of citizens watching. Our President was "there" for the nation when it needed him most. Kudos, Commander in Chief!

But was anyone else troubled that the very man leading the ceremony (G.W. Bush) is responsible for far more unnecessary murders than the grumpy Mr. Seung-Hui? Is anyone else deeply concerned with this ghastly irony?! Let's recall the old adage, "The buck stops here." It is consistently used (in business and politics alike) to suggest that the "boss" is ultimately responsible for the activities of those "beneath him." Yep, that sounds pretty fair, pretty "American," pretty groovy. Deep breath now...

George Bush (along with Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Jon Edwards, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and a host of others) pursued a war in a country that never threatened us! No evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of any link to terrorists (who threatened America), no evidence at all that Iraq was more of a threat than Finland, New Zealand, or the skeletal remains of famed racehorse Secretariat. No threat. They lied. But ultimately it was Bush's decision to go to war. "The buck stops here."

You may counter, "But at least they wanted to bring democracy to a country that was being tormented by a vicious dictator!" Um-hum. It is always the goal of America to bring freedom to any country inhabited by repressed, anguished citizens. We can all recall with great pride the bang-up job America has done bringing freedom to Rwanda and The Sudan. Such happy, free people, leading lives of joy in their (oil-free) lands! Darfur is now dreamy. God bless America.

Four years after the start of the war we have 3,300 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi citizens. All unnecessary, each and every death. "But Saddam was murdering his citizens!" you may squeal as I prepare to give you yet another smackdown.....More Iraqis have been killed by George Bush's lethal foolishness in the past four years than in the previous 30 years (under Saddam) combined! You may slice it and dice it any way you wish, but George Bush ("buck stops here") has murdered more innocents than anyone in the history of our country (with the possible exceptions of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon). George W. Bush. Mass murderer.

.....And after the tragedy at VA Tech HE was the keynote speaker at the convocation there on April 17, 2007. He noted how tragic it was that thirty-three innocents died. Let the healing begin.

Fuck that.



-pcr

Free(ish) Speech

Hey, Americans!

Rosie O'Donnell speaks her mind. Don Imus does too. Ditto for Rush Limbaugh. All of them have said some pretty explosive things. Rosie implied 9/11 was an inside job. Bold assertion. Imus called some black women "nappy-headed hos." Pretty aggressive stuff. Rush suggested Michael J. Fox was faking Parkinson's symptoms. Rather strong words.

Many people want them to be fired for what they said. These people, all of them, are unpatriotic, plain and simple. Free speech means we can say anything we want and each and every one of us should celebrate and defend this right. We need not celebrate any of the words we disagree with but it is our responsibility as Americans to protect the rights of others to use them. Why is this not yet clear?

If we do not like what people in the media say we can simply turn the channel. Condemn their positions, sure, but when you imply they should not be allowed a platform to voice their views then you are against free speech. Plain and simple. The above "offenders" are paid to generate revenue. They are huge earners. Thus, they do their job. If you want to punish the employers who employ them, that is your right and, again, you may change the channel. If enough people do that the "offenders" will be fired. Okay? But do NOT imply that people are "out of line" who disagree with (or outrage) you. The whole value of free speech is that there ARE NO LINES! Zero. Once any lines are drawn we are instantly on a slippery slope away from freedom. For this reason, many Americans (including me) are outraged at the legal domestic spying instituted by George Bush. Lines drawn where there were none before. Freedom compromised, America compromised. To hell with the lines!

Now, let's study some of the fine citizens calling for the dismissal of Don Imus. Reverend Jesse Jackson claims there is no room for a racist on the radio and Imus should therefore lose his job. A bold, moral assertion from a man of God? Well, in 1984 the good Reverend, in a Washington Post interview, referred to New York City as "Hymietown." Anti-Semitic. In the 1990's he was exposed as an adulterer. He's a REVEREND! A moral beacon! Plenty of folks, for good reason, condemned his actions and words at the time but I did not hear many claims that Jackson should no longer be allowed to work! And that's the way it should be.

In 1987, Reverend Al Sharpton (who also wants Imus fired) insisted that teenager Tawana Brawley was raped by then-New York District Attorney Steven Pagones. The entire assertion by Ms. Brawley turned out to be a lie. Sharpton chose to never apologize for attacking Pagones. Morally bankrupt? You bet! Calls for his retirement? Virtually nil. As it should be. He has the RIGHT to say what he wishes and others have the right to contradict him. America. Rockets red glare and all that goofy bullshit.....

I have neither the endurance nor the stomach to detail the many lies spewed forth by Bill O'Reilly. Read Al Franken's nifty book, "Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them" to explore this topic. As O'Reilly's executive producer, Andrea Mackis claimed (in 2004) that she was subjected to repeated instances of sexual harassment and explicit talk of phone sex, vibrators, and threesomes. Did O'Reilly really do that? Well, FOX paid Mackey millions so she would not expose her taped conversations with O'Reilly. And that was the end of that. Recently, O'Reilly has aggressively pushed for the firing of Rosie O'Donnell calling her a "wack job" who should not have a public forum. Okay then, Bill.

Another example of hypocritical nonsense: Several years ago, Christian Wal-Mart customers were offended that the stores carried a George Carlin book titled "When Will Jesus Pass The Pork Chops?" Everyone has a right to be offended. In fact, we have little control over our emotional reactions. But customers by the thousands in effect insisted that NO ONE should have the right to buy the book at Wal-Mart. Huh? And Wal-Mart pulled the (hysterical) books from each and every store. Mission accomplished by the Christians. It became clear to Wal-Mart that it was more profitable to limit free speech in this case than embrace it. Shame on those corporate pricks. And shame on the unpatriotic Christians who succeeded in suppressing the free speech of someone they disagreed with. They will be horrified to learn one day that George Carlin is in fact God and he will exact his fiendish revenge. Why do so many Americans claim they value freedom ("Greatest country on earth," "They hate us because we're free," etc.) but then demand that the voices of those they disagree with be silenced?

I wrote in an earlier post about The Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith. I was angered that southerners claimed that the women should "shut up and sing" while Toby's words (he is for the war) were embraced. Hollywood should apparently "shut up" unless it is Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, etc. Come on now, red states, are you for free speech or not? If you're for it then simply walk away from those you disagree with. And don't buy their CDs.

Many are outraged that rappers in this country sing about violence, easy money, and material wealth but even those who condemn them do not claim that they have no right to sing about what they wish. As it should be. Since when does saying something "horrible" translate into not being allowed to say it?!

Feel free to condemn the words of those you disagree with but, for the love of God, defend their right to say it! Now, feel free to delete this piece.



-Paul "Paul" Rosa

Pope on a Rope

Happy Easter. Now please allow me to ruin it.

Well, Pope John Paul II is currently on the fast track to sainthood. The soft-spoken "Polish Pontiff" was an inspiration to millions and his strength while fighting Parkinson's Disease and numerous other ailments was truly inspirational.



In order to become a saint ("beatified"), the Catholic church requires proof that he caused a "medically unexplainable" healing. No doubt the church will indeed be convinced of his mysterious, special powers and we'll soon smile and say "Saint John Paul" as casually as we say "tuna melt" or "John McCain is a liar." And all will be well across the quickly-warming planet. But hold your horses, Johnny Rocket....

While the Pope certainly seemed like an all-around sweet guy (after all, he often kissed children and old folks on the forehead!), would it not be prudent to nevertheless look at his overall record in determining the measure of the man? Of course it would. Any reasonable person would retort, "Yes, Paul, it is fair to look at a fellow's overall life before deciding if he was a good man, let alone a saint." So, let's graduate to the meat-n-potatoes section of my essay. Lent me your ear, har-har-har-chortle!!

Pope John Paul II, over and over again, refused to grant Catholics the right to use birth control. Starving, destitute citizens in third-world countries would NEVER defy the Pope so they could not realize the "benefits" of birth control while enjoying one of life's great (free) pleasures. It is not uncommon to find Catholic women all over the globe with six or more children, none of which they can afford. Living in unimaginable squalor, their desperation can be traced directly to a stone-age belief system, a system that refuses to adjust to the realities of modern life in any way. And let's not forget that countless people died agonizing deaths from AIDS because the Pope proclaimed that birth control of any sort (including condoms) was wrong. Insane? You bet! The Pope, the LEADER of the Catholics, is directly responsible for the suffering of these millions. A saint? Hardly.

The Pope's stance on homosexuality was barbaric. He claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality (simple as that) but never, for example, aggressively ostracized fat people. But isn't gluttony one of the seven deadly sins? He chose to act with cruel indifference to a group of people who hurt no one. Remember Governor George Wallace on the school-house steps, screaming that segregation must prevail? Nasty stuff, eh? What this Pope did was far worse. And those who oppose same-sex marriage are no different from those who oppose interracial marriage. It comes down to hate, regardless of how one hides the hate behind a religion.

Next, let's discuss his vicious, misogynistic attitude. For centuries, women have been prevented from becoming Catholic priests because, well, the Catholic church has a history of oppressing women. So when Pope John Paul II came along (1978) he had a chance to change the world. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., he had the opportunity to face the majority and demand justice. And he chose to do nothing, deciding again and again that women were not worthy. Vicious and prehistoric. Hardly the actions of a saint.

Anything else, Paul? Yep. For decades, hundreds of priests satisfied their lust by viciously raping countless numbers of trusting Catholic children. And what did the Catholic church do about these outrages? They moved these remorseless pedophiles from church to church, whenever the local complaints became too heated. There is ample evidence that the Cardinals and the Pope knew full well about these atrocities but, rather than expose the precious church's problems, they instead chose to allow their employees/monsters to continue destroying countless young lives with impunity. Allowed them unfettered access to the flesh of vulnerable children. Utterly decimated life after life after life while paying hush money to those who complained. So, if a Pope is the LEADER of the Catholic church, what happened to the old adage, "The buck stops here?" Never once did he personally take responsibility for the actions of his criminal "employees!" A saint? A monster is more like it. Any OTHER boss would have been fired in an instant. Criminal felony charges would then have been filed in short order. But soon this man will be a "saint." Wow.

Had enough? Me too. But let's not forget the Pope's barbaric stance against ALL stem-cell research. Further, he opposed Euthanasia, even for patients screaming in agony while enduring final-stage bone cancer.

And if all of the above isn't bad enough, the guy was a lousy dresser! Everyone from Yves St. Laurent to Halston begged the Pontiff to lose the "pistachio-nut hat" but, time after time, he refused to embrace fashion in any way. Dressed sloppily in loose-fitting sheets and gaudy jewelry, the dude was a visual trainwreck.

Finally, the Bible is clear when it states (in Matthew 19:16-21), "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor." Irrefutably, God is declaring here that man is morally obligated to live simply (avoiding vast material wealth) so ALL of his "flock" may avoid misery. And how did the Pope observe this fun Bible passage? Decide for yourself while enjoying these fine (free) photographs....


-Papal Palace in Vatican City


-Catholic kids living on a Sao Paulo dump.

Friends, I welcome all comments but, if doing so angrily, please point out specifically which assertions I got wrong. I am always eager to grow and learn. Thanks and God bless America.

-Paul C. Rosa

The Land Down Under

Let's go international, shall we?

Mexico. Land of a Thousand Sighs. The Sunshine Paradise. God's Baked Land of Love. It has long boasted many nicknames and evoked countless passions so I decided to visit this mysterious southern territory myself and file this report.

I visited Yelapa ("Enchanted Place of Great Natural Beauty and Inspiration"), situated a short boat ride from the tourist-infested city of Puerto Vallarta. A primitive town, Yelapa has only had electricity for seven years and features no roads whatsoever. Cell phone options? Forget it, Yankee! Internet? Internot! Paper and pen? You betcha' !



Nestled in an enchanted cove (no doubt many decades old), Yelapa features almost-constant sunshine, a gently breaking surf, handsome locals selling shiny artifacts, and primitive (but lovely) homes scattered throughout the surrounding hills. At the rear of many of these hovels, small family-run restaurants can be found. Delicious fish tacos, zesty chicken tortillas, ranches swerve-os (egg concoction). Heavenly! Margueritas, Daiquiris, Coronas. Sweet, tipsy refreshment.

And for the "losers" in Yelapan society? Mountains of marijuana and hash are exchanged as casually as tablets of Pez. Don't these primitive folks realize these are "gateway drugs?" I could clearly picture some of the stoned 60-year-olds eventually moving on to crystal meth or heroin. Only a matter of time. For shame.

Indeed it was the "Sunshine Paradise," but I must now dutifully report some other aspects of Yelapa which I found to be...lacking. Let me start with the way people speak. Despite easy access to english books written by such literary stars as Hemingway, Melville, and Jackie Collins, most of the citizens of Yelapa spoke jibberish! Often, when asking for directions or ordering a meal, I was forced to repeat myself again and again before being understood! As a professional writer and Level 9 English Orator (as recognized by the Brawdings Institute) I am comfortable in the notion that I communicated with great clarity. But time and time again, these tanned locals looked at me with great confusion and were unable to answer the most basic questions. How do they hope to compete with the United States (greatest country on earth) if their english is abyssmal?

And speaking of competition, I must address the restaurant "situation" in Mexico. Often, when sitting down at a beach restaurant, I was forced to wait up to ten minutes for any attention whatsoever! A casual fellow or gal would eventually amble over to my table and, after mispronouncing hello ("ola?!"), deliver a menu. In America, the menu is often already on the table and a waiter is prepared to take your order within minutes. American efficiency and excellence, my friends, form the bedrock of our global superiority and economic might. After another 10-15 minutes, the waiter (often wearing shorts and a T-shirt!) would take my order and another 20-30 minutes were squandered as I awaited my nutritious offering. Given there were no Blackberry or cell phone options, I was forced to gaze stupidly at the ocean during this time and, as Americans know, inefficient time is wasted time.

Finally, I was intensely uncomfortable to see many small, local children dashing about wearing sandals and little else. Typically, the little girls were topless and, as any good American Pastor will confirm, children should be taught Christian modesty as early as possible. As these sun-baked youngsters dashed about the village, giggling and holding hands, I could not help but believe that their parents were utterly failing them. Conformity is the key to success and undeveloped bosoms are bosoms nonetheless. I could only mourn the fact that many of these little girls would fall into lives of prostitution.

In conclusion, Mexico is the place to go if you want a warm, lazy vacation. But if excellence and efficiency are what gives you your "get up and go," might I suggest Las Vegas? And I would recommend, should you visit Mexico, that you bring a few dozen english books along as gifts for the locals.



Aufwiedersehen,
Paul C. Rosa

Freedom Isn't Free!

Some words for you:

Reading a newspaper the other day (we'll call it "The Daily News"), I read an article about a fella' who died. At one point in the (fawning) article the man was dubbed "patriotic." To prove this point, the writer explained that the deceased always sang along to the national anthem (with hand over heart) and hung an American flag from his front porch 365 days a year. No other proof was offered that he was patriotic. Correction: NO proof was offered that he was patriotic!

At what point in this country's history (in the land of the free) did we decide that behaving exactly like everyone else indicates national pride? When did hollow gestures (rather than real actions) become the litmus test for determining love of country?

Before virtually every sporting event in America the contest begins only after the national anthem is sung. All in attendance are "required" to stand and remove their head gear. Many go further and place their hands over the hearts. Many sing along. Fine, but in a country that supposedly cherishes freedom of expression, why does everyone behave exactly the same way when it comes to showing it? If the national anthem is sung at Yankee Stadium but you choose to stay seated (while wearing a hat) you will surely be cursed, spit upon, or hit. But why? Because regardless of how much you may love your country's freedoms you are expected to CONFORM while the anthem for the land of the FREE spills from the speakers. Irony? Oh, yeah.

The vast majority of Americans are pleased that the "Pledge of Allegiance" is bleated in public school rooms even though the man who wrote the pledge in 1892 (Baptist Minister Francis Bellamy) did not include "one nation under God." As a TRUE patriot, this religious man recognized that America is one nation under the Constitution! He surely would have been displeased when, in 1954, congress added "one nation under God." But regardless of the text, we have here another example of Americans (small children) being indoctrinated with nationalistic nonsense. Pledging allegiance to America?! I don't know about the rest of you but I'll leave the cultish chanting to the brain-dead and pledge allegiance to NO nation. What does "pledging allegiance" even mean?! Hell, if I get a "better offer" from Finland, The Czech Republic, or South Korea I'll leave America tomorrow! And given the direction this country has moved in the last five years, this doesn't sound like such a bad idea...

But let me be clear here. I do think it's fine to love your country but -how about it, folks- can't we show a little individuality and creativity? After all, it is the LAND OF THE FREE!! Celebrate that fact! If the national anthem is sung at a basketball game, instead of taking off your hat, why not stack three more on top? Why is this unpatriotic? Says who? No one. Instead of asking our kids to place their hands over their hearts, why not encourage them to have fun and place their hands on anything that comes to mind (elbow, nose, teacher's butt). Who dubbed non-conformity unpatrotic? I don't know but I bet he was no fun to be with.

Instead of hanging a flag from the front porch (more tiresome, unimaginative conformity) why not show your country how much you love its freedoms by hanging an enormous ball of aluminum foil or 722 bananas from the front of your home? That's so much more patriotic than a flag, don't you agree? Of course you do.

Finally, in courtrooms across the land (where freedoms are protected) folks are "expected" to put one hand on the Bible, raise the other, and "swear to God." Huh?! What century and country is this? What is the point of this bizarre, ancient practice? Well, it's the same nonsense as with all of the above topics I rambled about. In this country we show our sincerity and patriotism by falling fully in line like brainwashed North Koreans at Kim Jong Il's annual autumn jamboree.

Well, at the price of (slight) social isolation and the moderate stress of "bucking the system," I AM NOT DRINKING THIS PATRIOTIC KOOL-AID! The pressure to conform is ferocious, never-ending, and often irresistible. But each time we do so we sacrifice a little bit more of ourselves and disrespect the very country that offers us almost limitless possibilities for personal freedom.



Rockets red glare,
Paul C. Rosa

NCAA Sweat Shops....

Hey,

One of the most exciting and popular sporting events in America is the NCAA ("March Madness") Basketball Tournament. In three short weeks, the original 64 teams are whittled down to the "Final Four" and these teams compete over three days to determine the national champion. The "lose or go home" format results in incredible, almost desperate play, and the results are often electrifying. But could there be a down side to all this unfettered glory? Well, leave it to (pain in the ass) Paul to spoil this spectacular, sweaty parade....

This year, CBS is paying $420,000,000 for exclusive coverage of the (three-week) NCAA Basketball Tournament. But the players don't get a dime of this stunning loot. Zip. Zero. Huh?! Could this truly be?! CBS is willing to pay almost half a billion dollars to broadcast these elite athletes but the athletes get none of the cash? Why?

Well, it's explained (by those in power) that these are "amateur athletes" and that's that. We are also (in the same breath) reminded that the athletes are indeed paid in the form of college scholarships, often worth tens of thousands of dollars a year. But if they are amateurs who are already being paid (i.e. "not amateurs"), why can't the 800-900 athletes competing in this monstrously-lucrative tournament (99% of whom will never make it to the pros) also share in the enormous profits that they themselves create? That's when the tepid explanations from the "experts" usually dry up, it seems.

Beloved coach Mike Krzyzewski (of Duke University) has a $6.6 million dollar contract with Nike and, in exchange, forces his players (surprise, none of them ever dissent) to wear Nike apparel and shoes. His players provide the speedy "billboards" for Nike's products and the beloved coach sits on the sidelines and hauls in millions. Um, that's bullshit. Plenty of other college coaches enjoy similar contracts with other athletic companies. The players never get a nickel, while exclusively offering the valuable service! Can someone please give me another example (anywhere on earth) where an individual brings in hundreds of thousands dollars yearly through his/her OWN efforts but receives no compensation whatsoever? Hell, even the Indonesian sweatshop workers who toil in Nike factories (true!) receive a bit of pay!

But those who support the present system (often those who also profit from it) claim, "Well, these universities provide the valuable opportunity for players to 'showcase' their talents and impress the NBA, where they can go on and make millions of dollars." Absolutely true, but this does not mean the system is fair. For example, let's say you have a successful job interview. The boss-man who hires you then explains you will be paid nothing while you remain with them but, after four years, you will be much more marketable and can earn a very tidy wage elsewhere. How long would it take you to stop laughing in his face? But if ALL companies decided to take this approach, you really wouldn't have a choice but to work for nothing for a few years. It is patently unfair but the alternative is worse. That's college sports for ya.' Modern day slavery with the tantalizing (tiny) possibility of eventual marketability.

Colleges insist that these are "student athletes," as a way of dismissing the notion that they should be paid. But anyone who's attended a major university in America knows full well that the athletes are encouraged to take special (easy) classes in order to receive passing grades and are pressured to dedicate countless hours each day to practice. "Impressive graduation rates" are often mentioned when discussing certain programs (like Penn State) but even a mentally retarded lad could graduate from most of these institutions! Years ago an NFL player (Dexter Manley) confessed that he could not read or write, even though he graduated from Oklahoma State University! As coaches are under enormous pressure to succeed (or get fired) they are of course also under extreme pressure to dissuade activities (such as studying) that take players away from the practice field. Remarkably, some special student-athletes heroically still manage to do well in school. Kudos to them. They are in the vast minority.

The elite players (usually the ones competing in "March Madness") are specifically recruited to win games but, more importantly, to bring millions of dollars to the university (and the NCAA in general). And the NBA (surprise, surprise!) now has a rule that forces athletes to play one year of college ball before attempting to play in their league. Hmmm, an 18-year-old adult can fight and die in an unprovoked war but may no longer offer his job skills on the open market? The NBA and college basketball insist that an 18-year-old is too "immature" for the NBA but many of the best players in the league came straight out of high school (Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady)! The argument is, of course, bullshit and it's all designed to further stuff the pockets of the wealthy.

In conclusion, college sports (especially football!) is nothing more than an agreement by those in power to exclude ALL of its most vital workers from sharing in the stunning wealth they alone create. The only people who have the power to render this colossal "business" bankrupt (the players) are also the only ones who are not paid. And God forbid they try to unionize. Let me assure you, they will be crushed as swiftly and surely as those noble souls who occasionally try to stand up to Wal-Mart or McDonald's!

After 4-5 years of college, where they were dissuaded from preparing themselves for the real world, a few dozen lucky players "graduate" to NBA riches. The remaining 99% are tossed to the curb, only to be replaced a few months later by other youngsters (usually poor and academically unprepared) who naively consider themselves lucky to be there. They're not.



-Paul C. Rosa

Prove It?

It is 1:18 a.m. EST and you don't care,

"I am as open-minded as the next man, as long as that man is no more open-minded than me." Anyone who knows me well knows that this has been my (unofficial) motto since I graduated in the top 62% of my Pittsburgh high school class of 1980. And it has served me well, ladies and gentlemen, through three marriages, seven children, nine careers, and a long struggle with pathological lying.

When it comes to open-mindedness, I find that I am completely accepting of other folks' beliefs as long as they are not pushed in my face. Aside from some Christian conservatives who have told me I should accept Jesus as my personal savior, I rarely encounter the self-righteous, especially in New York City. Here, not minding your own business can get you killed lickety-split and that's one of the city's many strengths.

But sometimes I simply don't feel like minding my own business so I now welcome your taunts of "hypocrite," "son of a bitch," and (oddly) "omnivore!" But I shall vent nonetheless. Short of doing so, this blog entry would end right here but you shall not be so fortunate. I think some beliefs are simply bullshit and I'm going to discuss a few below. Care to join me? Come on, it'll be good, sarcastic fun!

There's no such thing as a "psychic." How can I be so sure? Well, thousands and thousands of people claim to be psychic but not a single one can prove they predicted something awful would happen on the east coast on 9/11 in the year 2001. Not ONE psychic had the "skill" to let easterners know that some sort (any sort!) of danger loomed large on the eastern seaboard that day. Furthermore, shouldn't "psychics" know which people wish to talk to them and then simply call them collect? And why do they have doorbells on their office doors? Shouldn't they be able to buzz people in the moment they arrive? Thus, I have proved that there's no such thing as a "psychic." It's bullshit.

There's no such thing as a faith healer. We've all seen clowns like Peter Popoff frothing at the mouth while they "heal the sick." Paralyzed people walk, blind people see, and arthritic people play the banjo. "So?" you may say as you ponder a second Fresca. Well, have ya' noticed that they can only "heal" those who have nothing visibly wrong? How can we be sure the above folks were indeed afflicted as advertised? We can't. The faith healers never seem to be able to help people with weeping sores, hairlips, or decaying teeth! Indeed, whenever there's a chance to visibly prove to the skeptics that they indeed have special powers they are as absent as George Bush from the National Guard! Isn't God willing to prove his power? Not even once? Faith healing is bullshit.

Astrology is bullshit. Hundreds of people I've met over the years who respect astrology have guessed my zodiac sign and roughly one out of twelve have guessed it correctly. During moments of staggering boredom I have read my horoscope in the paper and am often rewarded with such deep insights as "Hard work will reward you." These gems are usually about as revealing and vague as your average fortune cookie ("Be nice rather than mean."). The very idea that one's personal development would be shaped by the positioning of the planets at the time of birth is so preposterous that, as a gesture of protest, I will use no punctuation at the end of this sentence

Christian Scientists are full of shit. They do not believe in medical intervention except for the setting of broken bones. HUH? The good Lord can take care of any illness but when it comes to a few broken bones the Big Man is rendered helpless? Please. As with the faith healers, it seems these folks will not give God the chance to truly prove his powers! If a kid dies from cancer or leukemia parents can simply claim that Billy or Suzie would have died anyway (no matter what) and "God has his reasons." And no one can prove otherwise. But if a leg is fractured in six places the brats will immediately be taken to the Emergency Room! Could this be because parents do not want to take the chance that, since God would fail to heal the bone EACH AND EVERY TIME, their faith might be exposed as lunacy? Why waste money on braces when God could straighten the teeth? Why wear eyeglasses? Hell, why even shower if God has the ability to make one clean? Christian Science is bullshit.

And thus ends my senseless rant. I hope you did not find it offensive in any way and I urge each and every one of you to accept others as they are!



-Paul C. Rosa

Til' Death Don't Us Part

Hello.

A ring. A princess dress. A dull tuxedo. A place of worship. A bunch of ladies in matching, colorful dresses. A reception. A big cake. A drunk Uncle. A honeymoon. Even those with severe learning disabilities associate these buzz words with weddings. Every pretty little American girl dreams of growing up and having "Daddy" spring for a lavish wedding, spending enough money on a 6-hour event (including reception) to save the lives of hundreds of impoverished people. But what the hell, ladies and gentlemen, brides and grooms... Ya' only get married once! And those folks from Darfur should pick themselves up by their bootstraps...once they can afford boots. Or even straps.

Actually, more than 50% of marriages end in divorce (ironically, it's a much higher percentage in red states) and, as we all know, well over 50% of the remaining "successful" marriages are studies in strain, stress, and barely-controlled homicidal tendencies. So why is marriage such a big deal? Why is it such a revered institution? Because it represents what most of us truly want, a lifetime spent in bliss with someone who spiritually lifts us up and (at night) allows us to touch their "naughty bits." Nothing wrong with that, dadgummit.

Marriage is such an important aspect of (accepted) American life that many people who come to detest each other will stay together for decades rather than face the surly glances of their fellow (unhappily married, jealous) constituents. Politicians who wish to be elected have plenty of explaining to do if they were divorced in the past (though it didn't stop Ronald "AIDS doesn't exist" Reagan, the ONLY divorced President ever!). Divorced politicians are considered to be (mostly by tiresome conservatives) morally weak and unwilling to commit to their holy wedding vows which trumpet "til' death do us part." But those who remain married have no obligation to show supporting evidence that their unions are based on love, respect, and blissful sexual compatibility. It is simply assumed that these people are morally superior when in fact the vast majority of them are unhappy (the above statistics support this)! How very, very odd and how very, very American. Suffering is better than truth.

Of the 50% of Americans who remain married, probably half of them remain unhappily married "for the kids." The assumption here is that Jimmy, Lucy, Trent, Sally, Butch, Felicia, Carole, One-Eyed Joe, Brad, and (adoptee) Soon-Quee are better served by two parents who detest each other than two parents who live peacefully apart. Huh? This notion that kids are too naive to recognize tension and misery in their parents is pure hogwash. Kids can always tell and demonstrating to them that marriage represents an ungodly, inescapable trap is a disservice of the highest order. Frankly, it's a form of child abuse.

Many tiresome folks (again, usually red staters) will sniffle, "Since the 1950's the institution of marriage has been in steady decline. Bullshit. Perhaps people these days don't work hard enough on their relationships but at least those who absolutely SHOULD divorce are doing so. Fifty years ago women were almost entirely dependent on their husbands for financial stability and social acceptance. Divorce was considered a humiliating failure and neighbors and clergymen alike would gather in musty coffee shops and speak poorly of the shattered woman's character. This absurd notion that people should stay together through thick, thin, thinner, and translucent is destructive and smacks of ancient religious nonsense. People simply grow and often in entirely different directions. Respect the truth and move on, regardless of how painful it may be in the short term.

Sure, people should work hard on their unions (married or not) but shit happens. If both parties are miserable and cannot alter these feelings, they should ignore their stuffy, sex-starved priests and follow their hearts! Have a sit-down with the kids and carefully explain to them in loving terms that the gig just ain't working. Assure them that its not their fault, promise to be there for them and begin packing hubbie's battered suitcase for his extended stay in "The Grimy Bachelor Apartments" (at the corner of Sinner Street and Bible Boulevard). Of course it is the religious folks who always are quickest to condemn those who divorce. But are they being just a teensy bit hypocritical? Let's learn some fun facts....

States with highest divorce rates: Nevada, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming, Indiana, Alabama (ALL RED STATES!).

States with lowest divorce rates: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, (ALL BLUE STATES!).



-Bachelor Paul

Be Young, Have Fun, Buy Useless Crap!

Readers,

Advertisers are so monstrously effective at manipulation that they routinely compel us to buy expensive things that are completely useless! Take bottled water for example. In the vast majority of American cities, the tap water is just as good for you as the bottled variety. In fact, if water is bottled and then sold within the same state, the health regulations are not as strict as those for the local tap water! People buy the stuff for $3.50 a bottle because they believe, well, it MUST be better for you. Nope, it ain't.

Some women (and a few men) will spend $50, $100, $250 for a small bottle of skin moisturizer. "Why the hell not?" they may roar, "I'm worth it!" Of course you are because, God forbid, any of us actually look our age. Such aging would be unseemly and disquieting. But guess what? In a recent laboratory test of dozens of different moisturizers, Vaseline Intensive Care (at about $3.00 per gallon, with complimentary soup ladle) tested as high as any of the expensive ones! The cheap stuff does just as good a job when it comes to softening skin!

A similar test was also conducted with shampoos. Ya' know the $45 bottles of shampoo (8 oz.) you can purchase from your (learned) hair stylist? Well, I hate to burst your bubble (lame pun intended) but laboratory tests concluded that the 15 oz. supermarket shampoo (at $4 per bottle) leaves your hair every bit as healthy and shiny. That's right! You've been wasting your money, Ms. Aniston!

Third example: People in the "land of the free" spend BILLIONS of dollars on vitamins in order to remain healthy and strong. "Well what the hell is so wrong with this, you bitter, annoying comic?" you may roar between breathless gulps of Diet Mountain Dew. Well, Dieter, unless you have vitamin deficiencies or an abysmal (KFC-based) diet, vitamins are completely useless. Eighty percent (figure made up out of whole cloth) of citizens get enough daily vitamins to render the store-bought pills utterly redundant. But we buy em' anyway because the people in the commercials are so...so...attractive!

What the marketing cretins have so effectively done is to convince us that growing old is an unacceptable horror and we should spend as much money as possible fighting it. Even the elderly buy into this nonsense. While we should be revering them for their wisdom, their chewy chocolate chip cookies, and their potential inheritance windfall (hee), they are pathetically describing themselves as "82 years...young." How freakin' offensive. Pepsi once used as its slogan, "Be young, have fun, drink Pepsi!" I wrote to them, asking how elderly people were supposed to "be young." They brightly replied, "You're only as old as you feel." Infuriating! What the hell is so wrong with being 82 and FEELING 82?! No wonder aging in the good ol' U.S. of A. is such an emotional nightmare (accompanied by the inevitable physical difficulties).

Of course it's no longer enough to slather one's body with all manner of unnecessary, ineffective products in order to appear several years younger (it never works). Many of us now find it necessary to invest in plastic surgery. BOTOX to the forehead, facelifts, lip plumping, belly-button smoothing. Indeed, plastic surgery often makes the patients appear younger but, with each passing procedure, less "human." The wildly-creative Joan Rivers, for instance, looks to be about 40 years old (she's 73) but also appears to be from another solar system. It's sad. But we still can't get enough of her well-honed, biting wit! And her daughter? What a prodigy!

In some places (like Japan and Italy) old people are treated with dignity. Would it be too much for us to..um..ask our old people to move there as well? Do they not deserve the same respect? Of course they do. So be a good son or daughter, buy dear old Mom and Dad airline tickets, and secure your eventual place in the house of the Lord or something.



Hungry for pie,
Paul C. Rosa

Body Armor

(Amusing Greeting Here),

One of the sad burdens many men carry for a lifetime is the constant obligation to appear "tough" or "cool." Most men make it their life's (exhausting) mission to appear completely unflappable and tough as nails. We learn this behavior as small boys and hone the facade throughout high school and into adulthood. And how do most men pursue this charade? Well, by appearing exactly like almost every other man in the country! These "fellas," in order to demonstrate their self-assured dominance, choose to slip into their tiresome, identical "costumes" each and every morning and strut around like Silverback gorillas. Laughable.

Go into any sports bar in America (all so horrible) and witness the typical American male on display. Sure enough, 90% of these tedious lads utilize two or more of the following accessories:

1. Tattoo(s), usually including "barbed wire" around a swollen bicep.
2. Baseball cap worn askew. That's right, symmetry is for pussies.
3. Athletic jersey with name of local sports hero on back. Shouldn't this childish custom cease at age 12? You're 45 and you have Derek Jeter's name printed on your back?!
4. Earring. Left side, lest anyone (gasp!) conclude you fancy men.

So, all of this "body armor" is designed to (desperately) convince the world that you are "cool" but also "not to be fucked with." Yawn. If you want to be cool why not dress in a fashion that is completely original?! Lose that stupid barbed wire tattoo and adorn your bicep with a full-color picture of George Bush being sodomized by Osama Bin Laden! Show off that artistic beauty at the local military bar on a Friday night and we'll see just how tough and cool you are! Funny, sure, but tough?

All of the "pro" wrestlers lamely scream and shout about their invincibility while disrespecting their opponents with angry "words that sting." This vaudeville show is completely boring as there is ZERO originality whatsoever! We get it, ya' steroid freaks, you're tough and you're gonna' kick ass. Yawn. How about an ORIGINAL character for once? How about the "Sheepish Shepherd?" A shy lad who, when not tending his well-mannered flock, comes to the big city for some good-natured grappling. In interviews he shows the utmost respect toward his opponents (with crisp grammar), declares he has a "minor" chance of prevailing, and then DESTROYS his moronic adversary.

And where's the sense of humor from these jocks? I don't think any of them have EVER said anything funny in those riveting post-game interviews. They ramble on an on about staying focused and thanking Jesus, the same crap over and over again. Just like they were taught by their peers and their domineering fathers who themselves were lousy at sports a quarter-century earlier. Hey, stud, ya' got a national audience listening! Say something that has not been uttered a million times before! Have fun! Examples:

1. Blame the loss on barometric pressure or Keanu Reeve's lousy acting.
2. Say, "A victory for us would have meant victory for the terrorists and I simply could not permit this."
3. Ignore the question and hop around like a lil' bunny.

PLEASE, say anything but that "time tested" jock bullshit!

And has an athlete ever done something funny on the playing field? Occasionally. But if they get too creative (end-zone dances) the "establishment" starts levying fines because the white folks begin to consider taking their advertising dollars elsewhere.

How about this for fun: Let's say you're an athlete and your team is winning a baseball game 18-1 in the top of the ninth inning. If you hit a single, why the hell not run directly to third base?! Sure you'll be ruled "out," but so what?! You're winning 18-1! Have fun! In 130 years of baseball this has never happened once. Why? Because this would disrespect the "jock code" and show a little originality.

Finally, I'm tired of the dull (tough sounding) sports team names. The Chargers, The Bears, The Patriots, The Vikings. Zzzzzzzzzz...... Why not utilize even scarier names: The Kansas City Kathie Lee Giffords, The Baltimore Ebolas, The Atlanta Al Qaedas, The Arkansas Evangelicals! Come on, a little creativity here, please!!

In conclusion, there is nothing cool or tough about acting like 90% of your "pals." It's lazy, it's uninspiring, but it is incredibly tempting to do so. Fight the urge and be a real man.



-Paul C. Rosa