They cry. I laugh.

They say "How could you be so cruel?"
I say "Go f_ck yourself with your dildo."

Modern liberals aka "progressives" + left-leaning libertarians cry much more easier than conservatives. Let us look at various remarks where the water works are let out.

"There's so much hate in this world!" *crying*
"I can't believe I belong to the human race!" *crying*
"He's your own flesh and blood! Why would you hurt him!" *crying*
"Hate, bigotry and ignorance are the reasons why America is so backwards!" *crying*

Add in such people tend to take up causes like the awareness wristband craze, take up protesting at least once a year in the name of "injustice" and let's not forget they reblog/retweet and circulate videos that are the basis of such crying, causes and social media frenzy.

For all this awareness you'd think they'd become amazingly educated in the truest sense of the word. They are not. You'd think these "re-define what it means to be a man" types are like Spartans who reads philosophy, at the same time raises two kids and pleases his wife beyond belief in the bedroom. No. They most likely aren't Spartans, most likely they are not married and they probably don't want any kids till their in their mid 30s. They probably have no redeemable skills if a zombie apocalypse happens besides the ability to edit a video for youtube. Great. That comforts me. They probably don't know to handle a gun, or at least have no interest.

As for the women? You wo-MEN see birth and being a mother like it'll ruin your already not really-admirable-life. I could care less if you specialize in Chaucer. Do you know how to cook a badass meal? Can you handle a gun if the man holding it originally gets bitten by a zombie? Probably not because the modern world and your upbringing -- I feel mightily sorry for you if you grew up in NE America, LA, Berkeley or some swamp that is liberal America -- has rendered you practically useless unless it's in the confines of certain industries (entertainment, journalism, fashion and, uh, entertainment, journalism and fashion) and specific cities.

There should be no shame.

At least you admit to that, dear lovely women.

What I got from this video:

1. If you don't feel shame, then that's okay. It's others who are trying to make you feel shame.
2. Slut is a dirty derogatory word.
3. Numbers really don't count.
4. As long as the partner doesn't have STDs and practiced "safe sex," then it's totally okay if he slept with the entire cheerleading squad.
5. You make me feel bad about my vagina welcoming X number of dicks. Stop it.
6. Honesty is what counts. (Okay, this one makes the most sense.)
7. Everyone has a past. (How about the virgins? That's practically a tabula rasa.)

 Man, that's some awesome standards. It's so low that a teacup kitten could clear it without any scratches.

Now it's the guys turn of their definition of "slut" and views on sex.

What I got from this video:

1. Guy at 0:06 says that a slut is someone who expresses disapproval of ones sexual promiscuity. Yea, that totally makes sense.
2. Ricky Martin look alike really doesn't like that word; Ricky Martin look-alike admires Europeans for their lax views on sex. Of course.
3. According to Rickey Martin, asking how many sex partners one has is considered a juvenile question. How very mature, Ricky.
4. Ricky Martin look alike says it's all about being STD free and how he feels about you ... Right now. Tomorrow? NO. Right now.
5. Ricky Martin look alike thinks women are more shamed due to "old mentality, old traditional gender roles where women are subservient."
6. Apparently society is scared of women having power, hence society shaming women for their sexual adventures/trysts.
7. I don't know any women who naturally wants to "express" sexual promiscuity and "just for fun" (unless "just for fun" means horny, then yes, women do get horny - just like men). Video game boy at 3:22 is filled with wisdom.
8. Apparently we are all animals. Rawr!
9. Shaming is limiting the expression of women, that is their personal freedom. It is also harmful psychologically to shame.
10. 4:48 Ricky Martin can't understand why people would care if their partner slept with 100 people; it's like not supporting gay pseudo-marriage - what does it matter to you?! The complexity!
11. Video game boy think men & women should be able to express their sexuality. He equates sexuality & promiscuity with interests, passions and hobbies as things that should be freely and unabashedly practiced, in anyway as they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm anyone without fear of judgement and shaming for being who they are.

So in other words, sleeping around shouldn't have a social stigma. Because "progress" and being non-judgmental. If a partner, or both, have slept around "Who cares? Their bodily choices don't define them!" Well, unless it's tattoos then that bodily choice is seen as cool and confident.

If you've watched the video, what did you get from it? Thoughts? Is my list missing anything?

NOTE: Video uploader, Jaclyn Glenn is an "open" atheist. The men who responded, their personal youtube pages are dedicated to "geek" stuff, high fashion, dating advice, "man talk" (by Ricky Martin look alike) and "life." Go figure.

Same template; Same mentality.

"Open" secularists might as well put themselves in the same victimhood group as the LGBT community. I mean, they use the same speech pattern to set the tone.

As entertainer Julia Sweeney states -

I am proud to say I am openly secular .... When I came out of the closet as a non-believer in God, the only word I knew to use was atheist - which I am, which I'm proud of - yes I am an atheist. But it was a really harsh word for a lot of people to handle, including for example, my parents who then did not feel they could speak to me for many, many months, and it was very traumatizing all around. I think if I was able to say 'I'm openly secular,' um, they just would've  heard it more differently. And I think I would've been able to explain to them how I believed and how I stopped believing in the mythology of Catholicism, and that I was embracing a different world view and they probably would've said 'fine,' they wouldn't really care. So, I love this phrase; I also love the word 'open,' because to me that says not only are you stating that you're not religious - you're open about it. It means if you tell someone that then they can tell someone else. You're openly secular - it's okay to talk about it. So I'm urging to just say you're openly secular. I really think the world would be a much better place if you did, and you'd probably be surprised on how it has an effect on other people. I had so many people come up to me  and say once I admitted I wasn't religious it gave them the feeling that they could say that. They could see I was a relatively normal person, and I was saying I wasn't religious and it was okay. So make it okay for. Just be openly secular.

I'm not sure I exactly feel about this. I mean, it just plain weird - not that Sweeney is an atheist (she's an entertainer, specifically a comedian/actress, so that's sort of expected) - but its youtube page, set by Richard Dawkins, has a  main slogan: "Changing Hearts, Changing Minds." That's kind of fucked up. You'd think being a secularist and "Changing Hearts, Changing Minds" would deal with philosophy and whatnot, but that entire page doesn't. It's just a page of "coming out of the closet."

What caught my attention, besides the slogan, were its participants. As I perused the page there were people dressed in costume, I presume these confessions were at some sort of comic-con, and there's the obnoxious ex-Viking punter Chris Kluwe (his secularism is pretty strong even before his "coming out" - if you followed his rants, a couple of years back dealing with so-called homophobia, it would be surprising if he did consider himself religious, if not 'spiritual').

Secularist Alexander Alvarez says, being inspired by comedian/actor Ricky Gervais: 

It's not we die for nothing, but it's that we have more to live for. Because we aren't dedicated to one thing; we have so much to experience; so much to engulf ourselves in that we don't have to limit ourselves in our religion, or whatever religion you set yourself in. You live oppressed in your own beliefs. You can't - it's not healthy, physically or mentally or spiritually, or whatever you believe in. It's not healthy. And that's more or less can be translated with every religion that you're in. I mean ... It's just not good for you.

That's some non-sophomoric understanding you have of religion, Alvarez. Really stimulating. Alvarez basically called for the justification hedonism - any curiosity or any tickle your mind or loins have, go for it. Now you'd think atheists, or people who follow the attitude of Alvarez, would be the most wisest and coolest people in the world. But they're not. Far from it.

This deserves its own post.

So I clicked on "stats" just to see what countries have unfortunately stumbled upon my site, and whatever link that brought them here.

I came up with this -

Uh, so like this?

No? Guy-girl-guy? Maybe Guy-girl-girl? Maybe trans-girl-guy? Oh, you mean girl-girl-girl. My bad.

The only reason I can come up with is that I write about the LGBT (probably because such a community is royally made for the freak show that is modernism). I mean, I do know the LGBT community is one perverted hell hole alongside rich professionals living in gated communities - but still. I never talked about threesomes or any sexual fantasies. If someone is searching about "threesomes" I guess they would be totally A-OKAY with carpet eaters, male dick suckers and people who think they're a tumblr orientation. 

Do you smell the feces? You do? Others do too.

Here is a post that reflects on the online community that is smelling the feces that is modern day liberalism.

So what is the role of the amateur in this new environment?  After all, every contributor to the Orthosphere except Professor Bertonneau, JMSmith, and DrBill (did I miss anyone?) is writing as an amateur.  I suppose the answer is that it depends on what one wants to accomplish by blogging.  Are you writing for yourself, to clarify your own thoughts?  Are you writing for the reactionary community, to contribute to its repository of knowledge?  Are you trying to win converts to the cause or (better yet) to the Church?  What serves one purpose probably no longer serves others.

My posts' tone heavily say I am writing for personal thought. I mainly try to write, sometimes restrain, when a thought or two becomes too overwhelming and I need to sort it out. I do not have the writing skills or intelligence - let alone the temper to deal with trolls - to go "big time," nor do I want to even if I did hold such gifts. 

I am glad, that those who posses the writing skill and intelligence capable of deconstructing and analyzing this bizarre Twilight that is modern day liberalism, do not consider themselves "part of" modernity. They may live in it, but they are not part of it. All that surfaces within the Twilight will only break your heart, mainly because the fail to repent, but also because they are too self-involved with their own hearts. They spoil their hearts, abuse their souls and want those that get hurt to "deal with it."

I could've stayed a modern day liberal. It was much easier back then.

It's all about the partying. Wait, what about the ceremony?

Proponents of same-sex marriage, or in their mind  - "marriage equality," are a rather daft bunch.

1. It is about "feelings."
2. It is about getting what they don't have.
3. It is about public & governmental acknowledgment.

And now it's about scheduling your weekends with so many same-sex ceremonies that it resembles my high school days when I had five proms to attend in the month of April. At least during that month the dresses, on the girls - once all lined up, resembled a rainbow of colors. All the guys, if you weren't wearing white, all dressed in traditional black tuxes. 

As I suspected, proponents of same-sex mirage do not take marriage seriously as a pillar of western civilization. They just see it as something as "unequal" and will pound the door, make personal stories that are near absurd and throw-up worthy, have public make-out sessions to "prove" that their "love" is as real and as equal as heterosexual love, in order to get wide-sweeping civil marriage.

One of the low-brow talking points that opponents to same-sex mirage pull is "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Even I see where they're coming from it just doesn't work with people who are not religious or hold the bizarre belief in separation of church & state. What they don't normally use right after "Adam & Steve" card is the fact that any person wanting to "marry" a person of their own sex cannot do so (as of today in certain states) simply because that given state holds marriage to be between two people of opposite sex. Sandra can't marry Aunt Bettie because she thinks doing will guarantee her spousal benefits. Michael can't "marry" Joseph out of sheer business strategy.

What same-sex proponents have done is to further trivialize marriage to a degree where "it doesn't matter." They did for sexual acts as well and they're doing it to marriage. They kicked it up a notch into say "it doesn't matter whether a child raised by two men or two women because love makes a family." The difference of each sex - male & female - doesn't matter in both romantic/sexual relationships, in what marriage is, and how a kiss is just a kiss, and just sex is just sex. It's about trivializing yet at the same time celebrating and respecting sexual acts in certain moments because "it's special." Marriage & sex is only special when "we" say it is so goes the modern worldview. With that reasoning, then marriage & sex is innately meaningless.

Some truly don't understand why anyone would be against gay "marriage." See below.

MayBee then, I give her credit, questions if "liberty" grants people to marry someone regardless of sex, then there should be no rules/laws that would soundly stand if we take that "liberty" to its logical conclusion: The outright fundamental change, and forever, of marriage. Marriage in MayBee's eyes is like any other word in the dictionary with multiple definitions equally as good as the original. Revised. Enlightened. "With it." She only calls into the absurdness when age comes into play, but then again she fails to recognize that minors getting married underage usually are of opposite sex.

It's all about the image - the two celebrants walking out of the chapel doors hand-in-hand smiling as their "enlightened" family members and friends cheer on.

It's all about the image - the two celebrants standing in defiance of a bigoted and hateful world as they smile lovingly into each others eyes.

It's all about the image - the two celebrants raising children just like the heterosexual couple (if not better).

It's all about the party - getting "hitched."

And pro-proponents for same-sex mirage never cared for the institution in the first place, only when they felt like it was important because they saw it as "unfair."  They only showed up when their best friends, Hannah and Kristen, wanted to get "married" but couldn't (at the time).
  

Binders, sex and six figure incomes.

The movie industry,  in general, is one industry that deserves an eye roll. Why? Because its actors,  especially its actresses,  are beyond saving. They love to call "Hollywood" out as sexist even though they have benefited from exploiting their bodies and sexuality in roles and photoshoots.  Many of the women who do call the industry sexist are established.  Go figure. 

These are women,  after complaining that there are such few good (read: "challenging," "interesting" - whatever they mean by that) roles for women,  sign onto a project that would be deemed prestigious or coveted faster than Speedy Gonzalez running away from Sylvester. An unknown actress would probably cry herself to sleep due to joy if she landed a role with a two lines in a prestige film. These actresses who are vocal about this supposed rampart sexism are making well above six figures, get the better roles for females and have adoring fans. 

Now,  I bet they'll say that have to keep sexist  incidents (apparently it happens so often that they need to comfortably announce sexism during actor roundtables or photoshoots) under wraps for the sake of their careers, and that they love their 'craft' so much that they'd be willing to bite the bullet for it, but I call BS. This entire thing screams of "me lioness hear me roar of courage against patriarhcy" as I accept a deal with Harper Bizarre for a cover spread. 

It's like Al Gore warning the world about global warming as he travels by private jet and lives in a mega McMansion. Or when some LGBT kid says his small town community hates for his orientation even though there's no proof of physical or verbal abuse.

You see, the word "Hollywood" is safe to use and safe to accuse because it really isn't an actual thing. Many established actors, when they use the word "Hollywood," are mostly talking about the blockbusters, drug parties exclusive to industry insiders, the paparazzi and plastic surgery. What's amusing is that they see themselves above most of these (drug parties are an accepted norm as well as plastic surgery); the paparazzi are actually hired - for the most part; blockbusters are not seen as "real" art with sexist roles for females. It's a set up. Actors see themselves as artists (a word that is overused as much as "Hollywood" is used in disdain) against these blockbusters, victims of bottom-barrel stalking flashing lights and Davids against "the suits" when it comes to getting roles. Are blockbusters mindless and offer no good roles for women? Sometimes. Are the paparazzi prying rats? At times. Are "the suits" out-of-touch people who no nothing about film and the 'art' of it? I don't doubt that some are. But here's the thing: Many movies that are made are considered "independent" and many roles that most of the established actresses accept are within these "independent"/foreign movies films (because 'art'). They gain respect (and industry noms & awards) by doing these films as opposed to (the much despised, yet extraordinarily tolerated) mindless, sexist blockbusters.

The puzzle pieces from what my observant eyes collect, and from established actresses have in their pile, do not match.

You see,  we're just suppose to believe everything they say because they're propped up as heroes - and they see themselves as the enlightened - against the sexist, bigoted and archaic world that is Tinsletown. Who knew that living in LA and/or NY, while jet setting to places like London and Paris, that sexism is rampart. Oh dearies. Wherever is the hard proof? If Bill Crosby can be accused of countless charges of rape then where these "strong, independent" actresses? How come they "confess" of this sexism to entertainment 'journalists' and not to their lawyers? You'd think there is a publicly well-known group entitled something like "Artists Against Sexism In Hollywood" but there isn't, at least to my knowledge. Why? Because most of the accusations of sexism are fictitious, if not exaggerated. Actresses know that accusing "Hollywood" of such things only helps their public image - their careers are safe (because they aren't actually accusing anyone of anything). It really has no leverage besides that, and they walk away with themselves thinking they are throwing that deadly stone in the forehead of Goliath. Such bravery that every young woman should admire. Girl power at its finest!

So established actresses making a living in an industry (add in the music & fashion sects as well), that is probably the most socially "progressive" & perverted, accuse it of being extraordinarily sexist - color me confused. You're able to live your life like such rampart sexism never happened. Color the entire industry the color Irony.

LGBT: The Protected Class

Right next to humpback whales. Oh, wait, the whales were taken off the endangered list recently. Never mind. Why? Because the procreated to a degree where they didn't need protection. (Every time I talk about the LGBT I'm going to mention the procreation bit because I think it's pretty damn important.)

Today I visited a couple of thrift shops in my area, both happen to be Salvation Army, just to see if I could spot any "ooh"s. The last time I visited was last year where I found two cast iron skillets (about 8" each) and an old school desk similar to the one below -

I didn't purchase either cast iron skillets, though I should've, and the desk was more of a "Eh, nice but I I'm not sure ... " If I purchased the desk it would be strictly for decoration purposes.

After today's visits I wanted to know how others used thrift stores and what not to buy. Some good ideas came about:

Shop for baby and kids clothes since kids grow fast.
Don't reject an ugly picture because the frame may be of use.
Test kitchen silver if it's actually sterling silver. (1-2 second 'ping' if you lightly tap it.)
Maternity clothes.
Vinyl records are a gamble in terms of quality.
A good percent of clothes on the racks are there due to its durability, not necessarily for its fashion astuteness.

As I got done reading an article about thrift stores, I scrolled down to the comment section to see what others had to say. The very first comment that showed up, and the most up voted, had this written (it was two years ago, but it; still relevant)-

It's always interesting what counts as homophobia these days. It's even more interesting is that people actually take issue and are offended by the organization's name. Well, since the word "ARMY" was emphasized by poster "udibi" in such a way, I guess that he has a picture of people dressed in camo holding rifles and shouting "SALVATION! REPENT! OR ELSE!" How very intimidating. How very offensive and insidious. What came to my mind when I entered the store and muttered 'The Salvation Army ... " was "Well that's nice. A somewhat pro-Christian vibe going on."

What I sort of admire in people like udibi, at least when it comes to people who are pro-LGBT, is that they will hunt down any past history of an organization that is not pro-LGBT. If any business is not pro-LGBT you will know about it because there's at least one person in the combox that will mention it. I mean, I just find it fascinating to see people list off the suppose "awful things." It's fascinating because it completely changes the direction of the intended article - in this case thrift shop tips and the other a men's sartorial site.

I quickly googled Salvation Army to see if any of the "awful things" were indeed awful. My search bared little fruit. SA did refuse to give out "couple benefits" to employees in same-sex relationships (so it IS about the benefits) because they see such relationships as sin. (I still don't see how this counts as 'awful.') They were also accused of not hiring LGBT, but no direct statement or actual proof surfaced; the article that CBS News issued was too vague and badly written to make any true sense of what was the issue. I don't see how asking people with same-sex attraction to be celibate as "awful." Is asking an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol or some chubster to not eat twinkers "awful"? No. It wouldn't be, but asking a homosexual to not engage in same-sex acts apparently is. How do the workers know if the homeless are LGBT? If the homeless were turned away how did they conclude that s was due to their sexuality? I mean, "gays look like ... people," so I'm suspect of this accusation. The other accusation, that the head of SA's media relations supported the death of the LGBT was never actually proven to be accurate. When the media relation guy from SA was interviewed it was done by two LGBT activists, and when they published the interview that snippet went viral on the interwebs in the LGBT circle. A person with half a brain wouldn't bite the hanging carrot. Every time someone someone appeals to the other "do nots" when trying to paint Christian organizations has hypocritical I know that they are Kool-Aid drinkers. 

Apparently "Pete Morawski" is aware of SA's stances about homosexuality and refuses to step in their stores. I think it's safe to say that whatever organization does not support LGBT "rights" will be brought to notice and people like above will know. You are on their hit list.

Keep in mind that the site I got this comment from was named "treehugger.com" so such a mentality isn't too surprising. Eco-friendly sites tend to attract similar moths with fervent hard on for "rights," especially when it comes to the so-called unfairly maligned and hated LGBT community.

Do you hear that? That's the sound of the humpbacks saying "Thank you, humans, for protecting us when we actually needed protection and a "safe place"!"

"My wife and I."

"I" being a she and "wife" being a she.

When she said this I was thinking to myself "Wuv defies reasoning and actual reality. And boy do you two not look like a 'cute' couple."

I can't wait till polyamorous 'things' (saying threesome or foursomes is weird to me; I'd probably call them 'flocks' just to make it less, um, weird, and more 'nature-ess') go to brunch and introduce their 'lovers' and 'partners' in an very nonchalant way to people in normal relationships i.e. one guy + one woman.

Also, when one woman is more feminine and physically attractive than her female partner (usually ugly as fuck or a bit butch) -- rarely do I see two women 'together' that I find both attractive -- that tells me that the feminine one wants a woman who resembles a guy while the ugly as fuck/butch one wants a partner that resembles a woman.

Why don't they just the real thing? That way they don't have to purchase kids all the time. I mean, c'mon, every time someone enters a same-sex relationship where the heck does that relationship go? Once you get pass the whole "she keeps me warm" it's all pretty much an empty store. Childless real marriages (between a man and woman) due to infertility are looked at with sympathy. Same-sex relationships by design is like a man and his truck without an engine.

Now Mary Lambert is crying in the corner.

"I'm a woman."

Says Bruce Jenner to (the world) and Diane Sawyer.

Does that that mean he's a lesbian? Wait, no labels aren't "in" in this situation. I forgot. My bad. How about the time before he did not identify as a woman - a bisexual? Ah, no labels. Okay okay.

"GRA, why should it matter?"

Good question. My answer: Because public figures have an affect on social issues. Celebrities. Popular Democratic politicians. That's why it matters.

But wait, according to Jenner he isn't a homosexual since he admits that he was never attracted to men; he identifies as a heterosexual, and that gender identity and sexuality were two separate things.

So let's get this puzzle straighten out. Jenner says his brain is more female than male and with that sees himself as a woman. He then says he likes females but doesn't suffer from same-sex attraction. Okay. That makes perfect sense.

I feel for Jenner. I want him to get mental help. You see, what I've observed is that those who do not see transgenderism as a legit healthy state of mind aka perfectly normal, tend to want those who admit that they are of another sex when they clearly are not help. Those who see it the opposite way? They give in to the requests of the transgender. They don't what so wrong about both the state and their support of hormonal treatment, implants and call him a her and her a he. We can't say "it" because that would be deemed extraordinarily uncharitable and inhumane.

You're still confused? If you are it doesn't matter because labels, when it comes to sexuality and gender, are too narrow and filled with bigotry! All sexual identifiers should die off like dinosaurs! Love is just love! Love makes the world go round and raises happy, healthy children! Such  labels are archaic and just cause hurt, pain and confusion. Does this mean that the whole 'LGBT' alphabet will retire? Nah. You see, that's the exception.

(But only bring in the LGBT labels and gender modifiers when its convenient, like when white male Christians who follow traditional morality oppress and divide love.)

Fuck, after all that I need a REAL rainbow, not some man made not-ethically/consciously-made-in-China flag.

Amnesty & the Catholic Church.

Accepting same-sex relationships and "marriage" is to the Protestant sects as amnesty (illegal immigration) is to the Catholic Church.

My parents, my aunt and other family members came here legally. They were documented and followed the rules (The horror of following the rules! God Forbid!) in order to get their green card. Now, decades later living in the states they can now say they are citizens of the U.S.A. I think a main difference between those who labeled as illegals, mostly Mexicans, and my parents & family members, who are Asian, is their market skill level.

I hate to be disrespectful to Mexico, but it just seems America's beard produces some entitled mother fuckers. Why? Because the illegals refuse to play the game set up by the government (which the government is slowly changing aka lowering the standards). It ain't a process of grand mystery. If all my family members that live in the States could do it then so can America's beard. There is no good reason for major immigration reform - there is only a push for it because a group of lazy fuckers who have no respect for the process want that green card via sob sorrow and so-called "compassionate" work by tar heads who think universal healthcare is "free."  Add to the stubborn mentality of refusing to speak English at least within a year upon arrival just adds to my irritation.

"Si se puede immigrate to the U.S.A legally!"

All together now!

As for Catholic bishops, cardinals and Da Pope supporting amnesty. You idiots. This type of Christlike compassion is royally going to screw you, the world and America over. They then talk about "What about the children of the deported parents? What about them?" My answers? "Well, you should've done it the right way the first time. It's not like you DID NOT KNOW. Deport them as well." Let's just erase the "imaginary" lines that separate countries, shall we? What possibly can be more brilliant than that?  

"Ew! Don't touch that!"

Food prudes, who are they? Are they the picky eaters that won't eat exotic dishes? In my mind no.

Jame Chu, owner of a San Francisco Chinese restaurant, looks like he's on the same page as me. (As beautiful as California is, the cities there just make any city in Texas look like bodybuilders. You got the "Was this organically grown?" fuckers in SF and the weed, not competitive fuckers in LA. Both cities a bubble from the rest of America, even NYC.)

Chu and his staff just got really, really tired of being asked the same goddamned questions about locally-sourced gluten-free artisanal bullshit by pretentious hipster douchebags and did what I promise you every single restaurant employee in the Western hemisphere has wanted to do at some point during their career.

Up until a few years ago I didn't really cook. After sometime in the kitchen, researching cookware and making some awesome dishes and not so-awesome dishes, I'm a bit peeved when the food fanatics (who seem that they are  more concerned about digesting organic & gluten-free food than actually having badass culinary skills and making a mean steak or "dressed up" eggs) come and ruin my party. I like to bake with flour and I like to use butter. These two, especially flour, are seen as "bad." I will agree that too much butter (think of Paula Dean saying "Now let's add the butter!" as she takes two yellow sticks as the camera zooms in) is unhealthy. It's common sense. If you eat too much white bread that is also unhealthy. It's common sense. My pizza dough is made out of unbleached white flour. As are my pancakes/waffles. As are most of my breads. I enjoy using butter when I make steak or when I eat toast.

The question all the health pussies out there might ask "How do you feel? Are you feeling like crap?" My answer: "I feel fine and no I do not feel like crap." Unless you're competing for the Olympic trials or make your living as a professional athlete I'm going to look at you as some sort of pretentious asshat when you say "studies show ... " or "I'm [insert some "too-bad-for-you" disease]" which renders you incapable of eating certain foods. I'm can eat gluten, hooray for  me. The only food allergy I have is a very mild one to almonds; besides that the food world is my oyster and "Go primal! Go green smoothie!" warriors are damn sheep that probably taste bad.

When I started using a cast iron skillet my father warned me that it was dangerous (didn't say why at first). My thought process, entirely unremarkable, was "If the pioneers used it to cook their food when they traveled west then I'll be using it. There was no evidence, no stories, of people dying of iron poisoning and whatnot." The same thing with those who say white rice and white bread, if we just avoided it -- homemade bread and rice -- we'd be a much healthier nation. I agree that eating the store bough bread is not a healthy choice; making homemade bread is healthier. I"m Asian and I eat rice. My families members back in Asia eat rice. When some bunny rabbit who bleeds to death in site of mac & cheese tells me that some scientist or nutritionist (that I don't even know or ever heard of) says that Asians have a higher percent of people with diabetes because they're eating too much white rice, you'd think this finding would splash the mainstream news warning the unwashed masses about this particular food.

The funny thing it seems these food prudes are a minority. Hmmm. Interesting. Minorities screaming the loudest.

Nutrition is important. A balance diet is important. If you truly can't eat gluten then I'm sorry, but don't damn fuck up my diet because you can't. The beauty of the health industry is that it caters on trends and fanatics -- gluten-free products are popping up around the nation to cater to gluten-free people, even if you can eat gluten. This bizarre happening, people jumping on the gluten-free train -- if I were actually gluten intolerant I'd be rather miffed towards all the posers -- kinda resembles the LGBT "you might like your own sex if you'd just be open-minded" deck of cards. As I think about this I have chills running down my spine. Now that deserves an "Ew!"

An exchange of words with a "real" man.

- Video about guy talking about skin care -
- Comments calling him gay for it -

Guy: Taking good care of your skin doesn't make you gay. I bet those that take good care of their skin and are in good shape get 10x the pussy than any pizza face faggot gets.
Me: I agree to an extent. Taking good care of your body - building muscle and maintaining healthy skin will increase your physical attractiveness, but I don't think slaying pussy is something to aspire to. It doesn't make a real man.
Guy: Define "real man." I have a Y chromosome.
Me: What does a Y chromosome have to with it? A "real man" is a guy who stands up for friends/strangers when they're unfairly being picked on. Is courageous in times of darkness and uncertainty. Comes to conclusions himself that may or may not fall in line with popular belief. Preserves the future with the intent of being a virtuous, honest man with an emphasis of understanding the past. If he has a family - wife and kids - he is parent first, a friend second; a friend and confidant to his wife, and a lover second. Within that frame he makes enough money to sustain their basic needs: food, clothing, education. A real man doesn't see let his knee-jerk feelings rule his thought process on certain issues - he's methodical in his steps. A real man can do basic house maintenance such has unclogging pipes of sinks and toilets; he can paint a room; he can check smoke detectors if they're working; simple house cleaning; maintains the air conditioner if he has one etc. A real man also knows how to clean the bathroom - the toilet, rid the shower tile of grime etc. He knows how to cook decent meals, be it breakfast, lunch or dinner. There's personal integrity, restraint in both sexual and material temptations and admittance when once is wrong. There's the old "learn from your mistakes." A real man knows his financial situation and adjusts his life accordingly; if he has more money to spare he knows how to spend it by investing or just saving it. He isn't averse to serving his country in the military. This isn't an exhaustive list. Almost everything I said can be self-taught.
Guy: All that is meaningless since it's just personal arbitrary criterion. What you say is subjective. Since I have a Y chromosome I'm a real man. Science tells me. You lose.
Me: Yes, having a Y chromosome does make a man strictly in a biological sense. A penis makes a man - that I don't disagree with. What about a higher plain in a sense of values, morals and philosophy?

Science is God. It tells all.

"Guy" is a man, but is he a "real" man? That is left up to debate. 

Please, just go live in the woods already.

If you aren't naive modernist/progressive that annoys me you're a wannabe feral child aka The Contradiction Libertarian

These are some possible characteristics of The Contradiction Libertarian.

1. Thinks religion is evil and was made by wackos to control the minds of people, and to oppress woman and to kill homosexuals and other non-straights.

2. Think the US government engages in war mainly for profit (Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex) for Big Oil & Big Business.

3. Thinks that our military personnel are henchmen to those in charge in #2.

4. Your "what about the children" concentrates on ending global warming (think Day After Tomorrow or The Road), fracking and want to pass gay mirage because "What if your baby was LGBT?"

5.  Anything corporate is soul sucking.

6. Wants to "live off the grid" but somehow has the internet.

7. Might have this as his avatar -

Like the naive modernists/"progressives," The Contradiction Libertarian wants his cake and eat it too. If you want your cake and want to eat it, then go make your own cake. I did. I made a carrot cake for Easter - turned out alright, definitely nothing prize worthy or any honorable mention ribbon - and I ate it. If the cake layers weren't so darn oily I'd be more proud of it.

Feminsm and its Allies, and the Allies' Allies.

Hmmm. What an interesting array of retweets and tweets. Now, I only pick on Stevens because she was one of the very first links that showed up when I wanted to read more about this story.

The thing with non-conservatives, for the many times I peruse their twitter profiles to see if they jumped off the deep end, they wear their "pride" (whatever that is, be it perverted same-sex attraction, identifying as a feminist, some "stand for your rights" oppressed minority BS) on their sleeve.  In the case of Stevens its feminism, raising your kid as a feminist and gay mirage. I notice there's no mention of "wife" in her twitter description box. Single mom, maybe? It's not that I have anything against single parents it's just in Stevens' case it's sorta not surprising.

Of course, I like the retweet covering its butt saying "Well, you're not invited anyways!" like a spoiled butt hurt kid about Santorum's gay mirage stance. Don't worry, as Stevens tweets Dana Goldberg comforting words, I bet the baby shower will be stupendous and people will be asking "So who's the dad?" if the two are women - if in vitro was the path - and "So the baby is coming from India? No, China?" if the two are guys.

Other tweets that show up on Stevens account was from CNNMoney by another woman saying she's becoming a fan of Stevens, and one by an "artist" (Kate Gilbert) originally from the U.K.

Chicago Tribune Lifestyle, CNN, Advocate.com, and an "artist."

Talk about being in an echo chamber of sadness.

As predictable as it can be, both of these women, Stevens and Goldberg, are in fields that cater to the "feelings" or just plain out relativism: journalism (Stevens is a 'lifestyle' writer) and comedy/entertainment for Goldberg. The places that they reside aren't too surprising either (like I said, predictable). The Tribune isn't exactly NYT but it's better than a smaller periodical. Living in LA as a comedian is rather a "dime a dozen" - you're probably will get more exposure if you're Jewish, a lesbian (openly, because "Da Courage!) and have a decent amount of funnies up your sleeves (I've never seen Goldberg's standup so she could be just a token for all I know).

Speaking of being obnoxious -

My kick ass new Tshirt! '#Love Conquers Hate' in #Hebrew! #HRC #loveislove #LGBT #love @HRC pic.twitter.com/a9KfDU8nmM

— Dana Goldberg (@DGComedy) April 10, 2015

I agree, pretty awesome t-shirt once we get to that little "human rights" sign aka LGBT Campaign. The typical "love is love" is added on, the cry/mantra/slogan for people who share the mindset of Goldberg (I'd be called a hater and a bigot) and the throw-up worthy "love conquers hate" in the context of "love" (same-sex attraction) vs so-called hate (bigots). It's a very simplistic slogan - in this case it's downright manipulative. This slogan speak to two different types of 'wars': Actual war with guts being spilled, bullets being zipped pass your head, going through boot camp and wearing camo. The other war is a cultural war. This cultural war can be represented by the gay "marriage" vs. traditional/natural law camps. Goldberg's t-shirt - the colors as striking as they are - speaks to this war, yet I cannot help think that its shallow and vacuous. Hopefully the t-shirt was made in the USA, if not that it was "ethically" and consciously made overseas, and that the dyes used were eco-friendly. We can't have fair trade supporters be upset. My question to Golbderg is "Are you a practicing Jew - Reform or Orthodox - or are you just a cultural Jew who really just wears it around when it's convenient - not really something you think about unless you want more 'feathers in your cap'?" Goldberg could cleverly say that her shirt supports both gay "marriage" and Israel, but I get the feeling that the main reason for wearing it is because belongs to the LGBT community of activists. Israel, you're only convenient when it looks cool and it makes the people using you feel good. Feelings. Convenience. Ah, it's like fast food - but guess who the "evil" one in that case?

My experiences don't count because ...

So I had a conversation between two other people. It was about race. Yes, not really a topic one should get into but, given my last post (like I said, it wasn't meant to be racist -- but hey, if you think I'm being hypocritical please tell me and I'm more than willing to talk it out) I thought I'd give my own input/experiences.

I'm not white. I'm Asian. Filipino to be exact. (Phew, finally came out of the closet on that! I can finally be my 'true' self living an 'authentic' life!) My parents immigrated from the Philippines in the mid 1970s. My mother is from Quezon City; my father from Iloilo. In a way they're FOBs (Fresh Off the Boat), though I would never call them that, but just for the context of this post I'll use it, and instead they're FOAs (Fresh Off the Airplane).

Here's a map -

The conversation went like this (we're all of Asian descent):

Person A: America is rather racist.
Person B: I agree. It's a white man's club with those benefiting from white-privilege.
Me: I don't necessarily agree. I honestly think you're race baiting. I mainly attended formal schooling till university in an area that was mostly blue-collar. If you weren't a Polish, Irish or Mexican immigrant then you were, what I'd call, an "All-American" family. These were white folks. Such families weren't what you'd all hicks, but they weren't what you'd label "enlightened" or cultured. These people worked jobs as carpenters, nurse assistants, elementary teachers/assistants, electricians, cops, plumbers, construction workers, cashiers, hair dressers etc. Rarely did you find a parent with a white collared job or in fields such as medicine, entertainment or engineering. I also went to university in a small Midwest city - no more than 20, 000 people - three hours away from the closest cosmopolitan city. The city right next to it was approximately held about 18, 000 people, about a ten minute drive away. The job makeup was similar to the blue collar neighborhood that I attend elementary and high school. In my entire time around such groups I rarely experienced any direct, legit racism. Same with my siblings and parents. Same with the other few Asians kids that resided in the neighborhood. In elementary school when my mom gave me egg rolls for lunch they were gone within minutes, not because they were stolen, but because my white classmates were intrigued and wanted to try - so I let them try. When I brought in food that didn't resemble the typical *American PB and J sandwich, or a cheese & baloney on white, they'd surround my desk with curiosity and asked what I was eating. When I did extracurricular activities all the coaches/leaders were of blue-collar backgrounds and not once did they give us or our parents a hard time simply because we weren't white.
Person B: What, you think what I say is a conspiracy? Everyday people are held back because of their skin color. This country was founded on killing the Native Indians and was built on the labor of blacks - they were beaten, killed and looked at as half humans - second class citizens at best. You have benefited from your club of white friends and are too scared to question your adopted white-privilege. Your experience doesn't discredit what I said before (he talked about America being racist with its early history). Please, I am not moved by your biased story.
Person A:Well you're either (A) not Asian and lying, (B) been studying too much and weren't aware of your surroundings or (C) attended school in a really nice town.
Me: I'm am Asian (told them about my parents) and not lying. I didn't study "too much" that left me unaware of my "oddity" and racism. Heck, I studied sociology in university which leans towards the whole "minorities are oppressed and hated" narrative. As I said before all the surroundings I've attended formal schooling were in blue-collar neighborhoods. In fact, during my university years I mentored a young boy - no older than 10 - that came from a family that was a few thousand dollars above the poverty line. His dad was a truck driver and mom was studying to be an x-ray technician.  I never experienced anything racist from them (the boy had two three older siblings, he was the youngest) or anything racially insensitive. They were curious about me. Even in present day, as my job mostly surrounds me with upper-middle class people, mostly white, I haven't felt anything racist towards me or have experience and direct racism.

This perfectly sums up my feelings towards Person A and Person B:

*I rarely brought a PB & J sandwich to school; I never ate a baloney & cheese on white till a few years ago. Any "Americana" school sandwich had to be requested to my mom, and since she wasn't all well-versed in American food (didn't know how to eat mash potatoes with gravy) the chances were slim to get that request. If she did honor it the sandwich would be "Asia-fide" aka Not American.

White People + Health

This post isn't meant to be racist or insensitive. Okay, I know what I'll say is insensitive but I don't care.

White rice has been perplexing health nuts for numerous years. Since it's considered a grain and in the health nut world that "too paranoid for their own good" white people reside in, I can't help but think to myself that this is the typical "I lived in Asia for a year and now I'm an expert on the culture" types or the "the data says there's a correlation so it must be true" types that annoy me. This stuff deserves to be laughed it. They deserve to be laughed at. These people probably run marathons, would greatly prefer to send their child to a "non-lily white" school for the sake of (ethnic) diversity and are probably - to get political - liberal if not left-leaning libertarian. 

Here's  some advice that I didn't think of after mauling over "scientific" studies: Eat a balance diet. If you make bread, no matter if it's white or brown, make it homemade. Yes, you're using flour. Bakers use flour. The French bakers use flour that you think are "totally sophisticated" after you take an instagram of your pastry filled with Nutella, and I bet if they didn't they'd go out of business. This "flour is bad," to my current knowledge, hasn't swept Europe.

As a person who eats rice I will say rice is my "friend." Flour as well since I bake every now and then. I also eat meat, eggs and beans. Heck, I don't drink coffee and coffee is said to make you live longer. I don't care. I never was raised on coffee and just because some health nut says to drink it doesn't mean I'll bow down to his "enlightenment."

The paranoid health nut - proof that the internet can either make you an idiot or, in rare cases, more knowledgeable. Don't confuse the latter with the former.

Having conversations with a non-conservative is almost pointless.

I'm starting to become convinced that most people who are products of public education and university are dumber than when they entered. 

It's always makes me chuckle when someone admits to a stance that may discriminate against a certain group - specifically not agreeing or supporting so-called LGBT "rights" - and the person listening says "So you're fine with being a bigot?"

This indirectly makes the person being accused of being a bigot feel like an idiot. Living in the 21st century you're suppose to be up-to-date and "cool" with 'equality' and whatnot, it's seen similarly as having a smartphone and having the yelp app installed. The logic goes if you don't want to be bigot (a bigot is like showing up to class without your homework done or totally forgetting that there was a scheduled quiz) then either agree or at least vote in favor (appeal to separation of religion and state) of gay mirage and same-sex adoption.

It in the similar vain as not attaching the label feminist if you agree upon equal wage to the same job, with the same hours under the same boss. "What do you mean you're not a feminist?" It's expected that everyone under 35 be one because it's the default position.

All of these "Yes, I'm for 'equal' rights" and "Yes, I consider myself a feminist" to the average modernist/non-conservative is akin to "Yes, of course I love my pet gold fish." How could you not? That's the main feeling that runs through the veins and hearts of the Millennials. When confronted to explain their position they, the well-read and those who gave though to it, usually babble something pseudo that if you asked me when I awoke from slumber I could've grumbled the same thing as I prepared my mornings oats. When you present your position they either laugh or just ask "Why?" repeatedly or pull fallacies left and right, and when you point it out because it's messing up the conversation they say "So?" or "You see that's different ... "

Modernists/non-conservatives don't play by the rules. Their ace is relativism and their king is subjectivism. Their queen is feelings/emotions and "the heart." Their joker is saying "It's been documented/written, go look it up," as convenience. I do believe they think what they say is of sound body. No leaks, no holes, or least stronger to be deemed the winner with a nice gold shiny star. They (cleverly) use the tide of momentum to shut the opponent up. "Hey, we're winning. Deal with it," or appeal to the bizarre libertarianism card "They aren't hurting anyone, whats it to you?" or the libertine card "Not your life, not your body, so your opinion doesn't count," or the horrid mantra that counts as wisdom "As long you're happy, then do whatever you want."

Yes, there are many people who follow these cards, just take a look at tumblr, youtube and instagram.There are many who admire these types, just look at their defenders and the amount of "likes" and "reblogs" they receive. These people are considered role models. That prude and "nobody" down the street? What about that coward?

Cubicle Worker & Joe Parent - Kiss the "Artist's" Toes!

I've been meaning to comment on Steven Soderbourgh's "Commerce vs Art" speech given in 2013.

Here's a couple of comments belittling the average man -

Because we know non-cubicle workers don't have a narrow view of certain subjects. Seth could be a construction worker or an airline pilot. Even if he's a cubicle worker, so what. At least he isn't in a perpetual state of bitterness and knows how to wear a suit that doesn't call for a wedding, funeral or red carpet event.  

This one made me clench my jaw -

It's a "serious" question all-right. A seriously condescending dick bag question.

Now it's my turn.

Wow, Sean, you are passionate about film and how great film/cinema makes the world so much better (even though a good majority of so-called "real" film has the depth of a freshman college student writing a philosophy 101 or an Intro to Sociology paper). How many foreign languages do you speak? What's your understanding of banking, financing and economics? Any idea how a country should be run? How about your understanding, if you're American, of how the Senate works? No? None. Well, I guess you can talk how that one Woody Allen film totally explains relationships and that one Bella Tar movie -er- film gave the world a deeper insight to nihilism.

Time? Where did the poster get the time to write a comment on subject he has no clue about and has no investment in?

It's called "free time," Sean, after that daytime job, cooking dinner, helping the kids get into the pajamas, sex with the wife and writing chapter three for that novel in the "man cave." You know, the downtime before one goes to sleep or, if we go by the time stamp, in the wee hours of the morning at 3: 10AM after all said things were done

The fact is, ksb36's comment wasn't even remotely troll-like. Heck, he even mentioned how movies reach a wider audience besides the traditional studio distribution via internet and television. All that is true and accurate. The man even mentions the reality of many American families that going to the movies is a way of entertainment. He then reasonable admits that the best directors will find their audience - whether the movie is released straight-to-DVD, VOD or some other non-theatrical release.

Why is Sean so irritated by this? I'll take a swing. Sean is irritated because he doesn't agree with anything ksb36 has said (as someone who has observed how the movie industry works, both domestically and in Europe, I can't necessarily disagree with ksb36), yet never says what was the generalizations that someone with "no interest in film" would commit.

Once you meet a Sean you have met every other cinemaphile, Soderbourgh and "serious" actor.

Doxxing

I support if it's done legally. Hacking into private accounts is a no of course.

If journalists can do it then so can anyone willing to figure stuff out and paint a whole picture of the topic at hand. I mean, would researching for a paper about Thomas Jefferson, googling his name and picking from the choices of links be considered doxxing the third president of the United States? If it is then might as well just leave "investigating reporting" as a medium of kiss assery.

Just admit you run on relativism. It'll save me the time.

I mostly observe (aka lurk) on CAF (Catholic Answer Forum) and I remember when I fist joined spotting the 'questionable' members. These can range from Catholics who disagree with Church teachings and non-religious being annoying and practicing horrid arguments. This is not to say I don't like opposite views; for from it. It's when such people act indignant and their tone is "I and others are SO fed up with the Church and its oppression and injustice! Change or forever be slowly forgotten by society as we progress towards the shining sun of progress!" See below.

And then there's posters like "epan" who, after years of posting and acting like a complete arrogant douche, finally lets the beans spill depending on the subject at hand.

Why the fuck would I have to apologize? That's like me going up the a Japanese and saying to them "Apologize for killing my Filipino ancestors during WWII! Apologize!" or walking up to a random Wall Street banker/trader and asking an apology for the 2008 financial recession.

The poster doesn't specify what religions when he says "role of religion in the persecution of homosexuals" so I'm not sure if he meant Christianity or, say, Islam. If Islam then my question still stands: Why the fuck would I have to apologize? Then again epan is the type of that came across as someone who held a grudge against religion in the first place, so it's no big surprise that he'd want this type of repentance by Christians.

It's not a complete mystery on the things people are angry at the RCC. Let us count.

1. Homosexuality is not 'normal.' It's considered a disorder. Acting on same-sex temptations is considered a sin.
2. RCC is seen as oppressive & sexist towards women. (Most of the morally strong women I have known have been Catholics).
3. RCC has stances on sex that is deemed strict and archaic.
4. Crusades.

That's basically it. If you don't see a theme between most of these I'll say it now: Many of the things modernists despise the Church for is about its stances on sex. Who's obsessed with sex again? The social conservatives when they object to explicit sex scenes and unwarranted nudity on screen or print, or straight-out porn? I don't think so. My finger is pointing to all the butt hurt "BUT IT'S MY BODY AND I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT! IT'S SEX IT'S NATURAL THEREFOR IT'S BEAUTIFUL WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?" people. They want their cake and eat it too: They want people to be indifferent or support their sex, but when met with criticism they cry foul. And let's not pretend that such a group aren't aware of what they're won't cause strong disagreement - they aren't innocent lambs stupidly walking across the street only to be stuck by a Chevy pickup. They are fully aware of how certain groups are going to react or else they wouldn't say things like this:

"American's are afraid of sex"
"Good art is provocative and controversial."

First World Problems: "Cultured" people complaining about small towns.

It's like "doing time" as one poster said.

Some are actual legit complaints, like cost of clothing and lack of jobs. The rest?

LGBT & the military #1

This will be the first post of my thoughts on the LGBT community and the military.

I was on youtube browsing information for fancy rats (domesticated pet rats) and came across a video that seemed to have what I was looking for, then I clicked on his profile and perused through his video library to find out if he had anymore (he didn't). I then stumbled upon him proposing to his boyfriend entitled "gay marine proposes to boyfriend," took a look at the comment section and found these -

There were handful that didn't approve saying that gay "marriage" is legalized sodomy, which I agree with, and others that appealed to nature and how sucking another man's dick and having your penis penetrate the body cavity that excreted stool wasn't all too "beautiful" and "cute," as much of the comments were when giving the two Marine and his boy"friend" their good wishes.

As the comments made clear, the play of "love is love" is used to full force and the appeal to humans "just falling in love with someone who so happens to be of the same sex" peaks its head as usual.

There's the fool who thinks marriage is some bizarre heterosexual tool to oppress women and keep those who suffer from same-sex attraction as second-class civilians. I'm guessing Salvatore isn't from the US, but if he is, then I wonder what's the push for marriage if it's such a messed up and archaic social institution? 

What I strongly get is that marriage, the general feelings of the institution of marriage, from the comments is that it's just a mere celebration of ones feelings for another - the grand statement of "Hey! I dedicate myself to this person for the time being until our feelings run out or if he/she pisses me off too much!" This isn't necessarily an attack on those who support gay "marriage," but mostly a comment on what many in general, I assume, marriage is. They have some very shallow concept and meaning behind marriage. Many will probably say that since we have this current concept of what marriage is and what it stands for that it proves that marriage is some social institution that never was really important, only that it's important to those who choose to perceive marriage as something individually costumed (like "Have it your way." Burger King style) - regardless of sex preference and regardless if the ceremony is performed at a resort or city hall by some "pastor" that has more in common with a Vietnam hippie than an actual serious pastor of an orthodox sect.

I will also comment on the straight-out arrogance of modernists and those that usually fall into the boho/indie/hipster sub-culture when it comes to kids. They either say "No. Kids are way too much and I value my freedom and individuality," or "Raising kids isn't that hard. The suburban housewives make it look like it's running a marathon." So it's too hard or it's not as hard as it seems, but if you ask them about their lives and personal issues they probably need to see some sort of therapist; if they have a tumblr page they'd probably have some really childish view on the world like "Why can't we just get along?" with some instagram-ish pictures portraying heartache and under 30 yr. old angst. (I hope to make a post on the angst that is overflowing tumblr.)

But back the gay Marine "marriage" proposal and all the adoring comments on it. I ask, if you've seriously thought about what actually is marriage - not some expression of two people, man and woman, declaring their feelings to one another - not some heterosexual plot to oppress women and to malign the gays and bis and the confused - and in my mind marriage is: The union between opposite sexes, of two different souls, in hopes to established a family, to procreate, and to raise the next generation. Now that may fall on the romantic side, but it's much more stable and less immature and doe-eyed than "Two people regardless of sex dedicating their lives to one another." You can say that for any relationship between two good friends who aren't romantically/sexually interested in one another. So, that in it of itself makes same-sex marriage rather bizarre and laughable. I'm sorry yet I'm not.

Society shouldn't be celebrating two people of the same-sex getting "married" let alone a proposal to do so. Society should look at such a thing with raised eyebrows and rejection of the action, not the people involved. Such a relationship, in the grand scheme of things, does not contribute anything positive to society (if they want kids they need to adopt or revert to in vitro -- every single time) and furthering accepting it blindly like it's "so cute!" and "beautiful" is actual proof of how damaging it is. Gay "marriage" does (negatively) effect my life, kids and ultimately society.

The horror! A low IMDb rating for an art house film!

The masses just don't "get" great works of art like The Tree of Life.

I myself like The Tree of Life, at least enough to recommend it with fair warning, but I wouldn't think ill of someone who may not like it or those who don't manage to finish the film. It's rather abstract and non-linear in its narrative (the script is significantly less than the usual 120 pages, double spaced script actors receive).

I never knew people not liking art house films is a sign of the decline of civilization. Heck, I fine myself chuckling seeing people hold so  much stock on art house/indie films as a barometer of fine culture. Pass the wine, puh-lease. The expensive wine.
 

Lost River (2015, dir. by Ryan Gosling)

SPOILERS

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

- "Amazing Grace," John Newton

Somewhat fitting lyrics for this feature.

Ryan's Gosling's debut touches on numerous things. The elusive American Dream, hedonism, family, heart ache from past journeys, friendship and community. As you go down that list the movie touches more solidly the topics nearer to the end. Even then the narrative is a little beefier than a Jewish concentration camp prisoner. You want to give it food, but you can't because you aren't its maker or its savior.

Detroit is known by many, both natives (not Native Americans in this context) of the country and foreigners as a once thriving city gone down the drain by various factors - it took decades to reach its current shape and condition. It may never see an ounce of its glory days for many reasons. Of course, those who know better, not all of Detroit and its metro are like what the media presents. Two films have used Detroit and its dilapidated buildings as backdrops and characters. It Follows is one of them and Gosling's Lost River is the other. The former movie does so more truthfully and more realistically despite both movies implementing the fantastical in the lives of its characters. It's like how Harmony Korine picks the oddest individuals of a backwater town and makes a movie out of them, making their eccentricities more pronounced than what reality is. It's ballsy, but it's also dishonest.

Gosling's Detroit, like his directing, is a mixture of many things. Think of the production like BioShock - the video game - with its steampunk vibe, Korine's depressing-thrift-shop-wearing characters who smell like dried sweat and neon-lit surroundings. Think of Terrence Malick's quiet and smooth camera movements as they walk about their world. You want out already, right? So do I. But trust me, it's not that bad. That's the issue with the Detroit that is portrayed in LR. It's a combination of "patches," none of which are remotely the same color, and none of the patches effectively create a world that slowly sucks in its potential residents. You know it's a created world as you watch, so you never actually are willing to pay the rent or take out a loan. You don't have anything to stay for.

The fantasy in LR is introduced then fades into existence only to be brought up again near the end as a "Oh, yea, there's this supposed monster that happened to put a spell on this city ... " and the interwoven stories of each individual are somehow able to grab a hold. I am not sure if Gosling meant to have this tone, this heavy on atmosphere but light on actual narrative, but I'll take that the story somehow got lost in its own style. This not to say that the characters that embody this particular Detroit are nothing. Oddly enough Gosling is able to add just enough of desperation, loss and hope within his protagonists that the movie doesn't completely crumble by real estate demolition.

Billy (Christina Hendricks), Bones (Iain De Caestecker) and Franky (Landyn Stewart) are a family of three. Billy is need of work in order to pay rent for a house that should be checked on by the city health inspector (in fact, all of the houses that each character lives in should). She isn't bitter and carries herself with a sense of dignity despite her failings as a parent and provider. Bones, given his living situation, is the ideal son. Caring, resourceful, brave and hard working, he has inherited his mother's sense of dignity;  he hides his frustration and sadness by searching for copper in exchange for money (instead of cans and bottles, like most cash-strapped people do). Franky is adorable - innocent in every way; a bit chubby like his mother (no offense Hendricks, that was meant as a compliment). They love each other and they get by with what they have. The company each spends with each other is lovely. Next door (more like half a football field away) lives Rat (Saoirse Ronan), a quiet young girl who calls her self "Rat" because "I have a pet rat," who is named Nick. Rats aren't nearly as popular as, say, dogs or cats when it comes to house pets, but those who do have them show immense affection and recommendation to future owners. You can say they are misunderstood. Like pet rats, Rat is a hidden gem of a friend. As you get to know Rat she is charming, a hidden beauty, and shares similar qualities as Bones. Her isolation - no parents, no friends besides her pet rat - seems to enhance her ability to observe the world she lives in. You wish she thought more of herself because she is, indeed, more (names herself Rat). She is the wisest of the neighbors. These two, Rat and Bones, are the parents to their guardians (Rat a 'parent' to her grandmother). They do it without complaint, they do it with a sense of duty.

In contrast to these families are Bully (Matt Smith) and Face (Torrey Wigfield). This is a different type of family. Bully, when he sees his partner-in-crime fail, abuses him to a point of horrific consequences. When you insult Bully you insult his inner demon. Sociopathic, greedy and "all-knowing" Bully is one of the unofficial mayors of the city - as he says "This is my city." Bully, by name alone, can metaphorically represent all the crooked politicians keeping the good residents from upholding a stable, happy life in Gosling's Detroit. Either you comply to his demands and warnings or face the consequences, that is if you don't move out of the city. Dave (Ben Mendelsohn) is another unofficial mayor. Unlike Bully, Dave is less violent in his advances to get what he wants. By day he's a loan officer (represents the world of banking) and by night he runs a club that "caters to every human desire." Of course, this club is on the other side of town nowhere near his bank or where said characters walk and sleep. In someway he's the MC from Cabaret, where his club shows off the grotesque (Gosling's commentary on the indifference of violence as a form of entertainment).

Probably the one character that represents the "American Dream," at least according to Gosling, in this Detroit is the Cab Driver (Reda Kateb). He goes about his job - taking Billy to her job, offering her kindness and expecting nothing in return for his small-talk (in contrast to Dave). Cab Driver talks about people who think America is filled with riches, and that when you arrive the money is at your feet (there is a perception by foreigners that most Americans are all monetarily rich, driving a Mercedes-Benz, living in gated communities). Now contrast that with many poverty stricken areas in America and, no doubt Gosling picked the city for this very reason, Detroit. Now contrast that with being monetarily rich with being rich on a more deeper plain -- family & friends. There is a point in the movie where Billy finds her own ride to various points in the city without Cab Driver - public transportation with Franky where she meets a strange man, and by Bones in their once broken down car. It then cuts to Cab Driver, his cab in front of a deli, eating a sandwich alone as he smiles at a low-income class family whom he later makes small-talk. Like Billy, Bones, Franky and Rat, he is trying his best with what he has -- no complaints. A part of you feels for him. There is no romantic hints between Cab Driver and Billy, in a way that is refreshing, but a part of me thought "You deserve Billy and Billy deserves you."  Out of all the metaphors in this feature, Rat holds a conversation with Bones asking him why he stays in this town, after all he does have a car (at that time broken) to which Bones replies his family. Cab Driver, the most mobile out of all the character besides Bully & Face, stays in Detroit. Why? As he and Billy talk for the first time, he mentions the American Dream and the possibility of eventually "catching" it -- that's what's makes it worth it. Maybe Billy, Bones and Franky are his "American Dream" whom he can drive away when the situation arises.

The similarities between Cab Driver and Rat I cannot help but recognize. The sense of duty (Cab Driver to his job and Rat to her grandmother - taking direction from someone else) are both isolated individuals. This is not out of their inability or refusal to form relationships, but because of their situations in life. This isolation is a blessing where it gives them a safe distance from the sadness that is right outside their door - they see what is happening and they asses it. What Rat is to Bones, Cab Driver is to Billy. The house that Billy wants to preserve is part of her past that should be left behind, remodeled or demolished. Rat's grandmother is literally the past who has no motivation to share love to her lineage - she neither talks to her granddaughter, her missing parents nor about her deceased husband that has her fixation. There is no love or concern from her. These are anchors, and of the wrong kind. Dear grandmother is neither living nor dead (hording, watching re-runs of her wedding). Both Billy and Rat deserve much better anchors.

There is also a competition between Dave and Cab Driver. Though the two never meet, they are rivals. Dave appears to have everything that would make a modern woman lean towards him as a sugar daddy, if not a "partner." In this Detroit he is a celebrity, a somebody. His daytime job as a loan officer can intimidate people to make poor financial choices in order to help make the "American Dream" a reality; this job needs cleverness and charm. By night he's the head honcho at a macabre club - he alone has the power to fire & hire. He sets the rules, he has the power. Then there's Cab Driver. His job is taking requests by other people; he may be in the driver's seat but he isn't in charge and the passenger can bolt without paying. Being a cabbie isn't seen the same way as Dave's jobs - it's much lower on the "attractive" job hierarchy with no authority. He is equal to a burger flipper/cashier when standing next to Dave. Add to the fact Cab Driver is never given a name in the movie, he is a 'nobody'; he was never formally addressed as a character once I think about it - he appears because his service is needed. Socially and materially the cabbie is several steps behind Dave, but yet he has his dignity (like Billy). Dave straight out tells Billy that he finds her attractive and then later that he is sexually turned on by her. Whatever attraction Cab Driver has for her it is kept silently away; he does not let her know nor hints to any possible attraction. Dave sees people as items to "fuck," to control and to seduce. The opposite is true for Cab Driver. Both are fully aware of their status in this fictionalized city - one is pumping it to the max for his benefit (one can take this as crony capitalism since Dave is a financial loan officer by day), and the other treats his job as a job - it does not define him and shows content with it. Unlike Dave, cabbie - as a foreigner - does  not know the city as well, but he does know enough. His job lends him to "get to know" the streets of this godforsaken city, and in return he gets to know its people. A king verses a carpenter. A celebrity verses a burger flipper. Who has the better hand? Who has the better heart? Who has "made it"? Who really is the 'somebody'? Who deserves Billy?

I'd be willing to pay & watch Gosling's second feature, that is if he found a voice of his own.

This directorial debut is a mixture of several directors: Terrence Malick, Harmony Korine, David Lynch and  Nicolas Refn. Malick for the sweeping vertical camera movements; Korine for his VHS, gritty, desperate and tinge of dried sweat  individuals; Lynch for is camera angles & quick violence and Refn for his visual flair. It's a soup that has many different spices from an apprentice soup maker. As you sit down and taste the liquid you can't help but say silently to your self "I recognize this, is it .... ?" You nod your head as your mind affirms and you continue on eating. The soup isn't necessarily bad nor is it anyway near original as the maker wants it to be. It can be, but he needs time on his own away from his inspirations to find his own mixes - not really his own spices. Gosling is trying on too many trendy pieces of men's wear; less is more.

It is ambitious in its style, but in the end it's really not a "style" - more so fashion. It is not really brave as it is timid to really "just be." Fashion is disposable and only out of luck do some trends hold some ground. Lost River is style over substance (though there is substance), promising, but no more promising (or exciting) than any Terrence Malick-esque hopeful director who premieres his shorts on vimeo/youtube than film festivals like Cannes or Sundance.

The only thing missing was a random, naked bed mattress with one of its characters standing on it with a look of absence.

** Interesting character names. Billy is a diametric name for a female; Bones actually has meat (courage); Rat is more than she seems; Bully is a bully; Face because "Look at his face!"; Cat because she's friendly, if not insidious in nature. The only people that don't have odd names are Franky (innocence - not corrupted/jaded enough to have one), Nick the rat (not even human) and Dave (the pervert who lives two lives). The cabbie was never given a name (he's listed as "Cab Driver" in the credits). He is below Franky - not really 'belonging' to the city to have an ill-fitting or strange name, but not 'something' to even have a title in Gosling's Detroit.

Lost River - C

Gosling's perception of the American Dream with purple saturated effect, and how family - both biological and not - can act as a saving grace.

The soundtrack, done by Johnny Jewel, mostly turns to synth. I have grown to like synth soundtracks (see: Maniac, Hanna, Drive) and just the music genre in general; this ones just 'alright.' As individual tracks, at least half don't stand alone upon repeated listens - "Tell Me," "Carousel," and "Yes" are memorable, and when you don't remember most of the soundtrack while pondering the movie that's a sign that it may be weak. 

I agree with Robert Oscar Lopez

When gay "marriage" is ruled as legal this June (because it will come) then the ship of conservatism will have met an iceberg. It isn't exactly the Kraken or The Beast, but it will be a vital blow. There will be time to abandon ship and to gather any goods that can be carried. Conservatives in general - of all stripes - will be seen as "the other" and will be pushed to the fringes of society. It may not happen in a few years, but give it a decade's time. It'll be like living in Sweden.

As poster "Sam_Handwich" (gay "marriage" advocate) puts it -

People like Handwich aren't reasonable. They are bitter. They are narrow minded and they want revenge. Not because they were actually physically or verbally abused, not because they were treated like the Jewish in Hitler's Germany, but because they are victims of modernity where their sexuality (not liking the opposite sex exclusively, whether their bi or 'gay') has rendered their esteem rather low growing up and, finding a narrative that helps them feel indignant (enter LGBT activists and the derangement that comes with such an infliction) have produced a person who grows up to think society owes them something; in their minds they think of themselves as Jewish Holocaust survivors like blacks constantly refer back to American slavery and their pride in their "blackness."

I'll say this, when you meet a Swede who so happens to be a homosexual and even he has insecurities about his sexuality and feels "oppressed" then that would be a hint that so-called "progress" doesn't naturally cultivate sound individuals in the aspects that it wants it to be sound, and it also would be a HUGE hint that having romantic/sexual feelings towards your sex isn't so much 'normal.' When you grow up feeling"different" (and in this case one is actually different)  please don't take that as as a sign of "well society is just plain bigoted and hateful" and grow to be some run-of-the-mill gay "rights" advocate. Heck, I would know. One of my own family remembers, when he started to embrace is homosexuality, became one of these just under six months.

Some *comments from the ROL article -

This is a similar strawman when someone quoted a judge saying, and I paraphrase, "Heterosexual get drunk, have sex and have kids out of wedlock and have domestic violence, yet they're given the right to marry. Homosexuals are then painted as some evil group where they're punished and don't have the right to marry." The poster then tried to add on "he was appointed by Ronald Reagan." That's basically the same poor-ass tactic like saying "homosexual acts were never condemned in the Bible so it makes it totally okay!." Or it's similar to saying "[insert some media favorite non-"progressive"] said legalizing marijuana and universal health care was the right thing to so there! Even so-and-so supports it, now what?"

Let's move on.

I'm sensing an inferiority complex with "DGCJ." He then assumes that straight men adore George W. Bush. Well, if you're straight, don't think gay "marriage" should be legalized and, if so, are not equal to actual marriage (between a man and woman) then your hero must be Little W. I was waiting for the "Fox News" being pulled and "white men" card as well. It never came.

Here's a funny.

This is in the same vain as "I cannot wait for you old white people to die so your ideals can wither away" card, or playing the "become extinct like the dinosaurs" card. I mean, the only call to life from social "progressives" that I'm aware of is being anti-war (they sometimes peak their head out for the death penalty talk). All else? Abortion is practically an oxymoron to life. Encourage/celebrating same-sex relationships without much plans for kids (without in vitro and adoption they can't 'have' any) is backwards. Encouraging "my body no kids" for women is also backwards (some say that they don't have "motherly instincts" in order to not have kids). Propping up the idea that a women doesn't need a man in a sense that serial monogamy and serial relationships makes a "strong, independent and courageous" woman is downright insane. So I don't see life from these types of people (though they are abnormally into themselves and #YOLO, or some sort of variant of that). In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, they don't call for defense of life either (not that they would know how to handle a handgun, or on a more extreme case support a strong military).

Being against interracial marriage is the same as being against same-sex marriage. Of course. Genius observation.

Then there's that awkward exchange of words of 'shooting' your own people aka blue on blue.

"Guest" brings up a good point. Like "DGCJ," Kara has an odd view of how conservatives will react - granted fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church will go out in public and do their usually thing. I remember being on American Thinker, reading a past article about the writer's contact with the non-religious and their views on Romney (they believed if he were to be elected the country would turn into a theocracy) with some LGBT Gestapo chiming in. The day after the election a few more chimed and were gloating that they won. That's what the LGBT Gestapo internet branch does when things rule in their favor: Gloat. I then confronted about it and one said to me "Well, of course! Why shouldn't we!" Then, on another article, on another site, when Prop 8. was struck down in CA a homosexual said to me "Me and my friends will be dancing in the street!"

In "MarkOH" case there is no activist judge; it's all projection since, in his mind, any judge not ruling in favor of (actual) marriage is labeled an "activist judge." Now, he may have a point. But then I strictly remember a federal judge basically vetoing the Alabama marriage ban leaving open the ruling of same-sex "marriage." So no, MarkOH doesn't really have a point. The people of Alabama had no say on this. It happened last year as well, but in the state of Virginia. Yes, it took just one judge.

Speaking of "frothing at the mouth" check this video out:

and this article. How about the Oregon *bakery that did not want to make a same-sex "wedding" cake or the photographer who refused to partake in a gay "wedding"? The Oregon bakery was initially closed due to mob tactics by the LGBT Gestapo (IRL) and the photographer was taken to the Supreme Court. Add in the recent **Indiana pizza parlor, Memories Pizza, being closed down due to the very same thing: Refusing to serve a same-sex "wedding."All three did not refuse their services to non-straight people in event that weren't related to same-sex "weddings."

*Interesting yelp reviews.
** Pizzeria yelp reviews.

(A good percent of the 1 star reviews, at the time of each incidents - bakery in mid 2013 and pizza parlor the first week of April 2015 - try to mask their disagreement of "no service to gay 'weddings'" as "bad food, bad service." It's the messed up, cowardly modern way of cutting down something while masking its true intentions. It accomplishes one thing: To deter potential customers which leads to the potential of less profit. Basically: Close this b*tch down. They will smugly add in "It's economics, honey!" People who say that probably don't even understand microeconomics. When it comes to the pizzeria, apparently Walkerton, Indiana, population of about 2, 400, is a tourist magnet to those in California. Who would have known?)  

I am not a sociologist, but I can confidently say that when marriage "equality" becomes the law of the land come June a good majority of traditional conservatives won't be "frothing at the mouth," though Kara and the liked-minded would love such a thing to happen (it would be the cherry on their 'wedding' cake, the diamond on that engagement ring). Social "progressives" think very highly of themselves - they think they're "tolerant" and "open minded" people; they are anything but. They intimidate. They flood articles to spout their strawman arguments and circular logic.They think of their opponents (conservatives of any stripe) in archetypes and caricatures. They play off this boxy idea of their opponents to fuel their bitterness, their argument and their rage.


UPDATE: At around 4PM I rechecked the article. I posted around noon that by midnight ROL's page would have at least 500+ comments (it had about 300 when I arrived). It's not even 6PM where I live and it has over 1,000+. I totally underestimated the LGBT Gestapo.