We respect your opinion, provided that it was our opinion first.

We respect your opinion, provided that it was our opinion first.

May 20, 2008

The Obamoron Revolution

Turning This Country Around 360Âș
Nick Olson


Never before in the field of American politics have the issues been so black and white. Never before have the American people been so devastated by a presidency. Never before have the American people deserved such a change, such a departure, from the egregious offenses of the current administration.

It seems that the entire American populace is aware of this, with one outstanding exception: Senator John McCain. McSame is pushing for the same routine and lack of innovation that has destroyed America. Whereas Senator Obama promises hope, change, and revolution, McCain and UnAbel promises the same worn-out recipe for disaster: one cup too old, two cups too white, and a pinch of curmudgeonliness cooked for five-and-a-half years in a North Vietnamese torture camp.

Senator Obama can break free from this madness. He is the “change we can believe in”, the revolution we have been waiting for, the radical departure from mediocrity in the white house and in America. Yet still, the McBane–of-our-existence supporters point out, quite racistly, that there is nothing novel about DaBomba. Let me first point out that Obama, unlike McRain-on-the-Democrat-parade, is black. Let me secondly point out Obama’s tenacious loyalty—even after twenty-three years of Jeremiah Wright denouncing the United States with statements such as “God Damn America!”, Senator Barack-and-roll still refused to denounce his long-time mentor and pastor. But ultimately, not even Rush Limbaugh can criticize Obama’s loyalty to Mr. Wright—after all, not only Obama, but every woman in the nation wants to stay loyal to Mr. Wright—Are not all women searching for Mr. Wright? Still, this issue seems to be of little importance; after all, Jeremiah was only a bullfrog. But most importantly, while other presidential candidates promise and have promised the same, worn-out policies, Baracket Scientist has promised politics avant-garde—Obama is going where no politician has ever gone, promising to raise taxes, increase government spending, negotiate with terrorists, and promote further governmental control of the economy. These are policies no Democrat has ever proposed. This is the change we can believe in.

May 8, 2008

A Humble Opinion

Luke Olson

It is a melancholy fact to walk through our sovereign nation that has so triumphantly raised the banner of acceptance and cultural homogeneity and continue to see, whether overt or subtle, the proliferation of prejudicial hatred. The spirit of our governmental and social democracy is tried every time society clings to vestigial taboos founded in antiquated forms of morality that further polarize interest groups that are too few in number to successfully parry the attacks of the overbearing majority. Mankind is forever evolving, adapting with time, and while we have undeniably reached an enlightened plateau, we would be fools to pleasantly look back on the abyss from which we have drawn ourselves, rather than vigilantly look forward with watchful eye to the mountain we have yet to climb. If we complacently resign ourselves to our present social tolerance we are doing an injustice not only to those who fought against such revulsion, but also to those who still intrepidly carry the banner.

What modernity has recognized so brilliantly is that morality is not predicated on social taboo. Oftentimes, the line between morality and taboo is so delicately smeared that it becomes an undifferentiated grey. This misunderstanding is surely the most perilous error in our world! Society preaches a curriculum of propriety and decorum, and its innoculation is intended to produce charming, refined and educated young men and women who can subtly and elegantly transition into society. And certainly, a man shaped by propriety and decorum will never produce anything tasteless, nor make a disagreeable neighbor, but this innoculation simultaneously destroys the distinctive beauty of his voice. Without his voice, without his poetry, his pen is seized by law and his mind is seized by common sense! We ask why it is so rare that the torrent of genius so rarely pours forth from our astonished souls. It is because on either bed resides the cool, respectable gentlemen in his summer cottage that would be washed away, so he has become skilled in averting future dangers by damming and digging channels. Each man is preordained by nature, not to conform itself to widely held societal decorum, but to cry out to man and to the world his own verse.

Great care, however, must be taken to guard against an upheaval of this propriety and a negligent plunge into the opposing polarity. Our societal revolution bears the volatile stigma of “tolerance,” but if this is the banner we pursue, then we are merely accomplishing the same end as the restrictive Victorian society that preceded us through different means. Tolerance is merely a euphemism for apathy, and if this apathy is pursued to its extremity, then while every man may cry his own verse unto the world, it is a verse lost amidst a cacophony of disordered voices all screaming at the same time. It is a verse with no meaning.

No, the aspiration to which we strive is paradoxical - it is concentration without elimination, both a new world and the old world made explicit. Each man is fashioned to transcend societal norms, to pierce the woven lattice constructed by the minds of deceived seniority. But simultaneously, these intolerable men must be delicately spun into an intertwined and unprejudiced society, a new society founded on the failure of the old! We must not exile the unbearable, or permit the permissible, but tolerate the intolerable!

The most eminent example of this modern success is the homosexual movement. Asking homosexuals, as the Church continues to do, to kindly cease pursuing their natural end is like telling Mozart to kindly remove the strings from his 7th symphony; it destroys the piece. Much like an orchestra, society should operate as a seamless whole composed of varying parts. A great symphony is composed neither of one instrument playing a melody, nor an entire orchestra playing whatever it so pleases. So too our society functions as many varying constituent parts intertwining harmoniously to create one symphonic piece. Credit should be given to the homosexual movement for continuing to battle against this deluge of societal weakness, and in helping to foster a culture of acceptance.

This exhortation, however, by no means, represents an attack on the Church or its rites. In fact, the Church has so delicately fostered and maintained a spirit of acceptance in spite of man’s caprice. Without an anchor, man would be cast to the perilous winds, blowing aimlessly amidst a deluge of passion. The Church has given man prudence, and zeal without prudence is like a boat adrift.

However, we would be remiss to believe that all social taboos have been eradicated. It seems to me that prejudicial hatred based on race, religion and sexual orientation still run rampant in our society, although the voices have grown quieter. There still exist certain fringe groups, although smaller in number and much greater in fear, that lack a voice in our society, and there is no greater injustice to a man than this, to paralyze his voice through fear and stricture. The grievances of homosexuals have been passed to more peripheral interest groups, namely what I refer to as pansexuality. The repression of our voice, no matter how small, remains a tainted mark of unequivocal shame on our society that supposedly claims unyielding acceptance within the bounds of law.

Prior to the homosexual movement, homosexuality was viewed as a disordered presentation of man’s love, that it was not only different, but unnatural. But with persistent assiduity it has been shown that homosexuality is simply an alternate manifestation of man’s love, that man’s love cannot be confined to preconceived societal standards. If man’s love cannot be bound to a heterosexual relationship, then I see no convincing reason that it should be imprisoned to a single species.

I understand that this proposal will be received principally with shock and appalling disgust, but that should only give further credence to the legitimacy of our grievance, as it is the same reaction that was held by society towards homosexuality, divorce and adultery. I understand many will consider these practices savage and unnatural, but are these not the same allegations once declared against homosexuals?

It may be argued that a sexual relationship with a member of another species is abusive, as the law states. But if this were so, would it not also be abusive to domesticate animals, forcing them into docility? Animals will often display a developed affection for particular people, and display their affection through body language. The law does not consider a heterosexual or homosexual relationship abusive if both parties express affection for each other, why should an inter-special relationship be any different?

It may also be argued that love cannot be shared between two beings of categorically different intellectual capacities, or more importantly, lack of communication. Is love not founded on enriching and symbiotic communication, some might claim? However, are we satisfied to conclude that all communication is vocal? Is language not the crown of a long development of a primordial gesticular language? Did human beings not point and grunt before they spoke? For it is surely preposterous to believe that upon man's evolution from the chimpanzee, we simultaneously learned to speak. These primordial human beings also reproduced to propogate the species, and therefore must have shared a loving relationship without words. Words cannot express the look of a woman across a crowded room, nor the gentle caress of a lover's hand. Neither kissing nor sex involve vocal communication, and they are the ultimate expressions of love. In fact, researchers at UCLA have claimed that only 7% of human communication is expressed through words, while the rest is communicated through tone of voice and body language. Why is it, then, so preposterous to propose an inter-special relationship that lacks vocal communication?

I hope that this proposal will not be liable to the least objection, and it is certainly not my intention to reverse the success of the homosexual efforts by equating our movement with theirs. I profess that I have a deep personal interest vested in this endeavor, because I have borne this insufferable stigma marked by social shame, as my anonymity displays. However, my motive is not confined to mere personal interest or the interest of my brethren, but for the public good of humanity. When we are united in each other we become more than ourselves, functioning beyond the capacity of our individual faculties, and the symphonic rhythm of our spirit mellifluously illuminates the pattern subtly emblazoned in nature. Without an unyielding tolerance of the intolerable, this rhythm is disrupted and humanity is left maimed.

March 25, 2008

In Praise of Prostitution

Bratz™ and the Western Tradition
Nick Olson

Eight-year-old Susie Simmons has had enough of Barbies. “I used to look up to her,” she said, “until I realized she’s just not very stylish.”

Much to the chagrin her overbearing, puritanical mother, Susie has traded in her ambitions of becoming a doctor/lawyer/astrophysicist/Olympic gymnast for a different set of dreams.

“Now I want to be a prostitute, just like Lilee!” Susie says, proudly displaying her liberally dressed Bratz™ doll. “She’s just so urban chic!” Susie squealed.

But the proliferation of Bratz™dolls across the country has priggish mothers across the country squealing in a slightly different tone. “Since they were first released to the public in the summer of 2001, they’ve done nothing but venerate the sex industry to the young ladies of this country,” wailed Elizabeth Williams. “That my children and your children are being taught to emulate prostitutes is abominable.”

Leading cultural analysts disagree. “The success of these dolls marks a great victory for women everywhere,” Dr. Starshyne Churchill contends, with the authority of her Ph.D. in Cultural Harmony. “From dolls to movies to accessories, the prosperity of these dolls evinces the desire of even toddlers to participate in their own sexual revolution. Now our daughters can open themselves up to an even greater level of sexual freedom.”

“How can Barbie or other dolls serve as my rolemodel?” Susie asks. “She’s only been though one divorce. What does she know of life experience?”

Susie’s mother still disagrees. “By our own volition, our children are being transformed into prostitutes,” she says, grimacing at Lilee’s inflated lips, midriff-flaunting tank top, immoderate makeup, miniskirt, fishnet stockings, and precocious bosoms.

What Ms. Williams and Mrs. Simmons fail to realize is that prostitution holds a long lasting tradition of not only societal importance, but also cultural esteem. Can La Traviata, Verdi’s greatest opera, be imagined without Violetta’s heroic prostitution? Is Les Miserables conceivable without Hugo’s whorish heroine, Fantine? Is Raskolnikov’s redemption in Crime and Punishment even imaginable without Dostoyevsky’s meek mistress, Sonya Marmeladova? No, nor is much of history conceivable without our matriarchal strumpets. How would General Joseph Hooker have faired in the American Civil War without the carnal consolation of his courtesans? Could you even be here to make objections were it not for the sacrifices of long-forgotten concubines who gave birth to your ancestors? Of course not. Could the book of Joshua be written without its harlot-heroine, Rahab? Do not even the gospels proclaim the glory of prostitution through Mary Magdalene?

Bearing this heroic tradition, Bratz™ dolls continue to circulate, encouraging our daughters to consummate their dreams in the example of Cloe, Jade, Sasha, Yasmin, Lilee and others.

“With Lilee’s help, I can finally become the prostitute MTV has always told me to be!” Susie chirps. Despite her mother’s protests, rest assured that Susie will be serving the common good in no time.

March 19, 2008

Damn You, France!

On the Cultural Necessity of Toast
Luke Olson

Some men appreciate a fine double-malt scotch, others revel in intelligent conversation, while some prefer brilliant mammary glands. I, however, am an unparalleled advocate of toast. Whether moist and covered in melted butter, crisp and slathered with mayonnaise or even withered and charred blacker than Bill Cosby’s...burnt Jell-O, toast has warranted an aggrandized position in our society that has too long escaped our proverbial scouring eye. Often ignored for it’s simple makeup and secondary role in traditional breakfasts around the world, toast has understandingly adopted a role of secondary importance, allowing other flashier breakfast selections that could hardly be deemed “refreshingly scintillating” or “playfully articulate” to assume primary importance.

Why have I, like toast, decided to shed my congenial tolerance of the widespread societal blindness to this ruinous upheaval of customary breakfast selections? Put simply: the French. The perpetuating animosity between our two countries has ballooned in the last century, and despite our concern with economic efficiency, global diplomacy and infrastructural security, the French have only constricted their grip on the throats of our national identity.

What is the pandemic atrocity of which I speak? None other than French toast. Because we sought to supplement toast with less brilliant breakfast selections like bacon, yogurt and eggs, the French have surreptitiously robbed our breakfast identity by simply adding cinnamon. Is that all we are? Can we allow governments around the world to believe that France is simply America plus sugar? How will we reply to Kim Jong-Il on the eve of nuclear holocaust when he reprimands Americans for their lack of flavor? What hope does global diplomacy have to endure that venomous stigma?

Admirably, General Mills presciently foresaw this cultural apocalypse and released Cinnamon Toast Crunch, but it was too little, too late. The French had already audaciously anaesthetized America under the auspices of our inattentiveness. Sound odd? That’s because the French stole alliteration too.

Toast is only the next in line of a long history of concessions to the French. Is there anything French about French fries? Do the French even eat French fries? No and no. Yet they pompously twirl their emasculated moustaches as they watch their feeble culture pervade an American dietary staple. What type of mustard do 69% of American households purchase? French’s. As is showcased by Notre Dame, they can’t even speak English properly, yet they insist on the superiority of their poorly formed English. Moreover, can anyone deny that the Eiffel Tower is any more than a transparent attempt to create a larger and more elaborate phallus than the Washington Monument? Could anyone truly believe that any Frenchmen in any age could possibly be better endowed than George Washington? Tourists, who have made the Eiffel Tower the most popular monument in the world, sure do.

While we have quenched our thirst for French libel by launching claims of cowardice and hypocrisy, the French have furtively taken from us all that we hold dear. The name of our fearless first president will be forever stained, a happy meal will never again be truly happy and no man will ever fully appreciate hairy women.

The French have stolen our food and our masculinity for too long. From this point forth, French fries shall be referred to as Francophobic fries, Notre Dame shall be respelled Noter Daim, alliteration will be used whenever possible, the name Frank shall be phased from the English language and French phrases like “laissez-faire” and “joie de vivre” will be relentlessly butchered. Tomorrow morning, when you sit down to the breakfast table, don’t reach for a strip of bacon or a bowl of cereal. Simply satisfy yourself with a fresh piece of whole-wheat toast, perhaps even rye or sourdough. Don’t stain its purity by topping it with eggs or jam. Accept toast for what it is – not French.

March 17, 2008

Save Money, Drive More

Solving the Twin Problems of Global Warming and Social Security
Dylan Key

Around 60 years ago, after several years of hard fighting, protecting freedom across the globe in the conflict known as World War II, our grandfathers returned home to the United States. Once reunited with their wives and sweethearts, they had one desire, to get it on. 9 months later, the deluge began, as babies (who, believe it or not are the consequences of such wanton sexuality) began to appear in deliver rooms across our nation. These babies are, of course, the “Baby Boomers”.

Now those same babies are old wrinkly and ready to retire. Luckily, good old President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in yet another example of his prescient leadership and courage, developed the Social Security program, to maintain adequate life styles for these great old Americans. Social Security is funded by the workers of America, money which will in turn be paid to us when we retire.

However, social security has not had to deal yet with the retirement of such a large number of workers. Most pundits are in agreement in saying that Social Security could quite possibly collapse under the weight of a large new enrollment of Baby Boomers, and that the taxes from the remaining work force will not be able to sustain Social Security.

Another great problem facing our country is the threat of Global Warming. Global Warming, a product of the factories and industry of white big company conservative pigs, is about to wreck havoc on our world’s ecosystem. The rise in temperature of sea waters, caused by the increased reflection of sun rays that are unable to escape the doomsday net of Greenhouse gases (which come from those same old ignorant conservatives), will drastically effect life as we know it.

Believe it or not, I have a solution. These two problems, both of which are hindering our natural progression to a Hegelian model of intellectual fulfillment, must be turned against each other. See, Global Warming will cause the Polar Ice Caps to melt, which will increase sea levels. Low lying areas throughout the world to flood. Retiring Baby Boomers prefer, above all things, to move to Florida, which is precisely one of those low-lying areas that will be decimated by Global Warming induced flooding. This flooding will eliminate substantial amounts of retirees, which will remove the strain on Social Security, and allow our hard-earned dollars to be saved for our own retirement.

So, tomorrow, steal the keys to your conservative neighbors' SUV and crank that engine. You’ll be saving U.S. taxpayers dollars.

Vulgarity

The Consummation of Indignation
Nick Olson

Sheer outrage. Sheer, unparalleled outrage. Today will forever herald the capitulation of courtesy and the victory of vulgarity. Though some day the world may be saved, though future victories may come, though Bush will be overthrown and though even the rainforests may some day be replanted, the heinous atrocity committed today will forever remain a blemish on the character of the human people. The deed effected on this infamous date will forever pollute our nature; even in memory, our children will bear this stinging stigma with the full retribution of remorse.

Though I fear the foulness of such a deed may poison my mind and my readers’ minds even in recollection, though it stains my fingers as I type, justice demands such sacrifices that such deeds be exposed that they may be convicted and recognized as the pinnacle of perversion.

While I was today at Starbucks picking up my regular Chai Tea Latte with a triple shot of liberal cynicism, the barista managed to utter words so obscene and abominable as would make Rush Limbaugh cringe.

As he superciliously placed my drink down for me to pick up, with a jeering smile, he uttered the words, “Good morning, sir!”

Traumatized, appalled, I sacrificed my latte and threw it in his face. When the manager came over, I demanded that the brute resign immediately, and then proceeded to escape that den of depravity.

Never have I heard such desecration of modern values. In one sentence, the fiend had managed to forge a triune vulgarity that offended my every sensibility. Though even now I gag at the memory, modernity implores me to vivisect the utterance, that others may recognize the wickedness of this abomination.

The first word the reprobate thrust upon my ears was “good.” And what a word to begin with!—in a single word, the villain had imposed upon me an objective morality, encompassing every conservative vulgarity: that of sexual restriction, including a homosexual anathema, that of the suspension of the right to choose, whether that be abortion, drug abuse, murder, suicide, incest, or rape, that of all moral imposition! In a single utterance, the beast had managed to violate every sensibility of every modern person. But he did not stop his obscenity there.

The second word the barbarian forced upon this world was “morning.” After offending every personal truth, this man proceeded to narrow-mindedly exclude three-quarters of the world. Was it morning in China, oh barista? How about in Africa? How did this racist, uneducated bigot manage to squeeze in even more imprecation? Undoubtedly this lesser demon is a product of The Demon and his administration; indeed, the education system has collapsed under Bush. As a result, our country is now brimming with atrocities such as this monster. But even those two strokes were not enough for him; no, he continued his profanity.

“Sir”—with a mockingly facetious respect, the wretch capped off his crime by imposing upon me sexual strictures. All my past hopes that man had ascended beyond his naivetĂ© were crushed as I was personally attacked and caged within a conservative gender role. With a single, crushing word, the barista doomed me to years of therapy and sexual exploration in order to re-determine who I am. Thus his triune obscenity was complete, and he simply stood there grinning like Nero over his inflamed Rome.

Friends and colleagues, I am a man of hope. I know that one day the world will grow beyond such visceral ignorance. But search yourselves today, that we may save the world from one less casualty. The next victim of moral, temporal, and sexual imposition may be your loved ones! I exhort all man now, liberate yourself from any and all moral, temporal, and sexual strictures! Embrace freedom!

Perhaps I overreact. Perhaps the barista was actually acknowledging our dismal state of affairs and had actually said “good mourning.” In which case, I applaud our barista and encourage all others to join in his mourning for our sad, sad state, which may never escape from its moral and sexual enslavement.