The Semi-True Adventures of Lar

The Bitch Slap Jesus Weight Loss Plan

2009-11-09T10:14:00.003-05:00

Recently the doc said I needed to lose weight. It sucks because exercise is boring and eating is fun. I like to have my cake and eat it too. On the couch.

So, using my exercise bike, I started workin' out. (Leaving off the G makes sweating while going nowhere sound much cooler.) Immediately, I developed a deep respect for hamsters. Those guys work out for its own sake. They don't get bored or lazy. They run in that wheel and just don't care. If they ever get a hold of steroids, they're taking over. Or joining the Yankees.

To spice things up in the workout room, I started watching Netflix. Adding an element of couch potato to the routine did the trick! I've lost 20 pounds so far. Gnaw on that, hamster bitches!

I considered selling the rights to my success story and calling it The Netflix Weight Loss Plan. I dreamed of being a Netflix spokesmodel, like that dude Jared for Subway. I know I could do better. Jared? Please. Promoting weight-loss by advertising a place to eat defeats the purpose.

But my dreams faded quickly. Even with Netflix, exercise got boring, and I had to spice things up again. So I got a heavy punching bag. I stand in as one for my wife and I wondered what she enjoyed about it so much.

On the same day I got the bag, the Netflix elf delivered The Passion of The Christ: a movie of torture porn for people who want to censor porn. Hostel for holy rollers. Watching it you would think all Christ did his whole life was get his ass kicked. I could have sworn he said some things about peace and love, but the movie conveniently ignores that, just like most Christians!

So while I'm watching the movie and hitting the bag, I have a sickening revelation: if there is a hell, I'm definitely going. Not for being an atheist or that misunderstanding with the old lady, the cucumber and the duct tape. No, I'm going to hell for simulating punching out Jesus.

I'm ducking and weaving like Mike Tyson's arthritic albino brother and when I hit the bag, the son of God screams in pain on the TV. Left jab! Jesus cries, "Ow!" Right cross! Jesus screams, "Arrgh!" Then Satan cackles, "Get him a body bag!"

Suppose I'm wrong about atheism and when I die, I'm called to account for all my sins. Good thing we have eternity. What will be my excuse on Judgment Day? I'm going to stick with a winner, the "It's the way God made me" defense.

Your honor, I mean, God, look, I'm sorry I kicked your son's ass in a virtual way, but it's not my fault. You see God, it's the way You made me. I'm descended from Italians. All those ancient Roman dudes who whipped Jesus as part of your martyrdom publicity stunt? I'm related to them! It's in my DNA to bitch slap the son of God. Put a dog near a bone, a cat near a bird, Rush Limbaugh near some painkillers (or a pie) and what do you expect? Nature, nature that You created I might add, takes its course.

Really, God. If you think about this objectively, it's your own fault. Put an Italian in the vicinity of Christ, Christ is gonna get beat. Now where's my 27 virgins?

Wish me luck!

Speaking of all this, isn't having the Vatican in Italy like having the Pearl Harbor memorial in Japan? While you're at it, why not give Iraqi civilians a Dick Cheney bobble-head doll?

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

The Flea Market Curse: Karma in Action

2009-10-26T15:25:00.001-04:00

Karma knows no mercy.

Like any force of nature, there is no reasoning with it. Karma acts upon you and you can't fight it or make it let up any more than you can beg gravity to cut you a break when you're about to fall on your ass.

Many times I've witnessed karmic punishment bearing down on people, and even though they fully deserve it, a tiny part of my soft heart feels sorry for them. I would make a horrible cop. "You say this is the first time you've ever done drugs? Well, okay then, but next time, I mean it, you're going to be in big trouble!"

I began this rambling meditation on karma while I was sitting at a flea market, failing to rid myself of my junk, wondering what I had done to deserve such mind-crushing boredom. I didn't care how much money I made, all I wanted was to move the stuff on to someone else and delay its ultimate destiny in a landfill, helping pollute our planet.

The whole flea market experience was painful. Preparing my wares for sale was a total drag. I had to pack everything up neatly, load it into the car then unload it onto the grass. Then I had to sit there and wait. And wait. I suppose I could have just left the junk there, but that would be irresponsible. I had created the demand, I wanted to complete the cycle and feed back into the supply.

After several hours of wasting a beautiful day, barely anything sold, and then it was time to pack up all the crap, stuff it in the car and unload it back into my house where it takes up room, doing nothing to this very moment.

Personified karma was laughing in my face! "You wanted this stuff, sucka! Here you go! Enjoy! Take more! Now you can't get rid of it! Mwaa ha ha!" Karma is apparently passive-aggressive and sounds vaguely like a gangsta rapper.

But I meant no harm! Did I really deserve karma's wrath just because I went through a Pez-dispenser collection phase? Or thought a Fitness Flyer really was a deal too good to be true? Or was impressed with the many uses of the Snuggie? Those damn infomercial people seemed so happy, I had to join in. Yet the happiness wore off quickly and all I want now is to get rid of these things, but no one wants them! So they take up space and linger. Woe to me!

I wonder if there would be any environmental problems if we were all damned by The Flea Market Curse.

The good news is, we are. The bad news is we live like we aren't. Most people throw stuff in the trash and never question how it miraculously vanishes. Meanwhile, a landfill nearby is reaching capacity, polluting their drinking water, sending back karmic retribution in a chain of events so obscure no one could possibly trace them all. Then when our water and/or land is polluted we cry, "Why has god (or fate) done this to us?" We never dare to consider blaming ourselves, even in part. None dare call it karma.

The Flea Market Curse teaches us to think in reverse. Want to stop hazardous input? Prevent output. Want to make people buy less junk? Forbid them to throw out what they buy. Want people to use less water? Let their drainage run only once a week. Want people to use less gas? Reroute exhaust pipes into the car. Want them to stop eating so much? Sew their buttholes shut. And so on.

Too extreme? Maybe, but it's all food for thought. Better we brainstorm now rather than later, because no one escapes karma.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

The Lifeboat-less Cruise Ship (a Climate Change fable)

2009-10-15T10:50:00.003-04:00

Today, October 15, 2009 is Blog Action Day 2009. The topic is Climate Change. My entry follows.

Suppose you're on a luxury cruise ship (with no lifeboats) a thousand miles from anywhere.

While you're sipping your martini and sunbathing, an announcement blares over the loudspeaker. "This is your captain speaking. We've got a leak in the ship. We're all going to drown unless we get to the bottom deck and start hauling out the water as fast as it comes in. We need everyone's help!"

Being a sane, smart, non-suicidal person, you race to help, screaming for everyone else to do the same. On the way, you pass a batch of people still sunbathing. "Didn't you hear the captain?" you ask, liberally sprinkling your question with profanities too vile for this family-friendly blog.

They laugh at you. "That captain is full of crap. This ship isn't sinking."

What would you do? You could call them more vile profanities, but they are essential to your survival, so you'd want to use every manner of persuasion to get their help. You could kick them overboard so the ship had less to hold up, but that would waste time, which, according to the captain, is running out.

That's the challenge of Climate Change as allegory. Let's extract the meaning.

The captain represents the expert scientists who tell everyone there is a problem. You (starring as yourself) being sane, smart and non-suicidal, conclude the captain is an expert and knows what he's talking about. After all, you trust him to pilot the ship while you sleep, get drunk, watch bad dinner theater and marinate your privates in a hot tub alongside complete strangers and their privates. You're living every day with a trust that the skipper knows his stuff. It would be absurd to suddenly doubt his ability to judge the vessel's seaworthiness.

The arrogant deniers in the story represent, well, arrogant deniers.

I know, I know. We should respect others' opinions, but science isn't a question of preference or taste. Acknowledging Climate Change is a matter of everyone believing the experts that they rely on for everything else in their lives (scientists) from car safety to medicine to food production to whether or not a container labeled "microwave-safe" really is, on and on and on.

Can we please give scientists priority on matters of science?

Back in the day, I read science magazines a lot. I still do, though not as much. Back then (and now) all the science magazines spoke about global warming as a fact. The popular news didn't speak of it a peep. That changed when Al Gore hit the scene with An Inconvenient Truth and raised the alarm on Climate Change. Suddenly all the political (non-scientist) opponents of Mr. Gore, who have never ever discussed science in any depth, are speaking like Doctorates of Meteorology, claiming with absolute certainty that Climate Change is a hoax. I believe their dislike (or jealousy) of Al Gore has clouded their judgment.

This is what is so terrifying about Climate Change. We need everyone's participation to reverse, slow or mitigate its effects, but some people just can't stand the fact that Al Gore was the messenger. That's one psychological breakdown of Climate Change denial, but there are alternate explanations.

For example, the denial might be rooted in a disconnection with the earth and a lack of understanding of its connectedness. It's hard for short-sighted people who have never poked their heads beyond the confines of their own asses to worry about Climate Change. So what if an iceberg melts? They say. It doesn't affect my water supply. Who cares if honeybees die? I can always just go the store and get food.

Wouldn't it be great if someone wrote a book about this Earth-ignorant psychosis and titled it Where Did This Come From?

Whatever the reason for the denial, we need to overpower it. We all must appreciate the planet's fragility and act to protect it. Sadly, chucking deniers off the planet isn't possible, and we could use their help confronting global warming meaningfully.

Deniers, if Climate Change doesn't (at least to your perception) directly affect you now, it will. Look at it this way: if the planet floods and the atmosphere cooks, you won't be able to claim the moon landing was a hoax, or that Obama was born in Kenya, or that putting profit above health is a splendid idea, or hate liberal tree-huggers like me. You won't be able to do jack, because we'll all be dead. So can't we agree on this ONE thing, please? You can still hate me, just PLEASE stop denying Climate Change and work toward eliminating it with what you eat, what you drive and who you vote for.

That might go down in history as the most bizarre sales pitch ever, but in keeping with our nautical theme, I say "any port in a storm" because we need "all hands on deck."

A cruise ship without lifeboats may seem strange or contrived for the point of the fable, but I disagree. It's a perfect description for our one and only planet.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Obama Haters Going To War Over Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-11T10:27:00.005-04:00

I can't remember the exact quote or who said it, but it invoked Zen along these lines: don't let praise go to your head and don't let criticism get you too uptight.

That's the attitude I always bring to awards announcements, whether I'm in the running or just observing. It doesn't matter if it’s the Emmys, the Grammys, the Oscars, the Pulitzer, the Nobel peace prize, or awards at my day job. I find I always come away from the winner announcements with the exact same three feelings.

There's always someone I'm happy for, that I feel was rightly recognized.
There's always someone I feel was neglected.
There's always someone I feel completely undeserving who did win, causing my mind to be involuntarily filled with disturbing visions of the winner performing unholy sex acts upon the judging committee to secure victory.

With these pre-programmed reactions in place, news of Obama's Nobel peace prize victory moved me only slightly. I was glad his efforts at peace were recognized, as I would be for anyone, but I must confess my formidable eyebrows arched a bit at the idea of something called a "peace prize" being awarded to someone who is waging war. I also haven't forgotten that Henry Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize in 1973. Yes, he negotiated a cease-fire, but he also oversaw campaigns of murder in South America.

Back to Obama. I'm glad the win recognizes that he has achieved something simply by not being a flaming asshole like President Cheney and Figurehead Bush. I'm glad the award calls a global B.S. on their macho-swagger cliché: wherein men talk tough but dodge service, lead from the rear, mock those who serve, and whine when other countries won't help their war games.

My personal goal is to do what little I can to move humanity away from war, which is why I voted for Obama. Unfortunately, as much as he has spoken of peace, I haven't seen much action. Dude's barely been in office a year and things can't happen overnight, so I'll give him time, but after nearly a decade of chickenhawks, my patience is thin.

So awards don't affect me much, but what does move me to unrestrained laughter is the predictable-as-the-sunrise rage of the Obama-haters. I especially like when they are so rabid their hate signals get crossed. For example, they claim the award means nothing while simultaneously being outraged that Obama doesn't deserve it.

Here's an experiment. Next time someone rants about what a joke it is that Obama won the Nobel, ask that person who won it last year. Chances are, they'll have no idea. If they do, ask them if that person deserved it. Who knew that all this time, Obama-haters were also experts on Nobel history? Who knew they had such in-depth authoritative opinions on who it is awarded to, why it is awarded and what it means? What a strange coincidence!

Face it haters, you hate Obama. If the dude found a penny on the sidewalk, you'd be pissed. If he stepped on a dog turd, you'd claim it was sent by God to punish him.

Obama-haters, I hear your outcry about Obama's Nobel win. I just wish you had the same rabid reaction when Bush let Osama bin Laden escape and when Cheney handed his mercenary buddies your tax money to kill Iraqi civilians.

As mad as you are about Obama's peace prize, I wish you were at least that mad about war.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Nazis Always Think They're Fighting the Nazis (or, It's a slippery slope from free prostate exams to mandatory gas chambers)

2009-09-29T10:16:00.001-04:00

Say what you want about President Obama, but he has done one thing very well. He has altered our national discussion. The big question of his term is: how to improve health care? What a refreshing change from the big question of the Bush years: how can we funnel even more money to the rich? Change has come! Instead of screwing up the entire planet, we've graduated to screwing ourselves.

Apparently change upsets a lot of people. This past summer, the usual round of breaking news (it's hot, it's really hot, it's not that hot) was completely pushed aside by footage from town hall meetings and demonstrations. Americans turned out in large numbers to let their opinions about Obama and his healthcare plan be known. This made for some disturbing video clips. (Like this, this, and this.)

Before you get discouraged by this ugliness, look on the bright side. The mayhem at the town halls proves we have at least a partly-functioning democracy. People are free to stand up in public and present views opposed to our country's leaders, opposed to the nation's majority and even opposed to any possible reality.

It's that last group I want to focus on, that cluster of people who see a national health care program as the sole intermediate step between where America is now and late-1930's Nazi Germany. If how a country makes a seamless transition from free prostate exams to mandatory gas chambers is a mystery to you, chances are you're sane. Or, according to supporters of the thesis, you've been duped.

Human history sadly never lacks stories of genocide, but for some reason the Nazi reign sticks in the American mind. Can a brother get an update? Nazis are so old-school. They've been replaced by Commies, then Russian Commies, then Warlords, then Terrorists. Official enemies come and go, but America's favorite bad guy remains the Nazis.

Maybe it's due to the perplexing question of how Nazi Germany came to exist at all. How did it happen? How did a country famous for something as harmless as beer and ridiculous as lederhosen become the most murderous, destructive force the world has ever seen not counting Wal-Mart?

I think the Obama-is-evil crazies provide the answer. See, everything happens for a reason, even nutty people showing up in public. Whackos have their uses, I guess.

Let me explain. What cracks me up, in a we're-all-doomed-so-laugh-or-you'll-cry kind of way, is that the people who scream Nazi the loudest, who call people Nazis the most, are also the people who act most similar to the Nazis, or are at least the most ready to become American neo-Nazis. Let's call them Americanazis and compare.

The original Nazis believed without question the fact-free ravings of a leader with access to major media, perpetual rage, and dubious sanity. Americanazis do too (Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh). The original Nazis believed the big lie: Jews were taking over, and if you didn't see evidence of it, it's because they were so skilled at hiding their schemes. The Americanazis believe Obama's healthcare plan and his every action (talking to schoolkids, planting a garden, playing basketball, etc.) are secret plans of evil and if it seems to your observation to be otherwise, that's because he is so skilled at hiding his nefariousness. Nazis were told they were under attack and they believed it (as explained by Goering in his famous quote on how to start a war). Americanazis are told they are oppressed and under attack, and they believe it as well. Reference the ludicrous War on Christmas and the perpetual warnings against liberals, education, the media, political correctness, as well as many other dastardly abstract nouns.

So maybe all of that can be overlooked, but what makes Americanazis prime candidates as Nazi re-enactors is their disturbing sexual attraction to firearms. That completes the Nazi package: crazy leaders, gullibility, anger, paranoia and guns.

How did Nazi Germany arise? There were some key angry cult-leaders stoking a bunch of scared and willing-to-put-anger-before-thought believers. Before long, people are committing horrible evil acts because they are convinced they are doing so against horrible evil people.

Nazis always think they're fighting the Nazis. It's the eternal wisdom of "whoever smelt it dealt it" scaled to address the psychoses of the terrified, gullible, angry, armed, hate-prone demographic.

Nazis always think they're fighting the Nazis. Prove me wrong. When you fail, you know what to call me.

UPDATE: Mere seconds before I posted this, I ran across this disturbing story: Right-Wing Conference Tells Activists To Get Their Guns Ready For ‘Bloody Battle’ With Obama The Nazi (link) which neatly proves my point. The Winner of the "Most Likely To Be The Next Nazis" award is... the gang accusing others of being Nazis.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

How Patrick Swayze Gave My Life Focus

2009-09-15T11:26:00.002-04:00

A long time ago, an ad for a video tape rental store (remember those?) was promoting their recent releases. "We now have Roadhouse," the store clerk teased. An eager customer asked, "Is that the one with Patrick Swayze bustin' heads and breakin' hearts?"

I forget the rest of the ad, but one phrase resonated in my soul.

Bustin' heads and breakin' hearts.
Bustin' heads and breakin' hearts.
Hell yeah!
Bustin' heads and breakin' hearts!

I found that phrase a brilliant combination of cheese, bravado and romance. Not unlike myself.

Ever since then, "bustin' heads and breakin' hearts" has been my motto, my life mission summed up in a few words, and as you well know from hours of careful study, my number one "activity" in my Facebook profile.

I'm not sure if absorbing ad copy by some anonymous writer about a movie he was in counts as a tribute to the late Mr. Swayze, but it's all I've got to give.

So rest in peace, dancin' dude. Thanks for changing my life forever. I never went in for your more popular (girly) work. The rest of the world can keep Dirty Dancin'. Baby can stay in the corner for all I care. Roadhouse was more my speed. It had fights and hot chicks and well, I can't remember much else, but really, minus the fights, what else do I need in a movie?

Oh yeah, and I liked Red Dawn because I always hoped it would happen in real life. Back in the 80s I eagerly waited for the Russians to attack. I figured if they did, school would probably get cancelled and any day away from school was a good day. Wolverines!

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Loving Music as Opposed to Stalking It

2009-09-10T10:16:00.001-04:00

I never used to care much about pop songs being used in commercials. The band wrote the song, so if they wanted to use it to sell cars or toilet paper or booze, that was none of my business. But my heart's been broken lately so I'm reconsidering my hands-off approach.

This change was driven by a relationship that hit a rough patch, involving me and a song by The Chemical Brothers. In Galvanize, an electronic beat blends with Middle Eastern ululating, string instruments and hip-hop lyrics. It's a perfect example of the positive things that our shrinking world's meshing cultures and vanishing borders have to offer. The lyrics, too, are all about people coming together. Brilliant!

Imagine my horror when I saw my beloved tune playing soundtrack to Budweiser TV commercials over and over and over. Now when I hear this transcendent song, the expanding thoughts it triggers compete with the Budweiser beer logo. Ugh. (Video here.)

Another similar case: I was recently forced by the obligations of marriage to see the heinously unfunny movie, I Love You, Man. This film would have been more aptly titled Field Study of Douche Bags, but never mind the crap flick. What really hurt was that the two main characters had this annoying obsession with the band Rush.

So of course, there were several filler scenes of the douche duo characters showcasing their Rush-fandom via air instruments and whacky vocal noises as part of their bromance. Look at him frantically mime that drum solo! Haha! He got so into it, he fell over! That's really funny! He fell!

All I could think was, thank heavens I no longer listen to Rush with the devotion I once did. Because that movie would have absolutely killed a few of my favorite Rush tunes. Good memories associated with those songs would forever clash in my memory with insipid scenes of this crappy film.

The examples go on. Recently, The Black Eyed Peas wonderful song, I Gotta Feeling was promoting CBS' new shows. (Video.) I even seem to recall years ago that Jethro Tull's Locomotive Breath was used to promote car sales (who is the genius marketer who came up with that?) I'm sure everyone has their own example of a sell-out that broke their heart.

A sell-out? How judgmental! Who the hell are we?

Is it really fair to accuse musicians we like of "selling out" when they use their creations to make money? It is their work of art and it is their right to do what they want with it, even if we think they are defacing and cheapening something beautiful.

We don't own those songs. We simply love them. To think we own them because we love them, that's the mentality of a stalker.

One possible solution to this heartbreak is to turn off the offending media when your song is being besmirched, but as anyone who spends a few seconds in the USA knows, exposing yourself to culture means exposing yourself to ads. Kurt Vonnegut even felt they were one and the same. There is little to no escape from ads, even when you do make an effort to tune out.

We can't change the situation, so let's try a new attitude. Think of tunes not as your possessions, but as living things. You know that bit of needlepoint wisdom? If you love something set it free, if it doesn't come back that must mean you smell? I mean, if it doesn't come back it never was yours?

It's time to think of songs like that. Think of them like children, friends, family. Living things. Sometimes they make choices you don't like. Sometimes they go into sales instead of medicine, sometimes they work as strippers instead of teachers, sometimes they vote Republican instead of for their own interests. You're sad because they're not pursuing what you wanted, but that's when you need to remind yourself, you don’t own them, you simply love them.

One of the most touching moments of my life was when I asked my mother to proofread a letter to the local paper where I expressed my pro-choice views on abortion. Being generally of the opposite view, she took a deep breath after fixing each sentence for grammar alone, not content. She seemed to be steeling herself against the fact that her son was becoming his own man. In that moment, I felt a bit of freedom. It was a brief event, but huge in retrospect. Thanks, Mom!

So it must be with songs. I'll always love the Chemical Brothers' Galvanize. I won't always love the places it goes or who it hangs out with or what it does, but it will always have a home in my heart.

Thinking this way brings me peace, so I must be on the right track.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Fart Euphemisms in Movie Titles

2009-09-01T10:43:00.001-04:00

Of course I'm immature, but I don't think this is entirely my fault. It's not like I went looking for a bunch of movie titles that sound like coded descriptions of breaking wind. These just whooshed out, so don't accuse me of being childish because whoever smelt it dealt it. I mean, whoever accuses loses. Consider the evidence:

Top movie titles that sound like descriptions of a fart

The Phantom Menace (IMDB) Aw, dude, who let loose the phantom menace?
The Last Airbender (IMDB) No more corn dogs, dammit. That's the last airbender!
The Happening (IMDB) Why all the incense? I had a happening.
K-19: The Widowmaker (IMDB) Clear the room! We got a K-19 on the loose!
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (IMDB) Uh oh. I smell a crouching tiger, hidden dragon.

Honorable Mentions

Something Wicked This Way Comes
Silent Running
Fast and Furious
The Fog
The Mist
What Lies Beneath
Gone with the Wind
Cast Away
Lethal Weapon
The Fifth Element
Baadasssss!

Some interesting patterns emerge. There are two films based on Stephen King stories (The Fog and The Mist). There are two films directed by M. Night Shyamalan (The Happening and The Last Airbender). Noise or signal? Coincidence or meaning?

Feel free to let loose in the comments section for any you feel I've missed. Thank you for your contribution to this important issue.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Guns are anti-Freedom and Blasphemy is Fun!

2009-08-14T11:36:00.019-04:00

So while there's all this discussion about Healthcare lately, I keep thinking about the man who brought his gun to the town hall meeting in New Hampshire where President Obama was speaking. (Story here.) Sure it was Mister Kookypants' right to carry an unconcealed weapon, but I'm not convinced he did so for any reason other than making a not-very-subtle threat. Like a staple Hollywood mobster, he was saying, "Sure would be a shame, you know, if someone got shot."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was his right. But that's not why he brought it. Does he take that gun, unconcealed, everywhere? To the supermarket? To funerals? To dance recitals and/or little league games for any kids in his life? To get his pedicure? For his dress fittings? I don't think so. Did he simply want attention? If so, why not wear a clown suit? That's your right, too.

No. It had to be a gun. It was an action of attempted intimidation and he serves as an excellent example, in the opposite direction of his intent. Instead of "I'm here to defend freedom," his message is, "If I can't get what I want via a fair election, I can still pop a cap in your ass."

This wanna-be gangsta illustrates the reality of gun-based freedom babble. Guns function not as protectors of democracy, the will of most people, but rather to empower a small minority to attempt intimidation and entertain fantasies of a violent coup when that minority is fairly out-voted.

In other words, and I know this is sacrilege in the USA, so I'm savoring the run-up to openly saying it: guns reveal themselves as tools to defeat freedom, not defend it.

Whoa! That felt good! I should blaspheme more.

Wait! Am I just being yet another blogger who says something outrageous and generalized (and therefore inaccurate) just to get attention? Wouldn't it depend on how the gun is wielded?

Like all things second amendment, in the abstract, that sounds right. In reality, when would you need a gun to defend freedom if you're in the majority in a country run on democracy? And if you're in the majority, how could a minority possibly gain power, except via guns? Other than an occasional individual shooting at an individual attacker, how have guns improved democracy and/or freedom?

Hint: They haven't.

UPDATE Tuesday August 18, 2009: Looks like the blatant hypocrisy of claiming to defend freedom by threatening the majority of the people's will is catching on. From the Associated Press: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest. (Link) Guys, threatening a man the majority of the people voted for isn't pro-freedom and it isn't democratic, it makes you at best a cog in the machinery of dictatorships, and at worst, a barbarian. In the vernacular, you're being assholes.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Empowerment beats Guilt! Five Steps From You to War is a Finalist in the YouTube Come Clean 4 Congo contest!

2009-07-23T13:30:00.030-04:00

Awesome! My video Five Steps from You to War is one of three finalists in the YouTube Come Clean 4 Congo contest. The prize is a trip to L.A. for a red carpet event featuring the videos during the Hollywood Film Festival. Go to this link (http://www.youtube.com/user/ENOUGHproject) click VOTE and give my video (the black & white one) a thumbs up. For extra credit, give the other two finalists a thumbs-down!

Obviously, I'm excited about playing a part in bringing awareness to this issue. Regular readers of this blog (I love all three of you!) will note that this subject is very similar to the plot of my novel, Where Did This Come From? http://tinyurl.com/wdtcf

On top of the importance of the issue, I'm also juiced about potential networking opportunities making the finals (and a victory!) may provide for my writing.

The three judges are Hollywood people not to be sneezed at: Ryan Gosling (Nominated for Academy Award for Half Nelson and also co-starred with Anthony Hopkins aka Hannibal Lecter in Fracture.) Then there is Sonya Walger (Penny Widmore from Lost, yo!) and Wim Wenders, who I am not too familiar with but he's directed at least a bazillion movies. Those three liked my video, and I'm honored just from that, but I'd like to tell them in person. That's where you come in.

So please go to the YouTube contest page (here's the link again: http://www.youtube.com/user/ENOUGHproject) click the VOTE button and give my video a green thumbs-up. Learn a bit about your cell phone's history and do me a favor I'll forever owe you one for! Please tell your friends. And tell your friends' friends. Tell your enemies, family and complete strangers! Mobilize your social networks! Thank you for your help. P.S. You are awesome!

Here's my director's statement about the video:

1. I wanted something using modern cell phone communication methods (text message shorthand and icons.)

2. I wanted something that showed five easy steps, so you can see the close connection between you and the war.

3. I wanted to stick with five so you can memorize them just by counting the fingers on your hand, which also conveniently holds your phone.

4. I was pleased that the explanation of the problem is described three times in three different ways in under 60 seconds.

5. The call to action: It's of utmost importance when advocating any kind of consumer activism to not simply end with guilt. In the industrialized world, we are all consumers and have no choice about it. You should first bring attention to the problem, that will activate people's concern, and then say, if you're angry about this, here's what you can do. Empowerment is more effective than guilt.

Come Clean 4 Congo! Text "congopledge" to ACTION (228466) to find out more.

Thanks for your support. I'll give your regards to Hollywood!

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Bruno ist maschterpeizen du satiren! (Translated from German: Bruno is a masterpiece of satire!)

2009-07-13T11:07:00.015-04:00

Saw Bruno this weekend. Loved it for many reasons. Primarily because it was outrageous. I also like the blend of scripted scenes and absurd interviews. You can never quite tell what's real and what's staged. Like Fox News.

I recently went on a liberal-leaning website (The Huffington Post) and found myself laughing at all the comments complaining about how they feel Bruno reinforces gay stereotypes. They were in fact, reinforcing the stereotype that liberals are a bunch of humorless analysts who can't cease promoting their agenda for even one second, even to laugh at an obvious over-the-top parody from someone clearly on their side.

The fact is that Bruno is a masterpiece of satire. All topics are fair game, but more than homophobia, the movie hits the phenomenon of celebrity: its insincerity, the self-destructive (and destructive to others) lust for it, its obliviousness to hypocrisy.

Cohen's satire smokes The Onion's groin-kick obviousness or The Simpson's spoon-feeding subversion. Why? Because Bruno shows by example. Witness Paula Abdul live as she talks about human dignity while sitting on the back of a Mexican. Note the consultants advising Bruno on the hottest charity to get into so as to become famous-er. Feel your jaw drop as you watch show-biz parents willing to pimp their children out at any cost.

This behind-the-scenes look at the Fame Industry is eye-opening enough to be almost documentary-worthy.

With every work of satire comes complaints that boiled to their essence are concerns that people are going to take the work seriously and incorporate it into their world-view. The role of knee-jerk is currently being played by GLAAD, who despite their admirable agenda, are pushing the complaint that Bruno reinforces gay stereotypes.

So surely GLAAD must be violently opposed to the Bravo network, where every other show features gay people as fashion-designers, interior-designers or hair-designers. No such luck. A quick (and admittedly lazy) search on their site finds an essay titled Where We Are on TV: 2007 - 2008 that calls Bravo "The gold standard of LGBT representation on reality shows." (Link.)

But I'm not here to pick an internet brawl with an organization I mostly admire. I'm here to say that Bruno is a great film, funny and clever and ridiculous all at once. It even takes a few shots at homophobia, as Bruno visits gay-converters, taunts the cruel "God Hates Fags" people, and pulls the ultimate prank on a proudly straight crowd expecting a cage fight.

The real target of Bruno was fame and those who reach for it.

Now for some humility. The Huffington Post's Guide to Blogging instructs bloggers to "write on top of the news." That is, in order to get more site hits, you should hitch your blog to a rising news story, which I just did. So, despite my critiques, I suppose I'm not immune from fame-lust either. Bruno was right!

Ach mein suchen butockenkopf! (Translated from the German: I'm such a butt head!)

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

How many times do you have to have gay sex before you're officially gay? (or, Change isn't always good, but that's no reason to be a judgmental jerk)

2009-07-06T14:53:00.027-04:00

There are just way too many clichés designed to discourage experimentation with your life, your identity and your habits.

When you're young, whatever you feel like doing is not really what you feel like doing. It's described by others as just a phase. When you're older, anytime you try something new, it's a trend. Then you're going through teenage rebellion. Then you're finding yourself. When you're older still, you're not trying to enjoy life's infinite variety, you're going through a mid-life crisis.

Can't someone just do something new because they feel like it and not have it categorized like a mental illness? Isn't it okay if something is a passing phase, why are the above clichés packed with such scornful judgment?

I mean really, can't a dude wear a dress once in a while just to try it? Does that make him a transvestite? Surely there must be a limit on how many times you can have gay sex and still not be officially gay. Please say it's more than ten times so I don't have to change my Facebook profile… to Republican.

Where is the line between a passing phase and your identity? Isn't any experimentation a part of your identity anyway?

I've never understood the mocking of our past selves for harmless preferences or even noble goals. How many times have you experienced some variant of this conversation: Oh my gosh, did we really used to X? (Where X equals any previous activity now discarded: wear legwarmers, listen to [a band fallen from fame], use gallons of hairspray, aspire to be vegan, try to live off the land, etc.)

Why is a phase sometimes viewed with such reverent awe (see Piccasso's Blue Period) and other times viewed with such mocking disdain (see glam metal)?

One of the rare clichés I know of that supports change is the dogmatic, and therefore wrong statement, "All change is good." That one is best debunked visually, as seen below.

[Cartoon first published in QECE #3 page 3.]

This rant got started because I wanted to kick off my new website logo and blog name with an explanation, but there's not much to say except that I want to have more fun. I didn't like the old stuffy design, and I wanted a more snazzy title. I wanted the posts to be shorter and to gravitate away from gravitas and drift toward more fun.

Then I ditched the idea of posting about the rebranding (as it's called in the dot biz) because the last thing the world needs is a blog entry talking about the blog itself. Whoops.

So, is calling my blog The Semi-True Adventures of Lar just a passing phase? Almost certainly. Is it part of who I am? Almost definitely.

Clichés usually annoy me, because they're levers pulled by the reflexive and lazy mind, but there are some I can live with, like this: Variety is the spice of life, suckas.

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Rare Find! A Funny Michael Jackson joke!

2009-07-03T07:23:00.005-04:00

I don't like to make jokes when people die, I mean, death is serious and sad. Frankly, it sucks. Except maybe when it comes to Hitler. Anyway, I couldn't help but trying to come up with a joke about MJ's passing.

Imagine my surprise when, upon sharing this joke with friends, a joke I wrote, the response was not the usual why-am-I-your-friend-again? look, they actually laughed! You like me! You really like me! Or at least tolerate me!

In fact, most friends were so impressed they insisted that I put this joke on my blog as a way of stamping my authorship on it, so when you hear it on Bill Maher, The Daily Show, or Late Nite with Comedian X, you'll know I'm not lying when I say I wrote it. I'm copyrightin' this bad-boy, gonna be rich soon.

Okay. Okay. So you made up a funny joke. Shut up and tell it.

Sorry, voice in my head. Here goes. Enjoy.

Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett both arrived at the pearly gates at the same time.

St. Peter said to Farrah: "So what did you do in your time on earth?"

Farrah said, "On TV, I played an angel."

St. Peter said, "You may enter. We always welcome those who portray the kingdom of heaven."

St. Peter turned to Michael Jackson and said, "So what did you do in your time on earth?"

Michael Jackson said, "Well, I slept with a lot of children."

St. Peter said, "You may enter. We always welcome Catholic priests."

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

Glad to see democracy in Iran, is it authentic? American ambivalence. btw, What does it mean to lose moral authority?

2009-06-21T20:12:00.021-04:00

So there's some trouble after the Iranian election. Silly democratic amateurs! They should learn from us Americans. We've been rocking democracy for 200-plus years, so we know how to do it right.

Psst! Bush v. Gore? Oops. Psst! The Franken-Coleman race? Double oops.

Okay! Okay! So maybe we Americans aren't that great at democracy, but at least we like to think we are, and it's the thought that counts, right? Damn, don't we get any credit just for believing?

We get so proud when we see democracy flourish in other countries, voters smiling for the cameras and showing their stained fingers! Hey wait a minute… why are they staining the middle finger? We love to see foreign democracies, until we realize the guy voted in hates us as much as the guy voted out.

Call me cynical, call me paranoid... and you'd be right, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong when I have a sinking feeling that I've already read the spoilers for made-for-TV Iran election drama.

It just strikes me as extremely convenient that a country the USA and most Western nations officially dislike, a nation they simply cannot stop from pursuing nuclear power (and nuclear weapons) is plunged into chaos during an election.

What reason do I have to doubt the official version? It's plausible enough. Maybe most Iranians are embarrassed that their face to the world, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is portraying them like ignorant, war-hungry morons. I'm sure there was someone like that as our president once.

Or maybe, just maybe, the current strife in Iran is just another example in a long line of clandestine US and CIA manipulation. (Reference Chile, Iran 1953, Cuba, Grenada, and on...)

A recent pundit cliché these days is, America has lost its moral authority. I don't know if they know what they mean by that, I suspect they've been infected by the meme, and it seems weighty and profound. I'll try to be more articulate. What it means when America loses its moral authority is that it's hard to believe that America inspires democracy instead of just inspiring its appearance, while actually subverting it.

The USA wanted regime change in Iran. Then after an election in Iran, the incumbent claims victory and opposition candidates cry foul. Wow! That sure was a lucky break for the USA!

Cynics everywhere are placing bets on which alternate ending we're going to watch: will the US pull a "Bay of Pigs" and not be there for the puppet? Or will they execute (pun?) a "Pinochet in Chile" and be there for the victor even if he proves to be a war criminal? Opposition candidates in Iran must know (or were told) they will be treated as heroes if they remove the thorn from the West's collective toe.

The CIA can't lose here. Installing a puppet isn't even essential. Chaos is a sufficient end. If you can whip up enough protest, whether founded (as when Bush "won" Florida by the Supreme Court ending a recount) or unfounded (Obama's non-existent birth certificate that actually does exist) you can attempt to deprive the official winner of legitimacy, and fill their term with late night monologue jokes, talk radio rants and extremely un-witty spam about how they didn't really win.

On the Iran situation, President Obama has even tried some philosophical flanking by stating that his response to the crisis is muted because he doesn't want anyone to think the USA is meddling. Now why would we think that?

So what's a concerned American to do? Twitter your ideas for subversion furiously or hope the anti-USA guy wins if that's what Iranians want? Wait a sec, if the Iranian leader is pro-America isn't that good for me since I'm an American? Should I care about genuine elections in Iran, or just care about what's good for me? Are we witnessing democracy in action? Or more stoking by the CIA?

Is it real? Is it fake? I don't know. I allow myself the luxury of no commitment to any belief. Ahhhh… very nice.

Here's what I'm sure of: the photos and news coming from Iran are very disturbing, what appears to be police attacking peaceful demonstrations. If they don't knock that off, I'm going to be putting aside my skepticism for some good down-home righteousness. I hope you find peace Iran, inside and with the Western governments.

I'd like for my country to get along with Iran, and I'd like their leader to be someone Iranians want elected. Lastly, I'd like a snack that has the great taste of a potato chip with the same nutritional value as broccoli.

5ewbud3t4m

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

The Emergence That Didn't Emerge when Atlas Shrugged (or, If Atlas Shrugged, his job would get outsourced.)

2009-06-08T10:33:00.014-04:00

Since people tend to think in labels, most of them are surprised that I, being labeled a liberal (meaning I put caring about others at a high priority) have read and enjoyed books by Ayn Rand, herself being labeled conservative (meaning she puts caring about oneself at a high priority.) This fact often makes my fellow labeled-liberals gag.

Yes, I've read and enjoyed Ms. Rand's books, including Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. I think I may have even tried her book The Virtue of Selfishness, but I bailed before completion. Call me virtuous.

For those who don't know squat about Ayn Rand, she's the patron saint of free market, zero taxes, individualist philosophy. When I say she's the patron saint, I mean that in its fullest sense. She's just as extreme and just as wrong in many of her assessments of the world as the people that worship her.

There is some intelligence in her endless warnings against too much forced behavior on behalf of society. I know giving her one sliver of credit will make some of my fellow liberals have a stroke, but I've always felt it best to extract wisdom wherever you can.

As an example, her book The Fountainhead is moving to any struggling artist. It's about an architect who is visionary and uncompromising. As a result, he is blacklisted, having to fight his way into the profession with heroic determination. Leaving aside Rand's inaccurate formula that "the masses" are always wrong and the individual always right, I enjoyed this book as simply an underdog story. It's inspiring for an author in search of an agent with the vision to release the genius of his blockbuster novel. That author would be me, by the way, in case that analogy blew past ya.

So that's my analysis of Ayn Rand: as an artistic philosophy, somewhat inspiring. As a social-political-economic philosophy, I'm unmoved.

The Ayn Rand novel I want to talk about most is Atlas Shrugged because I think its misguided views are backing a lot of modern opinion. In the book, the richest, most powerful men in the world have had enough of being taxed so they shut down their companies and thereby shut down the world. The whole planet plunges into chaos until the titans return.

This explains the title. It's a spin on the myth. Atlas gets sick of carrying around the world, of people freeloading off his effort. So he dumps the planet and everyone suffers.

The plot is laughable. Why? Because what would happen today if a worker walked off the job and said "I'm not working for you anymore?" The instant this earth-bound Atlas mentioned he might "shrug," he'd be notified that his services were no longer required and he was being replaced (for one-tenth the price) by a desperate immigrant escaping some war-torn country.

Of course, if the exiting person was a CEO he would probably reap a huge bonus on his way out, but ultimately the world wouldn't stop, it wouldn't even blink.

In short, if Atlas shrugged, his job would get outsourced. He'd be lucky if he could find even an asteroid to carry around afterwards.

Well what if an Atlas-like CEO actually owned the company and decided to take it elsewhere? Sure that would damage a lot of people's financial lives, but that illustrates that the existence of all-powerful individuals makes the world unsafe for other individuals. Ultimately, people have no choice but to band together (via society, or unions, or taxes) to prevent simply living at the whim of the wealthy (reference the at-will employee.)

I never really gave much thought to the magnitude of Ms. Rand's wrongness until I was working at a place that desperately needed a union, which I voted for, and which was enacted. We could all have been the fiercest individuals in the world, but the very existence of those who control everything would have stopped us from pursuing our own individual goals. An individual cannot possibly make a reasonable request against a company that is treating them unfairly.

I'm tempted to call Ms. Rand naïve, but I will refrain because she does not have the benefit (as we do) of several decades of watching her ideas being applied.

The root of the error in Ms. Rand's worldview and its modern descendants is that they rely on a miracle of emergence. The core belief is that by encouraging everyone to grab everything they can with no regard for anyone else, somehow the world will become the best possible place for everyone. It's like the dying (dead?) idea of "trickle-down" economics: give to the rich as much as you possibly can and then somehow, this will result in more money for the poor.

The real tragedy of Ayn Rand is that she doesn't seem to notice that by pursuing a world where the rich are in full control and don't owe the society that enabled them to prosper a darn thing, an individual's rights end up stifled. By advocating boundless individualism, she denies opportunity to other individuals who may be born to poorer families.

So there is an emergent result from her philosophy, just not the kind she wanted.

Okay, this is all getting complex and grey, and that's where Ayn Rand's extreme philosophy (where any extreme philosophy) breaks down: when it leaves the realm of contrived fiction and enters the real world.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Rock beats Scissors beats Paper beats Rock Update: Screen beats Paper beats Screen.

2009-05-26T07:15:00.010-04:00

Paper has been getting it's ass kicked lately. The conventional wisdom is that video screens are the death of paper. If you have an electronic device, you just download the info and you're done, there's (supposedly) no need to harm any trees.

As usual here in the offices of LarryNocella.com, I'd like to take a step back and review the "conventional wisdom" from an unusual angle. I find the screen vs. paper debate comparable to the Christmas tree debate.

I'm not referring to the perennial news stories about people spazzing because a Christmas tree isn't allowed on public property, causing them to lament the intolerant, especially at this time of year, since everyone is a Christian. I'm also not referring to the laughably manufactured War On Christmas™.

The Christmas tree debate that I think will shed some funky disco lights on the paper vs. screens discussion is about what kind of Christmas tree is better: a real one or a fake one made of plastic and metal.

Where I live, following Christmastime, you can count on finding defrocked Christmas trees tossed on the side of the road. It's annoying. What a waste to cut down a perfectly healthy tree for a short amount of time and then just chuck on the street where it withers away. Why didn't the person dispose of it properly, or even toss it into the woods?

This led me to be fully in favor of the fake (plastic and metal) Christmas tree. You can reuse it and you don't need to cut down any trees.

My view was changed after reading a letter to the editor in a newspaper. Was paper calling to me? The letter (I can't remember the newspaper or I would note it) rocked my world. It made this point: "Real trees are better than fake ones. Eventually the fake one is going to a landfill. Real trees can be used for firewood or composted."

Now I know why Rush Limpballs is so angry all the time! It hurts to be wrong.

Real trees are better, environmentally-speaking. A real tree can be returned to the earth. Ultimately some amount or all of a fake tree goes to a landfill. With minimal effort, a real tree can return to the earth to feed more trees.

Now let's look at paper vs. screens.

At first glance, cell phones and eBook readers like the Amazon Kindle seem like environment-savers: you never have to cut down a single tree to make paper for books, magazines or newspapers ever again. What a blessing! Well, it would be if a combination of plastic, metal and assorted hazardous materials simply appeared out of the air and vanished once obsolete.

In theory you buy one electronic gadget and you're done for life. But that never happens. Microsoft or some other jerk organization that claims they don't have a monopoly but really does makes some upgrades and soon your device is so obsolete it simply won't work. You need to buy a new one. The old one may take a circuitous route through eBay, but ultimately it's landfill stuffing.

The takeaway: don't write paper off just yet. When assessing how good something is for the environment, we have to consider not only what it takes from the earth but how easily it can return. Real trees beat fake trees, paper beats screens easily, super-convenient cell phones are upset by their whipping boys, the phonebook.

So now that I've presented a case for paper, we can all acknowledge there is a lot of paper waste going on. It has been noted that electronic spam isn't just a nuisance, it's wasteful of energy that could go to powering millions of homes. I have to think paper spam is even more destructive. Every week I get a packet of flyers from the same old stores I don't go to.

Spam (paper or electronic) needs to be outlawed, but it will likely never be, because that would put people out of work. Maybe screens and paper should stop fighting and acknowledge they both can be part of the solution. Waste needs to stop all around.

The whole media delivery and receipt world needs to be re-thought. The idea of an electronic device is cool, but not if (as seems to happen) the device goes obsolete every five seconds. The cost of something should figure in how it's going to get back into the earth. You should be able to completely opt-out of spam paper mail, too.

Like that annoying true proverb, it sounds like a lot of challenges, but it's a lot of opportunity to treat our home right.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Blah-Vroom-Blah! versus Sympathy For the Teabaggers (or, Finding the Best Servants)

2009-05-13T10:51:00.012-04:00

Lately I've been making more of an effort to understand those I disagree with. I'm desperately seeking opinions different than mine instead of digesting the same old media that reinforces my thoughts. I already know what I think and while insecure in some ways, I don't need to constantly be told I'm right (just that I'm beautiful.)

I think of my opinions like a champion boxer who cannot retire. He stays on top only as long as he defeats all contenders, and he must face every challenger.

Results of my quest have been mixed.

I've tried to engage people on the internet, and by "engage" I mean call them morons and get called worse. Strangely, this has not led to the thoughtful exchange I had hoped for.

Fortunately, shortly after embarking on this venture, an opportunity arose. I refer to the recent Tea Bag Parties held on Tax Day.

Having taken part in demonstrations before (mostly on behalf of animal rights) I felt kinship with the teabaggers. I knew what they were up against, even though they had Astroturf backing. If you've never taken to the streets, let me review the weird obstacles that arise when partaking in a protest.

It's not as easy as it sounds. Sure, you stand there with a sign and/or march, but it's often boring (that's one challenge) the weather isn't always friendly, and you even might get nervous, as from stage fright or public speaking.

Then there's the taunting. Knuckleheads driving by are quick to execute what I call the blah-vroom-blah. They disagree with you (judging by their hand gestures) and they scream their discontent without ever slowing down as they whip past. What they yell is invariably lost to the wind, their vehicle's engine and the Doppler effect. Apparently, to some, an exchange of ideas is best handled like fast food: quick and lousy. Thanks to the net, protest taunting options are multiplied. Now you can mock the protestors in lots of new creative ways before, during, and forever after, in multimedia. (True confession: I did some mocking on Twitter.)

Of course, the biggest challenge following a demo is getting your message(s) into the mainstream media (MSM). Sadly, most analyses from the MSM were echoes of the same crap I heard following my animal rights adventures. Some cliches: What is the message? The message just isn't clear. They need a leader. They need a single voice. What are they protesting? What are they doing out there?

I've always felt that you need to be careful not to assess the value of a message based on the skill of the messenger at presenting it. Imagine a genius with a speech impediment. His presentation is incomprehensible, but his ideas are awesome.

Yet that poor genius would be mocked by the MSM because of the snotty way pundits of all stripes assess demonstrations. If the demo isn't executed in an easy-to-report fashion, with a ready-made single message and choreographed dance numbers, they whine. As if it's even possible to gather hundreds of people in one location and have them all sing the same tune with one voice.

The MSM has not learned or perhaps simply can't cover this important facet of America. News is made for single simple messages that fit into defined areas, but with America speaking so diversely, reporting usually falls short. Though it may be true that the protest is disorganized, we need to note that inadequate reporting methods may be a bigger part of the problem.

So let's listen to the teabaggers. They are angry about taxes, angry about bank bailouts, worried about how all Obama's spending will affect future generations. These are all legit concerns. I applaud them taking it to the streets. I like to think a big demo frightens would-be dictators.

Sadly, though, they don't, and that's where I part ways with the teabaggers. I understand they are concerned, but when the Bush-Cheney Criminal Cartel was selling out America for generations in ways financial, legal and moral, teabaggers did nothing. It was only when Fox News whipped them up about Obama that they mobilized. This is disappointing.

Obama's team has repeated endlessly that anyone making less than a quarter-mil per year will see a tax decrease. Yes, Obama is spending, but he has explained his method to pay for it: tax the rich, which the general teabagger seems to also oppose.

How odd! These rugged individualist types practically have a waking wet dream while talking about making their final hopeless stand against a much larger, much more well-armed foe (always the government or some arm thereof.) Yet the same people are always willing to live at the whim of the rich. I say tax the greedy bastards!

That's the teabagger paradox: they fight against their own interests, for free, on behalf of the rich who would steal their life savings and screw them and their families in a second. The best servant is a willing one.

So even with the impossibility of adequate media coverage, can a protest accomplish anything? Well sure, it shows that people are angry enough to get out in public. For that, I commend the teabaggers. As for their no-taxes-for-the-rich stance, I'm afraid when it comes to that, I'm just going to have to say they can suck my balls.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Liberals Coming to the Defense of Fox News?! (Reluctantly Admitting Maybe We're Not All Evil)

2009-05-04T09:41:00.008-04:00

I miss a good argument, where my core beliefs are challenged. The current Republican Party has no new ideas with which to move the country forward and that's extremely dangerous. To get good ideas, you need lots of them to compete for the top and borrow from each other. It's another example of the GOP paying lip-service to the concept of a free market. If the market's not rigged, they can't compete, not even in the marketplace of ideas.

Funny that the people always complaining that others are unpatriotic commit a kind of treason. By being short on any decent ideas, they are making the USA vulnerable. We'll end up with only one world instead of the best of both.

As a writer, I'm a big First Amendment fan, I love the clash of thoughts provided by free speech and I like Voltaire's quote: I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.

So it gives me a strange feeling as I am compelled to defend Fox News. The feeling is like finding a woman attractive, only to find out she's a male transvestite. Is this where I note that's the voice of experience or should I just leave that out?

As you likely know (or can easily guess) I think Fox News is a total joke. I honestly can't see any good coming from spending every second of airtime feeding on people's fears, but Fox certainly has the right to do so for fun and profit. I suppose I should also entertain the remote possibility that their reporters are sincere in their perpetual rage over superficial things and not just because there's always a market for anger reinforcement.

That said, I have to take issue with a criticism has been leveled against them by Media Matters, a group I respect as much as I disrespect Fox News. Media Matters always includes their sources with links and audio and video clips. They perform their own research projects and assemble data-heavy reports. They are top-notch journalists and analysts, and save me the time of logging every B.S. thing said by the Fox News team.

As much as I love Media Matters and their commentator, Eric Boehlert, I couldn't help but twinge when I read his article, Glenn Beck and the Rise of Fox News' militia media. (Link.) The column cites many situations in which Fox stokes the militia mentality, that anti-social behavior that presents itself as severely pro-freedom but always ends in a child-molesting micro-mini dictatorship. Boehlert notes that a man named Jim Adkisson shot and killed people in a church. Boehlert then writes this:

When investigators went to Adkisson's home in search of a motive, as well as evidence for the pending trial, they found copies of Savage's Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. They also came across what was supposed to have been Adkisson's suicide note: a handwritten, four-page manifesto explaining his murderous actions. The one-word answer for his deed? Hate. The three-word answer? He hated liberals.

That's the part that set off my liberalism, because it sounded exactly like agenda-driven accusations I've heard my whole life. Whenever someone goes crazy and kills people, the police search their home and find a number of things. Depending on what mailing lists you are on, you will find the cause of the murder. If a group is worried about music, they focus on the CDs with gothic lyrics (almost always Marilyn Manson.) If the group is active in alerting parents to videogame content, they will focus on the videogames found (almost always Grand Theft Auto.) In this case, Media Matters was focused on Fox News, so that was the source.

Now you could say the case of Adkisson is a bit different because in addition to finding Fox News reading material, there's the suicide note manifesto echoing that material's sentiments.

But the media focuses on action, not inaction. Meaning, we have to remember that there are millions of people who watch Fox but haven't shot people. (Gag. Millions?)

Sadly, yes. Millions of Fox News fans, despite being told that Liberals are evil, have enough human decency not to harm others. Millions of people, despite listening to vicious goth lyrics, have not gone on a shooting spree. Millions of video gaming kids (and pseudo-adults like myself) despite having access to Grand Theft Auto IV, have enough human decency not to run over several hookers, throw a grenade at a hot dog stand and then fly a helicopter into a river.

I think it says something. Despite all the hysteria about media, it might actually be much less potent than anyone believes. Millions and millions of people watch heinously violent stuff all the time. They - I should say we - We enjoy it. Yet the huge massive majority of us have never killed anyone in real life. Most of us are downright kind-hearted.

The common denominator between killers is not their media diet. The common denominator is closer to being access to guns, but even more common than that, to paraphrase Chris Rock: "Whatever happened to just being crazy?"

I believe Fox News is bad for America and humanity, because they keep people ignorant and prey on people's fears of a world always changing beyond their control. I cannot stress enough how I think Fox News is a negative influence, but I don't think it is correct to imply that they were a cause of this or any shooting. They were as much a part of Adkisson killing people as anything else in the rancid soup of his brain.

Fox News doesn't make people shoot people. Music doesn't make people shoot people. Videogames don't make people shoot people. Even guns don't make people shoot people. People shoot people because they're crazy and cruel and deranged.

In summary: Is Fox News responsible for the deaths of those people? No, but it does not immediately follow that Fox is in any way superior to a steaming pile of llama poop.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Thinking in keywords. Is the net making us horny people, as easy to spark as dry kindle in the Amazon under a kiln owned by Harry the potter?

2009-04-13T10:43:00.022-04:00

Recently, I was researching the effectiveness of ads for my novel, Where Did This Come From? on Google and Yahoo! I was looking into what phrases (known as keywords) were being used on those search engines that ultimately led people to this site.

That's when I came across the fact that the keyword used most often to find my site, by a large margin, was "horny people." Wow! The internet really does invade privacy. All this time I thought I was keeping that to myself! How do I clear my browser's history again?

Seriously, after I got done laughing, I had to find out what was going on. I'm not paying Google and Yahoo! to show my ads when people enter "horny people." Why would I? My novel is about the environment and consumerism, not boinking. So I went to Google, typed in "horny people" (for the first time, I swear) and clicked "Google Search." No, I did not click "I'm Feeling Lucky," Doctor Funnybone.

Bang! There was my site. (Image.) Talk about SEO (and by that, I mean a Search Engine Orgasm!) I was among in the organic listings, not the paid ads, about the fourth one down (it has since moved). It was the Holy Grail of placements! This was a location on the search results that paid ads cannot go. I was there for free, completely by accident. Awesome! Now if only horny people happened to be interested in purchasing an environmental-themed novel also available in eBook format including for the new Amazon Kindle!

What was going on? Apparently, Google had picked up my essay, "Apocalust now! Why are people so horny for Armageddon?" (Link.) and was leading the sexually frustrated to my blog. (You being the sole exception, of course.) As for capturing web traffic, this was good fortune. As for capturing people interested in purchasing my novel, not so lucky, but it was free, so ha ha funny funny, no harm done.

Right? Well sort of.

Let's put on our serious hats for moment (no, not Jimmy-hats, serious hats, thank you! Damn horny people!) This whole thing made me think about all the people trying to tell us the internet is bad, but never successfully articulating how. (See boring reading like the book Snark by David Denby and the article Is Google Making Us Stupid? The Atlantic, July-August 2008)

I'm here to pick up their slack. Unlike those weak critiques, I don't consider the danger I see as inevitable. It's not a doom we are powerless to stop. The net will only harm our thinking if people try to consciously write to achieve what happened to me by accident. Meaning, if people write (and editors edit) for keywords.

Mark Twain said the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter, it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.

If your motivation is not to communicate, but to score web traffic, you won't be looking for the right word based on what makes the most impact on the heart of the reader, but what the most popular keywords are.

Just as word processors (is that not the coldest term possible for writing software?) can check grammar and spelling and suggest synonyms, it will only be a matter of time (if it isn't here now in some form) before you can select your text and request your words be changed to synonyms that are more likely to be keywords. The meaning of your article wouldn't change, but the words would, so your site is more likely to fall into the organic listings.

For example, say you wrote a blog entry that contained the sentence: The chicken was burnt. Afterwards, you would run it through an Search Engine Optimizer (or this process would be Orwellianly automatic) and it changes your sentence to: The cock was hot.

Since porn is big on the net, the latter is much more likely to be listed organically, grabbing all the "hot cock" searches which are most certainly more numerous than "burnt chicken" searches. Sure, your communication is eviscerated, but who cares when you can get free advertising?

This situation reminds me of filmmakers raging against the process of colorizing. I think it was Woody Allen who noted that all the effort that went into making the movie appear correct in black and white was obliterated by the colorization process. Sure, the movie was now in color, but the loving devotion to make it beautiful was gone.

It could be the same if we let search engines dictate what words we choose. All the effort that went into unleashing the lighting would be reduced to the silent blink of the lightning bug. As Orwell pointed out in 1984, where words go, our thoughts follow.

Fortunately, we can control whether this dystopia arrives. To avoid it, we just need to keep writing from the heart, the horny people demographic be damned.

Allow me to give the last word to Rush (the band, not the blowhard) from their song, The Spirit of Radio. When commenting about the changes in the music world, the lyrics note new technology isn't good or bad. "It's really just a question of your honesty."

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Where Did This Come From? versus Where Is This Going?

2009-04-02T11:45:00.012-04:00

I’ve often thought of writing a sequel to Where Did This Come From? titled Where Is This Going? because it's hard to ask one without wondering the other. Both questions can be as spiritual or as concrete as you like. Spirituality being an individual thing, I'm going to talk about the concrete aspect, which will be a nice parallel to the theme of Where Did This Come From? That is, I will ask it primarily in reference to the things we buy.

When you first ask, "Where did this come from?" you learn that you really don't know. Every object around you has undergone several different processes before it arrived in your sphere. Then you start to wonder, well, I not only don't know where it came from but I don't really know where it's going once I throw it out, or after I'm gone. Will it pollute the world for the future? How do I get it back into the earth so future generations have something to use?

"Where is this going?" is a question partially answered, then abandoned by a few TV commercials a while ago. I refer to the ad that connected buying drugs to terrorism. The idea was that the money you spend on drugs ultimately funds terrorism, so don't buy drugs. Following that was a commercial linking buying a gas-guzzling car to terrorism. The idea there was that the money you spend on gas ultimately funds terrorism, so don't buy gas-guzzling cars.

Most people chose one side or the other, often claiming one link was correct and the other was wrong. Or more often, attacking the one without giving the other merit.

The interesting thing about the debate was that everybody was correct at the same time, just not to the degree that they thought they were. Yes, buying drugs leads to terrorism, yes buying gas leads to terrorism, but neither stop there. Buying a hoagie can lead to terrorism, buying shoes can lead to terrorism. Buying shoes and hoagies can also end up financing the Ulaanbaatar Society for Confused Ninjas as well.

It all comes down to free-flowing money. The instant cash leaves your hands, it's completely out of your control. You buy a sandwich at the local sandwich shop. Then the shop owner buys a car from the local lot, whose owner happens to be an as-yet-uncaught pedophile. Does this mean your money supports child molesters? Yes. Is it any fault of yours? No.

So what's the solution? Is there one? Should we just give up on boycotts? Should we bother to ask Where Is This Going?

We don't need to be paralyzed by our ignorance. Really, since when did being ignorant ever stop anyone?

You just need to consider what you're trying to accomplish and determine how direct the link is. For example, buying illegal drugs supports illegal activity only because drugs are illegal. It doesn't necessarily go to terrorism. Buying gas supports terrorism only in the case where the oil came from a company (Shell) or nation that sorta kinda sponsors terrorism but pretends not to (Saudi Arabia.) It's up to you determine how direct or indirect the linkage is. In cases of drugs and oil, it's there, but as stated, it's also there for hoagies and shoes.

In contrast, if you want to stop cruelty to animals, it's a sure bet that boycotting ham will lead to your goal.

Ultimately both ads were right, and ultimately both were wrong. Even if everyone stopped buying illegal drugs, even if everyone stopped buying oil, those who wanted to kill people for some agenda would find the money and they would find a way.

Leaving aside privacy concerns, it would be interesting if money could be tagged electronically and then you could see where it went. Sort of like WheresGeorge.com but on a much more detailed scale.

Just like with Where Did This Come From? we can't really know Where Is This Going? but we can still do our best to act responsibly.

Maybe it's best we don't know. You think you're mad now about the bottomless money pit that large banks have become? Imagine how angry you'd be if you actually knew where it all went!

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Want to Save the Economy? Send the Marines Shopping! (or, Debt is the Lube of the Working Class Hamster Wheel.)

2009-03-16T15:20:00.009-04:00

I'm so confused. I thought we were doing well.

After 9/11, those of us who were not in the military got our marching orders. We were told to go forth and shop, shop, shop, spend, spend, spend.(Link.) Keep going to Disney World, keep flying the airlines. Whatever you do, don't let this shocking, horrific and historic event cause you to change anything you do, just keep spending.

It was easy to be a hero back then. Patriotism was as simple as dropping a dime. All you had to do was finance an SUV with no money down, grab an extra case of Coors Light, or tip a little extra at the strip club. You would do those things, if you cared at all about freedom. If you didn't give Sindee that extra five-spot in her thong, well then, the terrorists win!

Such was the rallying cry. The little guy could help, too. It seemed incredible that we working class folk had a part to play in trickle down economics, but we did, and still do! We're supposed to keep going into debt so the rich folk have a desperate workforce always at the ready. Debt is the lube of the working class hamster wheel. Without debt, we working people would stop working. I know it's true because I read it on a bumper sticker: I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go.

So we pitched in, we spent until it hurt, just like we were told. We hated those terrorists so bad, we even spent money we didn't have until finally someone somewhere noticed a lot of bills were overdue, so they came calling, then people went bankrupt, then banks went bankrupt, and trickle down economics reversed itself. Instead of wealth trickling down, debt rained up.

Now everything is a mess. In the past, those with big shiny things were admired. It was common to say wow, look at the size of that person's house (or car, or trophy wife's breasts) they must be rich! Now we know that person isn't rich, they're in a lot of debt.

How did this happen? How could debt be our redemption immediately after 9/11 but our downfall a few years later?

Suddenly spending is a bad idea. Now President Obama is offering to hand out money so everyone can go into more debt and the spittle-producing media is screaming "socialist" with all the fury they can muster before the next infomercial about erectile dysfunction.

Of course it's a well-known fact that people who use the word "socialist" as an insult are the same people who have no idea what a socialist is.

For their benefit, I will explain. A socialist is someone who pools the wealth of society and distributes it to some other purpose. Hey, sounds a lot like the USA, regardless who is president! After all, we pay taxes, and that money gets pooled and then used for a lot of things like a road system, a mail system, an internet, fire fighters, police, and a military.

What? Our military is socialist?! I'm afraid so. Well then we should do away with our military as well as all those other things. After all, military equals socialist and socialist equals evil. So dump 'em, the friggen welfare queens.

Unless!

Think about it. As history shows, the problem wasn't spending, it was how much and who did it. We need professional spenders, an elite force of shopaholics, a bunch of trained individuals who follow orders and- That's it! We need to re-tool the military into the finest shopping force the world has ever seen!

Everyone wins! The military, being socialist, and therefore evil, is disbanded and rebranded as The Shopping Service. Armed with credit cards backed by taxpayer funds, they will deploy into local malls and spend precisely what is needed, when it is needed, as they are commanded, with a discipline we civvies could never muster.

We in the working class will be able to horde our money for our survival without being told we're unpatriotic. The former members of the U.S. military will no longer struggle with the impossible task of peacemaker in counties ravaged by civil war. Most importantly, the rich will get their profits! Bailouts will be a thing of the past. Socialism will no longer infect our government. Who will pay the credit card bills, you ask? Nobody! And by nobody I mean the U.S. working class taxpayer. Got a problem with that, you terrorist socialist?

You want to save the economy? Send the Marines shopping! Oorah!

As someone else once said about his own flawless plan, there is no doubt they will be greeted as liberators.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Poser Propheteering

2009-03-13T12:37:00.002-04:00

I was thinking of predictions recently, and everyone's tendency after making them to trumpet the ones they get right, and say a quiet whoops about the ones they get wrong. Apparently, the desire to be a prophet is strong in human nature. One thing that is definitely predictable is that people announce only their correct predictions.

So this being a blog, obviously I'm coming to you with evidence that I called something long before the rest of the world.

Note this story from the March 12, 2009 New York Times: Forget Britney; Media Outrage Hits Big Spenders By Brian Stelter. (Link.) It's an interesting article about how the paparazzi are not only chasing celebrities, but lately they've taken to chasing rich criminals with no connection to showbiz.

I knew it, dear reader. I knew it! The Prophecy of Lar has come true. For yea, I have foreseen and even advocated this trend.

Huh?

As you no doubt recall, since you've been a faithful reader since long before it was cool (okay, that would still be now, but let's assume you've been reading this blog for a while) I advocated the papa-z chasing the truly powerful over two years ago in February 2007. I refer to the timeless classic: Watching Hollywood like a hawk. Watching Washington like a blind duck. Preventing Vietnam War Part 3: Iran with Secret Weapon Paparazzi. (Link.)

So, what other predictions has Lar the Prophet made that came true?

Uh. Um. Ah. Well. Hm.

Bother me not, fool! For I must go now to meditate on my next vision!

Wow, a self-proclaimed prophet who, when pushed for more predictions, belches out some pomposity and runs for cover. Who could have foreseen that?

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available on Amazon. For more info, visit his website at www.LarryNocella.com.

Holding Every Book You Have Never Read in One Hand (or, The Kindle is Book Buying's Monolith Moment)

2009-03-03T11:51:00.009-05:00

Despite my natural tendency to question everything, some days I just want to believe the hype. Skepticism gets tiring in the land of relentless advertising, but enhances the thrill of discovery when something I think is going to suck ends up winning me over.

So I come to you preaching with the zeal of the newly converted: the recently released Amazon Kindle 2 is really cool.

If you don't know, the Kindle is an eBook reader, but much more importantly, it's a travelling book store, and that's where it scores book-buying's 2001 Monolith Moment, evolving the process a significant step. While not every book in the world is eBook-compatible yet, someday they will be. When that day comes, if you want, you can clear off your shelves, recycle every paper book you own, and keep just your book-reading device.

Obviously, being a semi-pro writer (heavier on the semi than on the pro) I'm very interested in how books are purchased, and how writing is marketed. However, unlike most of my writing colleagues, I'm not resistant to technology, believing it will be the end of good writing. I think mediums will always change, but they will always need writers to fill them. On the surface, eBooks sound bad. It sounds like books are going away, but they're not. Only their format is changing.

That's good news, because change is something the publishing world needs desperately. Before the internet, before print-on-demand self-publishing, books had to be filtered through the self-anointed priesthood of New York City literati and their hugely wasteful forecast-and-recycle model (they guess how many they are going to sell, or purposefully overestimate to build hype, and then recycle what doesn't sell.) That method is about as inefficient as you can get.

Environmentally speaking, forecast-and-recycle has been improved with the print-on-demand model, where printing technology allows a single book to be printed at a time, so only as many books as are wanted are printed.

The Kindle moves book-making even further: no books are printed at all. This is where the short-sighted residents of Status Quo go into full-blown panic mode. "The barbarians are crashing the gate!" They cry. As usual, that warning is code for, "Our elite little club is no longer elite! Anyone can get in!" As for me, I say rock on, democracy.

People in the supposed know have been bitching about how internet technology is making people dumber and meaner. One recent example of this hysteria is the perplexingly popular yet uninsightful article Is Google Making Us Stupid? from the The Atlantic. (Answer: No, but that article sure is.) Another is the book Snark, by David Denby, a book whining about superficial and anonymous commentary on websites. Denby's entire thesis is blown apart by the simple technique of moderated comments. Looks like someone didn't need Google to make him stupid. As for Google dumbing people down, I never heard of something so off base. Search engines help conquer ignorance of all and any kind. That's ALL they do. Ignorance that remains is the fault of the person housing it, not Google.

My point is, The Kindle is going to be good for book publishing and good for writing. When you can buy a book instantly wherever you are, that's good news for writers. With website and printing technology as is, anyone can publish anything. It's full-throttle democracy.

Now onto my specific Kindle experience. Just for kicks, I picked it up and purposefully did not read the manual, to see how easy it was to use. I poked around with the buttons and figured it out. In under five minutes I had successfully ordered a book I've had my eye on for a while: The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I had the entire book in what felt like a minute.

The Black Swan was a serendipitous choice for a first Kindle read. The book starts with a philosophical approach to one's own library, that your shelves should not be filled with books you have read, but with books you haven't. This way, you can easily reference what you don't know. Books you have read are used up, you've already soaked up what they have to offer. I laughed as I read this introduction, perfectly appropriate to me holding a tiny device that contained (in theory) every single book I have never read.

I've shared my praise and I've scoffed at the hysteria, but there are some solid disadvantages to the Kindle. While it's great for anti-clutter freaks like me, nothing beats the feeling of walking into a library or bookstore and just staring in awe at the physical manifestation of all the knowledge and stories unknown to me. That's gone with The Kindle. Also, if I love a paperback, I can hand it to someone and say "You've got to read this!" but I can't do the same with the Kindle, though I've been informed that some people are trading Kindles. That's too risky for me, but this seems like an easy fix. Likely all that's needed is to finesse the digital-rights management (DRM) of the book files.

Another Kindle disadvantage is long-term: if every book is digital, it would seem more susceptible to censorship by an oppressive government or their functional equal, jerk hackers. The Kindle also loses to print in the tactile world. Touch and smell are part of the experience of books and the printed page, but not so much that I can't live without it.

That sounds like a lot of negatives but ultimately, I knew the Kindle 2 was a winner when it passed the most important test of reading. Can it be read while, ahem, multi-tasking on the toilet?

Let me simply say yes it can, and leave it at that. Ebook reading has arrived.

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available on Amazon in print and Kindle eBook format. For more info, visit his website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

The Myth of the Modern Day Minuteman (or, Gunophiles let us all down, are they serious about a well-armed militia or are they just LARPing?)

2009-02-17T08:59:00.009-05:00

I recently came across an internet post where gun lovers were seriously complaining that President Obama is a threat to American freedom because he wants to take away people's guns. Without even considering whether this accusation is true or not, I have a bigger question for gunophiles: Where the hell were you guys over the last eight years?

Gunophiles always claim they are the thin voluntary line between tyranny and freedom, the noble defenders of life, liberty and property. Yet the Bush Crime Family stole their (and all of our) savings right out from under us and never once did the modern-day Minutemen rise up. The "well-organized militia" that the Second Amendment promises failed to self-organize in a miraculous display of social emergence.

Where were the gunophiles when Bush was allowing his goons to plunder the country? I'd sure like to know, because as things are, we're all (and for you breeders, your children and grandchildren are also) going to be working well past retirement to pay off Bush's debt.

As for defending our nation, the Second Amendment turned out to be as useful as Web 2.0, little more than a buzzword. The gunophiles themselves were as helpful as LARPers playing resistance fighters. If Obama does want to take away their guns, it seems he has good reason: dereliction of duty.

Picture this scene: a family is starving, they have no jobs, the water is polluted, they can’t buy food, they're about to be kicked out of their home. That's a scary and growing segment of America today, but gun-lovers feel everything is all right for now. After all, they still have their guns and therefore, we're still free. Free to eat as much bullet-stew as we like. Yum yum, freedom is delicious and just loaded with iron!

Now I often find myself in a disturbingly small minority when I express concern over arguments bolstered by scenes from fictional movies, but then again, this is Hollywood, excuse me, this is America, and fiction can do the job and frame history's lessons more concisely than recalling any event. That's part of the reason I write it.

So let me try my memory at one of my favorite scenes in the movie The Grapes of Wrath. It goes something like this: A bulldozer is about a run down a farm family's house. The farm owner stands before his home and prepares to shoot the bulldozer driver. Displaying unnatural calm, the driver explains: you can shoot me, but then the man from the local bank will just send someone else. Then I'll go shoot him, the farm-owner counters. Well then, the driver says, the guy who owns the national bank will replace him. Then I'll shoot him, too! The farm-owner insists. The driver is chill: but then the corporation that owns the banks will hire someone else. Finally the farm-owner yells in frustration as his house is destroyed, "Damn it, who do I shoot?"

Exactly.

The observation made plain in the scene, supported by gunophile inaction during Bush's criminal reign is: guns are not a guarantee of freedom at all. Guns may work for solving problems of immediate physical safety in extremely rare circumstances, but not problems of finance.

See, I mock our gun-loving fellow citizens because, well, like any wanna-be comedian I’m a bit of a jerk. In addition, gunophiles are an irresistible target because they often take themselves too seriously. However, I do agree with them on two points. If someone breaks into your home with an axe, intending to do you harm, it sure would be nice to have a pistol. No question.

If you are in the extreme minority that needs to hunt for subsistence, it would help to have a rifle, but that’s where I get off the gunophile shortbus, long before the final stop deep in the heart of Crazyville.

As the saying says, give someone a hammer and every problem looks like a nail. Give someone a gun and every problem looks like a five-year-old who didn't think it was loaded.

Where were the guns? Where were the gunophiles? Where was Revolution 2.0? Nowhere, and it's just as well. Guns would not have solved the problem. They don't solve systemic problems and are no guarantee of freedom. So, please gunophiles, if you really want to defend freedom, work on stopping corruption in the financial world. As the situation is now, we'll be wage slaves the rest of our lives even if we are free to own guns.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon in paperback and for the Amazon Kindle. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

ApocaLust Now! or, Why Are So Many People Horny for Armageddon? or, Do Bugs in a Rug Going Up a Vacuum Cleaner Believe The Rapture(TM) is at Hand?

2009-02-02T15:13:00.014-05:00

Why are so many people horny for Armageddon?

It doesn't matter how crazy your rationale is. If you claim that the world is going to end, people will believe it. If you're feeling especially randy, you can even name some specific and very near moment that humanity's doom will be sealed. Don’t worry when the time comes and goes and the end doesn’t arrive. Just revise your prophecy and the followers will be back, hungry for more of your apocalyptic visions.

All of that would be laughable except for the fact that people who are delusional are often short on humor. The other trait that always seems bundled with a willingness to believe in The End is a desire to make sure it happens. Human nature, ya gotta love it: people would rather go to oblivion rather than be proven wrong. I find it all a little scary. When someone is delusional and suicidal, that’s when we sane people get hurt.

It's a state I call ApocaLust. It's not just the belief that The End is coming, but also a desire to make sure it does, or at the very least, a joyful hope that the afflicted person witnesses it.

Chances are you brushed up against someone stricken with ApocaLust when it was at a fever pitch as the year 2000 loomed. Never mind that other human calendars (Jewish and Chinese) passed 2000 long ago. The obnoxious faithful knew all those zeros on the Gregorian calendar were going to snuff us out! So what happened? Squat.

Well, just because Y2K came to nothing doesn't mean you missed your chance! New Armageddons are always on their way! Recent chart-toppers are The Rapture(TM) and The Year 2012.

What’s up with 2012? Well, apparently that's as far as the Mayan calendar goes, and since an ancient, extinct human culture knows much more than we do, well, there simply can’t be a 2013. Imagine our misfortune! If only Staples stores had been invented then, the Mayans could have just ordered a 2013 calendar. Instead, now we’re all gonna die.

Another modern example of ApocaLust is The Rapture(TM). Our religious friends just can't wait for that day, when the chosen are called to heaven and the rest of us can finally get down to some real partying. The Rapture(TM) is big business. Someone even wrote some books about it. They're called the "Left Behind" books, which always make me think they have something to do the port side of a person's ass. But enough about Republicans, whenever I hear about The Rapture(TM) I’m tempted to put a trademark symbol after it because it just seems like a product. It's the same old religion but New! and Improved!

Another Rapture(TM) product is the commonly-seen bumper sticker: "In case of Rapture this car will be unmanned." It's not only arrogant, but also stupid. Arrogant for assuming they will be chosen by God and stupid because every car I see it on is a hard-top. Shouldn't they be driving convertibles? They're going to look like helium-filled inflatable sex dolls pinned against the inside roof of their car as it careens off the road and sits in a ditch for all eternity.

As with everything that involves us human animals, I'm convinced there is some sexual component to Armageddon. How else to explain why people keep going after it without consulting logic or reason? I believe the band Bad Religion concurs. Notice the lyrics to their ripping song, New Dark Ages: "Our kin will be immaculate ejaculate in space." Well said, BR.

That's got to be it. The End makes people horny. Armageddon is some kind of primal Spiritus Mundi archetype in our subconscious, a cosmic-sized male orgasm wherein the chosen spurt into the sky during The Big Finish. As with many things religious, the female perspective is neglected, because, well, it's confusing. And girls are icky.

I have a secret desire that The Rapture(TM) is some kind of pre-programmed harvest by people-eating aliens. They planted us here a while ago, and they’re going to zip on by (in the year 2012 for sure) and suck up all the people. The faithful will cheerfully go along, realizing only too late they are not in heaven, but they’re the main course. It makes me wonder, do bugs in a rug going up a vacuum cleaner believe The Rapture(TM) is at hand?

I can hear some of you out there now: Oh yeah? Why are you attacking religion, you damn liberal? What about all this concern for Global Warming? Isn't that an example of damn liberal ApocaLust?

A decent point. While liberals are just as susceptible to ApocaLust as anyone else, anyone who chooses to FIGHT global warming obviously isn't wishing for the end of the world. I've never heard of someone who WANTS global warming to arrive, believes it will, and sees it as something to be coaxed and rejoiced over when it arrives (note unavoidable male orgasm references). Most see it as something to be avoided, but there surely could be some misanthropes out there for whom this description fits. Like any mental illness, ApocaLust doesn't discriminate.

So what is it about people that makes them crave The End? Is it too much destination, not enough journey? Well don't stop believin' kids, the end of the world will be here someday.

That's why in my novel, Where Did This Come From? The native chief's wife, Yuala, notes that the world as we know it is a living thing, and all living things are born and die. Someday, even if we somehow muscle past the idiots who deny global warming, and survive those who want to bring about The End, the earth will die despite all our best efforts, should we ever bring them to bear. That doesn't mean we should ignore caring for our planet, it means we should be aware that she's fragile and temporary.

Or we can just keep jerking off, literally and metaphysically.

===
Larry Nocella is the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available on Amazon. For more info, visit his website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.