The 93 Prophet

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:22:00 +0000

Here's a little something that has been eating at me for no apparent good reason lately...

Now, I'm a Republican but even I admit that Georgie-boy is never going to win a contest as the best person we have ever put in the White House. Then again, either would his dad, Clinton, Carter, Ford, and in my opinion even Kennedy. So, since we now have another round of endless campaigning, speeches, phone calls begging for money, and scripted TV appearances coming up on us, I have started thinking about HOW exactly we end up with a moron like Georgie-boy. Or even better, how do we end up with any of the morons we put into public office? I cringe to think that what we have now is the absolute best we have to put into office. That thought is enough to bring up contemplation of immigration to Iran, Syria, or even France.

The only thing I can come up with is that we desperately need a "None of the Above" option (not a write-in blank, but simply a None of the Above) on the ballots. You see, if we had that, and after all the speeches, all the positioning, all the party-line bullshit was said and done and we still didn't feel that our available choices were CAPABLE of doing the job (or at least what they say), then guess what? We vote None of the Above and start the fucking process over until we DO find someone capable of doing the job.

I know many will be quick to point out all the difficulties such a thing would create such as never reaching a consensus and never electing anyone ever again, and I must point out that I never said I am presenting a perfect solution. But fuck! I am tired of feeling like all the election is going to be is a choice between the "lesser of two evils" rather than putting the right man or woman into the job who can actually do it.

Summer Time Blog Lag

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:43:00 +0000

Sorry I haven't been updating and providing more stuff for everyone to chew on over the last month or so, really it hasn't been intentional. I have been busting my ass in the backyard again.

But I really must say, we now have a nice large patio and gazebo that looks damn good. I will have to swipe a camera from somewhere and get a picture of it one of these days when it is not overcast and rainy here. Oh, I might wait until I get the five cubic yards of dirt out of my driveway and around the patio where it is supposed to be before I start taking pictures.

Needless to say, I have been a tad tired at the end of the day, and been starting the day after just enough coffee to get the crusties out of my eyes. Thus, the lag in the blog entries. But, that is all gonna change here shortly and I will be back in full force.

The Public Perception of a Kid

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:04:00 +0000

I just read today about an interview done by Vince McMahon of the WWE on the Today Show where he called Benoit a "monster." Now, since this is the second post I have done touching on pro wrestling, let me say right here that I personally stopped watching when Owen Hart died during a show after falling to the ring from the rafters of an arena due to either faulty training or less than professional rigging used for the stunt he was performing. As I said yesterday, I live in the 21st century not the 3rd, so the death of another person is not sport or entertainment to me, even if it is accidental.

Now, Mr. McMahon's statements about Benoit may appease the adults of the world, at least the ones watching the Today Show or reading newspapers. But, frankly, that is not the audience he ought to be talking to. I rather seriously doubt the majority of the audience that is sitting down each week to watch the Monday broadcast of the WWE flagship show "Raw," or attending live events, or ordering them on demand are sitting down and also watching the morning quasi-news programs like the Today Show. So basically, the interview was a public relations exercise to try and keep the parents of the kids from saying "No, you can't watch that" and blocking it forever from their televisions.

Like it or not professional wrestlers, the same as other celebrities and sports stars, in many cases hold more sway over their perspective audiences than anyone else in their lives. I don't mean that the celebrities are the ones that are telling them to do their homework or mow the grass, but in a broader sense they are influencing the opinions of those who admire them, and many times much more strongly than every day peers or parents. And this is truly where the trouble comes in when we are talking about the use, or abuse, of steroids.

As adults, we tend to rationalize it by a variety of different means. We tell ourselves that the people using the steroids are adults, and they know the risks. This being America after all, who are we to tell another person he or she cannot do something. We look at it and say things like it's not for us, but if they want to destroy their bodies and minds, that is their choice. Unfortunately, we tend to forget as adults just how influential celebrities can be because we are in large part already set in thought patterns and have a pretty clear idea of what is right and wrong for us.

Kids, on the other hand, are easily influenced even when they think they aren't being influenced. The fact that they see celebrities doing drugs, drinking and driving, getting thrown in jail only to serve a third of the time, sports stars doing steroids to improve their game and their incomes... There are many things that are capable of influencing kids, especially when they have been exposed to them for the entirety of their lives. I don't mean to say that a kid watches a half dozen wrestling programs that he is going to start using steroids. But the fact is, if becoming a wrestler is the kid's dream, and he sees the obviousness of their use, then guess what? Yeah, he's going to find a way to get steroids. All he is seeing as that all these famous people are doing it, and making a bunch of money, so why not? Can't be bad, right?

McMahon's comments may be relavent to an adult audience, but it is funny to me that the adult side (the troubling and bad side) are being dealt with in a different venue than the perceived good and fun side. If we really want to protect the youth of the country, then the message of the bad side of steroids has to be constant, and it must be stated within the sport's or entertainment's normal venue. Otherwise, nothing is ever going to change.

Steroid Delerium

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:45:00 +0000

Now, seriously, how many people have been able to look at professional wrestling over the past 20 to 25 years and say with a straight face "Those guys aren't on steroids, they are just really active in the gym." It has been laughable for at least a couple of decades when you see the gentlemen that own the pro wrestling organizations get up and try to convince everyone that they have nothing to do with the use of steriods EVEN IF (since their lawyers state it hasn't been proven) there are even steroids in pro wrestling. Come on, any kid with a 7th grade education (which by the way is pro wrestlings main audience) can look at the spectacle and while the word steroid may not be on the tip of his tongue, somewhere the thought of "Somethin' jus' ain't right" is going to be there.

We had the big blow-up over steroids in baseball because someone finally figured out that the number of home runs hit during a season doesn't jump 20 percent over a five year period without pharmacutical help. That went all the way to Congress, though the story was pretty much the same as it has always been in pro wrestling. Owners claiming they didn't know and didn't condone, players saying they didn't know the risks or that it was illegal, everyone getting patted on the wrist while banking the extra proceeds.

Now, we find out that the professional wrestler Chris Benoit not only killed himself, but also his wife and young son. Pro wrestling's history is littered by early and untimely deaths. Some of the biggest names in the business have died, and the two leading causes are overdose and heart attacks before the age of 50. And all the while, the men who run the show (such as Vince McMahon of WWE) always find a way to squirm away from the idea of steroids having any part in it. Sadly, since there is no real oversight of pro wrestling since they are privately held enterprises, this is probably not going to change much in the future. Or maybe it will.

You see, until this past weekend, it was just the wrestler who died. It was easy for the organization employing them, and the public at large, to say "Well, even if he was using steroids, he knew the risk and took his chances. No harm, no foul. We are sorry, but on to the next match." Now, a 7 year old little boy is dead, and I will guarantee that not only did he not know the fucking risks, he didn't have a damn choice. Maybe now, after years of turning away, someone will actually start looking at the problem and figure out what can be done about it.

Now, I'm not going to say that pro wrestling isn't entertaining. It is scripted to be so, and they pull it off just as well for the guys as the writers of General Hospital pull it off for the daytime soap crowd. However, no one actually dies on General Hospital other than from old age because they have been on the show for a hundred years. What the people in charge of pro wrestling are unwilling to take a chance on is the fact that their shows would be just as entertaining without the steroid ripped bodies. However, I only see one way of getting pro wrestling to change, and that is through public pressure, and I don't mean some blog post.

Pro wrestling is a business, and as such is there to make money. Well, guess what, if we the public stop buying tickets to the events, stop shilling out the dough for the pay-per-view, and find something else on TV during their free broadcasts, pro wrestling will either have to change or go away. Like I said, it is entertaining, but not since the time of the Roman Empire have we considered watching someone die for "sport" entertainment. This is the 21st century, not the 3rd. And somehow, just because the gladiators of pro wrestling are dying behind the curtains rather than in the ring (which has been known to happen), just doesn't seem to make it alright.

As If We Needed More Proof!

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:41:00 +0000

Just in case anyone was left with any doubt, keep small children away from this blog! I am liable to warp their little impressionable minds, and OMG! I might even persuade a couple of the little rugrats to think on their own!

I Want One!

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:54:00 +0000

Normally, I ignore advertising. I mean, come on, we all know it is geared to getting us to drool over the newest, greatest whatever regardless if we really need it or not. How many people bought Air Jordans for their kids so they could "Be Like Mike"? Not me, and not because I don't have kids. I just knew that at 5'9", mid 20's and white, I wasn't going to "Be Like Mike" short of a pair of stilts, trapeze wires, and a net! Anyhow, on to the post...

Recently I have been noticing the TV spots for the new iPhone from Apple. Since my current cell phone is about four years old, doesn't fold, flip, take pictures, or do tricks, and the battery life is now being measured in nanoseconds between charges, I'm in the market for a new cell phone. I wouldn't even mind changing carriers since the one I am on is not exactly the best out there, and I also need the ability to get a card for the laptop in the future which my current carrier doesn't offer. All in all, I am the prime candidate for AT&T/Cingular and their target audience.

Now, if the new iPhone can do HALF of what the advertising claims it can do, I must say that I want one of those puppies! I mean, I don't have an iPod or don't have a PDA with internet access. Basically, other than my laptop, I have been content with my life without having to go out and buy the newest gadgets and gizmos, and definitely without having to find a way to pay the bills that seem to invariably come along with them to make them even somewhat useful. So, why is the new iPhone peaking my interest so much?

I guess it is because now I see the chance to pick up all the gizmos and gadgets in one package and be set for another four or five years. Either way, I will definitely be heading out to the local store to take a look at that little puppy and do some drooling come June 29th. I just hope the store doesn't have a "You drool, you buy" policy!

Political Comedy or Absurdity?

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:42:00 +0000

I'm not a Grinch, really I'm not! I love a good comedian and a good laugh. The great ones can touch on subjects that would normally infuriate many and make everyone laugh just by pointing out some small absurdity within the situation. Comedy has been, and probably always will be, a running commentary on our society: good, bad, and downright hilarious that it may be.

But then there are idiots like Bill Mahr who HBO saw fit to give a show. Trouble with this man is that comedy in most part is supposed to be unbiased. If you want biased commentary, you listen to Fox News, MSNBC, or talk radio. Why is Bill on HBO rather than these other venues? Simply because he has no fucking clue what he is talking about in any real sense. Yeah, he gets some laughs from the crowd, but how much of that is the result of the stage "Applaud" and "Cheer" lights that any TV show uses during taping?

Now, I don't mean to say that EVERYTHING he does isn't funny. I do get laughs out of some of the stuff that he does, even when he is pointing out some of the more absurd things that either party does. But for the most part, painting all Republicans as "warmongers" and "oil tycoons" while portraying the Democrats as "peace loving humanitarians" who "have all the answers" just isn't historically correct. It is merely a play on words calling Iraq (at this stage at least) a "war" while our actions in Mogadishu was a "peace keeping" expidition. Folks, our young men and women in the military died in both places! It is just that for peace keeping you don't have to have Congressional approval or oversight.

But ok, I'll accept my oil fortune and the painting by Bill Mahr, just as long as it comes with permission to do my own, equally unfair, painting of Democrats as lazy welfare junkies with big mouths and no ideas (or even worse, a cable TV show!).

A Memorial Day Tribute

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Mon, 28 May 2007 13:29:00 +0000

Memorial Day really should be a bigger holiday than it is in this country. Or maybe it is just that we ought to get back to what Memorial Day is supposed to be about.

Memorial Day is supposed to be a day on which we stop and honor the men and women that serve, and have served, our country around the world and specifically to remember those that gave their lives to protect what we hold dear. Without these men and women, our brothers, sisters, children and parents, this country would not be what it is today. I can sit here in Massachusetts all day long talking about what we should be doing, but the fact remains that they are the ones that end up "doing" while I am merely "talking" from somewhere completely safe and out of harms way.

I was born in 1972, and have spent most of my life living in a time when Memorial Day has been more about backyard BBQ's, long weekends from work and school, and vacations than it has ever been about honoring our service men and women and veterans. It really is a shame.

We live in a climate where it is easier to take our frustrations about policy out on the military rather than on the politicians who make them. We did it after Vietnam by ignoring the troops that were lucky enough to come home. We minimized Desert Storm, Panama and Grenada because they simply didn't last long enough and not enough of our men and women died to call them a true "war." We are doing it now by bitching about the war in Iraq. It is a hard distinction to make all the time between the policy makers and the people who carry them out, but it is one that must ALWAYS be made. Be pissed all you want at the folks in Washington who are safe and sound in their backyards and country clubs this Memorial Day, but say a prayer for the ones that they sent into harms way and who have gone with hardly a complaint because it is their job.

It was my grandfather who taught me that I couldn't really depend on history books to tell the whole story. His stories about World War II and what he actually experienced drove home the difference between the realities of military service and what history chooses to remember. It is because of him, and other veterans I have had the priviledge and honor to meet and talk to, that I realize the magnitude of the sacrifice military service so often brings.

For all the people serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard: All I can say is THANK YOU! It is because of you that I feel proud to be an American, it is because of you that America is something to be proud of. Whether you served during peace time or war, this day is for you and most importantly this day is for those who gave everything so the rest can have their long weekend and BBQ.

I Need a Bigger Desk

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Mon, 28 May 2007 13:21:00 +0000

I am sitting here this morning trying to find someplace to set my coffee cup that is somewhat level. I think I need a bigger desk! The one I have has a surface area of about three feet by two feet. It's not a bad size, in a perfect world, considering everything I do on this desk is done on a computer. I don't have to have space to write on paper or anything like that. When I have something that can't be done on the computer I move over to the table that sits behind me. However, this isn't a perfect world, it is my world and now I have to hunt for a place to set my coffee.

Memorial Day Treat

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Sun, 27 May 2007 18:45:00 +0000

Yeah, I'm supposed to be working, and I will once I get done with a couple of chores that need to be done. For those that don't work at home, lemme tell you the "chores" can absolutely ruin a workday. But that is another story.

So this is Memorial Day weekend, and the official start of the BBQ season. Actually, BBQ season around here started the night I could get outside without a down coat and gloves. I do nearly all of my cooking out on my BBQ during the spring, summer and fall. I have learned over the years that anything I can cook inside, I can cook outside and make it taste even better. Plus, less dishes (always a plus)! Now, I'm by no means a chef, I would barely be considered a "cook" by most. But hey, I haven't killed anyone yet by cooking for them, and everyone seems to like the stuff.

So, if you are looking for something to do different for this Memorial Day cookout, here's a couple things that seem to work around here.

BBQ Spuds:

2 Medium white onions
5-6 Medium Russet potatoes
4 tablespoons of butter
salt
pepper

Peel the spuds and onions. Slice the spuds into medallions (a mandolin slicer works great) about 1/4 inch thick. Split onion in half through the root end, then slice each half into four or five parts so you end up with half rings of onion.

Lay out about two and a half feet of heavy duty foil, shiny side up, and spray with Pam or other cooking spray. Pile sliced potatoes and onions in the middle, add butter to the top in 1 tbs. slices, salt liberally, pepper to taste. Fold foil into pouch by gathering the edges together (short end to short end) and folding them over themselves three or four times. Then do the same for the ends. You should end up with a rectanglular pouch about 2-3 inches thick.

Cook on the BBQ over medium heat. I have a gas grill, with three burners and I just use the one on the end turned to medium. Makes things easy. Flip the foil pouch every ten minutes and they will be done in about an hour. If you are cooking something else, letting the spuds cook longer won't hurt them, just keep turning. During cooking, depending on how tightly you made your pouch, it may begin to balloon, just poke a couple of vent holes in the foil.

Feeds 4-6 people

Corn on the Cob:

Shuck the amount of corn that you want to cook, cut off the top and shorten the stem to your liking. Remove most of the corn silk.

Using regular foil, pull out sheets about a foot long for however many corn cobs you have. Butter corn liberally, salt to taste, and roll into a sheet of foil. Twist the ends closed.

If you have an upper rack in your BBQ, lay the corn on it, turning it about every 10-15 minutes. The corn will cook in about the same time as the potatoes above, or about an hour. When you open the BBQ and can smell the corn, it is done. Take off BBQ, even if it is early. It will stay hot in the foil for up to an hour.

Honey Mustard Porkchops:

Porkchops are hard to do on the grill since they tend to dry out. Here's a great idea to avoid eating pork flavored sawdust. The chops I use are ones that I cut about an inch thick from a pork loin so they are boneless, but any thick cut chop should work.

Combine 2 parts spicy brown mustard to 1 part honey. I like my sauce to be on the sweet side with a little bite on the back end. You can play with the ratios to your taste.

Over low heat on the BBQ, start cooking the chops. Turn them every 2-3 minutes to keep charring down. Once they are about 2/3 done, start coating them with the honey mustard sauce. Re-coat them with each turn until done.

Serve with leftover sauce on the side.

The Loss of the Entrepreneurial Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Fri, 25 May 2007 02:16:00 +0000

Perhaps it is because I grew up idolizing "self-made" men and women rather than the current sport figure or rock star of the month. I have always looked to the entrepreneurs before me for inspiration even as a kid. Now, I'm not a kid anymore which was driven home quite clearly when I had to buy new jeans and found that my waist size was now a larger number than my inseam. I'm sure that tragedy will make for another post, but not this one.

However, this past week or so that I have spent in dandelion hell has made me aware of a few things that I just can't seem to explain to myself. You see, when I was a teenager (12 to 15 years old anyway), I was definitely the little entrepreneur. I wasn't setting up lemonade stands or anything like that, but I found out quite early that I could trade my labor for money for many of my neighbors. And there was no shortage of neighbors just north of Denver Colorado where I grew up that were perfectly happy to pay me to do a job they didn't want to do or have time to do. Things like shoveling snow in the winter and weeding and mowing lawns through the spring and summer. Nothing major, but it worked for everyone involved. I got some extra spending money for when I was in California, and they got the "chores" done.

Now, I live in a neighborhood that at this time has no shortage of teen aged boys in it. Any one of whom I would have been more than willing to hand a twenty dollar bill to for pulling the dandelions out of the front yard. It would have taken them a good afternoon, but I would have supplied the tools and probably even would have helped them along the way. Or, if dandelions aren't their cup of tea, I would still be more than willing to hire on of the neighbor kids to come mow the lawn (the front at least), with my mower and gas even. The trouble is, out of the half dozen kids that I would have thought would be up for doing this, none of them shows the least bit of initiative in wanting to do it by coming to ask about it. I find it odd, especially considering the way I was as a kid.

At that age, I was quite content to do the work for money rather than idling my time away. Sure, I missed a couple of weekend afternoons with my friends, but I routinely missed two and a half months of those same afternoons anyway. It wasn't that I needed the money either. I spent all my summers with my grandparents who quite frankly spoiled me. Anything I wanted all I had to do was basically ask. But it was nice to know that I could buy some things on my own, with my own money, and not have to "ask" someone for them. This is something that I don't see anymore, at least with the kids around here. Maybe it is because McDonald's pays damn near ten bucks an hour here for doing little. Maybe it is a shift in our society in general. I don't know. But I know as a kid, I would have been asking if I needed some help and getting paid, while the adult side of me would have been more than willing to pay.

Do I REALLY Sit Around Thinking This Up?

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Mon, 21 May 2007 03:05:00 +0000

Sometimes I just gotta wonder about my brain! I mean, do I really sit around all day thinking up all this shit? How does my brain run from a comedy movie to some of the biggest challenges our government faces to how many dandelions I have sitting out in the front yard that I have to go pull up?

Well, first, yeah I do sit around all day thinking about this shit. I have always done so. I know there is medication for this sort of thing, I have been on most of them. But you know the funny thing? As long as I can still function and get my work done, I actually prefer to have my brain wandering all over the place. I know not all of it will ever get onto this blog since I would have to write nearly constantly (and that would kinda kill the idea of getting my work done and functioning, wouldn't it?). So maybe that explains why I seem to post all at once on a variety of different things. I post when I have the time to sit down and let my mind wander and it wanders right out the end of my fingers.

I guess the real proof of this whole thing is when I first met my girlfriend face to face and after about two hours she said "Holy shit, are you OCD and ADHD or what?" Oh yeah, and then some!

Thoughts from "The Man of the Year"

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Mon, 21 May 2007 02:35:00 +0000

I know, it's a comedy, and a rather good one at that. But then I am biased since just about anything Robin Williams does I like (after Mork and Mindy that is). I thought the movie would just me be laughing my ass off about the idea of electing a comedian President, but then I find I was actually thinking about some of the stuff that the movie brought up.

First, the actual election process. I know computers are supposed to make our lives easier, but when does that ease start getting in the way of our democratic process? Put all the safe guards in place you would like, and quite frankly in the megabytes and gigabytes of code that enables the voter to go in and push a button on a computer screen is still easy to compromise. All it takes is one programmer with an agenda (politics and agendas... imagine that!) and the results can come out as anything the said programmer wants it to be. Fact is, once the code is finalized, there is very little review of it as long as it functions. Now, combined with the fact that it is largely taboo to talk about who you actual vote for, who is to say that the election results are acurate? The government? The folks that are benefiting from those very same results? Sounds a bit fishy. But think about it, if you go in and vote for Candidate A but Candidate Y wins, the reaction is largely "oh well, my person didn't win, maybe next time." Except for the scenario of a huge popular vote landslide being overturned, who the hell would think that a popular vote difference of seven or eight percent would be anything but the democratic process at work? Apparently I would.

Secondly, the whole debate structure. I know we need order and civility in debates, and since they are televised they need to be somewhat choreographed, but come on. How many times have we all sat around listening to someone answer prescreened questions that they have had their handlers give them answers (or non-answers more often than not) that follow the party line. Are we supposed to be so naive that we don't realize that these are canned answer? Even though we have been listening to the same fucking answer from both parties for the past twenty years?

Third and last, the whole idea of the financing that goes into the campaigns. Yes, there was supposed to be campaign finance reform (in case you don't know, that largely when out the window when Sen. McCain needed to get re-elected), but regardless of how you reform it as long as the money for the campaigns and the television ads comes from lobbies and the national party coffers there won't be any real reform. We are a capitalistic economy, but does that mean that our government has to be a capitalistic entity also? Wouldn't it be nice to actually be able to elect someone on the basis of what they think and what they can do other than throw mud? Maybe I'm dreamin'.

We won't get into the actual "who" we are ever electing, that is something for another time.

Anyway, get a bowl of popcorn and a copy of "The Man of the Year" and see where it takes your mind.

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Mon, 21 May 2007 02:19:00 +0000

More adjustments from my end are in order I think. I have another blog doing dvd movie reviews which I mentioned in a previous post. I started it damn near a year ago, but I could never find the ambition to keep up with it. Then I reorganized it, and now I still don't want to go over there to post to it. What the hell is wrong with me? I like movies, I like my dvd player, I like blogging, I like everything about the concept...

So, I sat down for a bit and thought about it. Yes, I actually do think every once in a while... And I believe I have discovered the problem. What I like about movies, other than the entertainment and escapism values of them, is when I find my mind going off on threads of thought that might have been mentioned or insinuated. I love things that make me think, and that is the part of the movie thing that I am most interested in handling. I mean, let's get real, how many times can I say a movie was good bad or indifferent months after it's initial release? Gets pretty boring for me writing it, can't imagine what it does to the reader!

So, here's the adjustment. I will still sorta do reviews, but more importantly I will explore where my mind goes after watching one. Oh, and they will all be posted here under the label of GBR. Should be an interesting ride and hey, at some point I might even find out more about how my damn brain works right along with you!

Nothing New, Just My View

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:59:00 +0000

This isn't anything new to the Internet, but getting it emailed to me a couple of weeks ago by a high school friend brought it back into my mind, and the death of Jerry Falwell just kept it there so I thought I would spout off about it a bit.

There has been an open letter on the Internet for about the last six years in response to comments that Dr. Laura Schlessinger made during one of her radio talk shows about homosexuality. No, I'm not going to debate whether homosexuality is right, wrong, or indifferent. Frankly, I believe humans are sexual. End of story. None of us are heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual. We are ALL merely sexual. That is why we have managed to populate nearly every region of this planet.

But, people like Dr. Schlessinger, Mr. Falwell, and a host of others, love to bring up Biblical "proof" that homosexuality is evil and a sin. I can't debate that the Bible says it. It does, right in Leviticus where they say it does. But the Bible says a great deal on a great many subjects, not just homosexuality. Taken literally, as the never changing "Word of God," which must be done to come to the conclusion that these folks come to on homosexuality, the Bible is not something many of us in the 21st century would be much interested in living by, literally. How would you like to be morally obligated to stone your wife to death? Or your neighbor for mowing the grass on Sunday? The Bible dictates a retributive system of justice, nearing vigilantism. You want to live in a society such as that today? I don't see many people immigrating to the Middle East right now.

The fact is, there is two ways to view the Bible. It is either the never changing Word of God, or it is a more fluid living text open to interpretation and refinement as our social values are refined. But many seem to want it both ways, and it just isn't possible. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible are open to interpretation and which aren't. I know there isn't an answer to this dilemma, and that people will still be using the Bible to justify whatever social soapbox they happen to be upon at the time years from now. But just once, I wish one of them would open their ears when they are talking, or listen to a recording of themselves, and actually stop and think about how absurd most of their "Biblical proof" stances really make them sound.

Now, I am not saying that the Bible is useless, far from it. It is, and always has been, a collection of great allegorical tales and lays a pretty firm moral foundation for any society. The trouble is, it wasn't written in stone, and I don't believe it was ever meant to be. The tales and morals within it's cover have guided human societies for thousands of years, and they will continue to do so. Over that time, they have been interpreted in numerous ways, and there are new interpretations waiting in the wings. But at some point, societies have to decide if it is the Word of God or open to that interpretation.

On the Passing of Mr. Falwell

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:25:00 +0000

It has taken me a couple of days to get my thoughts in order about the passing of Jerry Falwell. I cannot say that I was ever a fan of his, I didn't heed much of what he ever had to say, and I was never a member of the Moral Majority. That being said, I don't necessarily like the idea of speaking ill of the dead. Which creates a tad bit of a sticky spot for me if I want to now ever again want to speak of the subjects this man held dear. Thus, it took me a little bit to get my brain to work out a solution. And here it is:

DISCLAIMER: I do not, have not, and will not be in agreement with the vast majority of what Mr. Falwell had to say during his life, or with his probable legacy after the media creates it. That being said, I hold him personally (begrudgingly) in high regard for one reason: he spoke his mind, and truly believed what he said. Please take anything I have to say further as a debate or attack on those ideas, not on the man expressing them.

Alright, so shall we get down to what I really think now? Great...

Ever heard the saying "walk softly and carry a big stick"? That is sorta the way I have always viewed Falwell. Yes, he formed the Moral Majority in the late 1970's. Yes, he enjoyed a great deal of influence within the workings of the Republican party. But you know what? I have a hard time believing that there are that many neo-conservative right wing religious fanatics in this country to go along with the idea that he, alone, controlled a huge voting block of the American people. And if he did, then something is definitely amiss in this country.

What I believe is closer to the truth is that Falwell had the biggest stick, the media, and the ability to use it. As so often happens in any society, the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" and he was a prime example of it. Do I think he was speaking on behalf of any "moral majority" in this country? Yes and no. Yes, when he was talking just plain old generic common-sense Christian values. Hell no when he started spouting off about gays, lesbians, women libbers, Democrats, non-Bible thumpin' Christians, or Teletubbies! It is just that the media allowed him to express these views, and express them loudly enough, that he created the "appearance" that he was speaking for some silent majority. Meanwhile, most of that silent majority were shaking their heads in disbelief.

So what will his legacy be? I don't know. That is for the media to create and decide, not for me. However, what he said, what he promoted and espoused and preached, does leave a legacy in my mind. He gave the "Moral Majority" and the neo-conservatives free reign and liscense to absolutely hate indescriminately. He, more than anyone else in my mind, is responsible for the widespread reaction to things we do not like or agree with as them being unAmerican, unChristian, unpatriotic, evil, dirty, and downright sinful. That is Jerry Falwell's legacy through what he said and preached. But hey, what do I know, I'm not a member of the Moral Majority, just a victim of it.

Why Is It Surprising?

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Thu, 10 May 2007 14:47:00 +0000

I poked fun at the topic of this post on Sunday, but after reading today's LA Times (which I get through email), I thought it odd that the subject of said email was "Top of the Times:HBO chief executive fired in wake of arrest." Now, I don't mean that I think it odd that someone as powerful in the cable network industry as Chris Albrecht is got fired or arrested. Rather, I thought it odd that the people at the LA Times thought (or more likely KNEW) the headline would get more people to open the email rather than just passing it over. It's the whole celebrity thing and as Americans we have this strange fascination with seeing celebrities and people in powerful positions fall from grace in the most public way possible.

But why is it surprising to us when they do fuck up? Is the CEO of HBO supposed to be more than human and not ever make a mistake? Is Paris Hilton supposed to be in college so she can take over and manage daddy's fortune? Alright, you got me there... Paris, get your ass in college and grow up! The list could go on and on about the people we love to hear about getting in trouble, or having trouble in their lives. How many copies of Enquirer has Britney sold in the last couple of years? How many mainstream newspapers sold off a little flash during the Superbowl of a nipple? Or the subsequent reaction of the FCC with the hearings and fines?

Personally, I don't have a fascination with celebrity. I don't know these people, they mean nothing to me in my day to day life. There are celebrities that I admire, but frankly, I would admire them even if they were not famous and rich. I think Charles Barkley summed it up best while playing basketball when he said he does not consider himself a role model for kids. He knew, and said, that he was just a guy who got lucky and was able to play basketball for a living. Charles, in the same interview, said in his opinion it would be much better for the kids to have role models closer to home (parents, teachers, grandparents, etc.) than to make a basketball player (or any celebrity) into one. The kids don't know the basketball player, they do know their parents. And maybe that is the reason his comments caused such an uproar among the parents and society in general. Maybe, just maybe, rather than trying to "find" decent role models for their kids, Charles Barkley pointed out they should just "be" decent role models.

Anyhow, I just think that when we pay celebrities millions to act crazy and stupid for a living, or millions to play a game, and then read in the paper that they are still acting crazy and stupid in real life, or still playing games in their personal lives, we get what we ask for. So why is it so surprising to everyone?

The Political Wrongness of Political Correctness

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:04:00 +0000

I do not think the whole phenomena of being "politically correct" started with some public relations spin doctor who coined the phrase (or at least thrust it into the spotlight of main stream media. I'm not sure who or when it was coined.) in the mid 1990's. The ideas behind it, and the fact that in society in general we try not to intentionally be nasty or hurt any one's feelings, have always been here. The only difference is that in the time before it was considered common decency. It was just how you acted. On the other hand, it was not restrictive when it came to your own thoughts on a subject. Prior to the political correctness craze, we had a good idea, or could get a good idea quickly, of the topics between ourselves and who ever we were talking to that should be avoided in polite, social conversation. Not that they would be avoided at all times, and not that one or the other should have to change their views. If you were in the mood for a good informal debate, you knew who to talk to, and you could.

The version of this concept that is presented through political correctness is not quite like that. It literally states that I am to express no thoughts, feelings, or opinions, that might potentially be offensive to anyone, at anytime. I just don't get that. I got the idea of "picking my battles" and the fact that some things were just off limits depending on the company, but I just cannot get my head around the idea that a change in company (to one more akin to my thinking or opinions on a subject) still does not open that subject up to discussion. It simply makes for more "pariahs" that shouldn't think that way.

So why is this so politically wrong? Simply because of the way that our laws are formed. We have a "representative" government. The whole "By the people, for the people..." thing. The greatest measuring stick our elected officials have to go by are the conversations that happen between normal folk. Gallop polls, CNN polls, MSNBC polls, or any other poll, do not even come close to giving an accurate depiction of what Americans think. Talking to us candidly does, though. However, as long as we adhere to the idea of political correctness, we cannot have candid conversations about issues effecting our society. We can merely dance around them and hope we do not step over some invisible line somewhere and perhaps offend someone.

I'm sure there's some comedic quote I could put here, but the fact is this. The Bill of Rights grants us all kinds of wonderful liberties, but it does not grant us the right to never be pissed off, or disagreed with. In fact, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, gives us the right to be pissed off at, and disagree with, our government. Seeing as how that very same government is representative, by inference, we all have the right to be pissed off at each other and disagree. If our policies and laws are derived from public feeling on a particular subject, we then have to keep open the avenues of discussion and debate, no matter if it pisses us off or we get disagreed with. The alternative, closing these through the idea of political correctness, means that only the lobbyists, the people with enough money to donate so they are heard, get a say in how the policies and laws are formed. This in not the American way! Nonetheless, if you support the idea of political correctness, as it is now, this is the very thing you supporting no matter what comes out the other side of your mouth.

Want to change it? Start living by, and teaching the children, the idea of social decency, and throw the flawed ideals of political correctness out the fucking window.

Who's Gonna Win?

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Sat, 05 May 2007 12:35:00 +0000

Ahh, the wonders of an early Saturday morning... What the hell am I doing out of bed already? Oh well, I'm here, so let's see what I have to talk about this morning...

Paris Goes To Jail: Wasn't that a movie about a decade ago? Oh wait, that was Ernest Goes To Jail... Paris, Ernest, what's the difference? Who cares?

Was reading through some of the articles this morning about the first Republic debate of this primary season. Gotta say that nothing really stood out to me. I think we are still looking at the exact same candidates in the Presidential election as we were prior to the two debates (Democrats debated last week). So I will go out on a limb, and make my predictions for the actual election now, and we will see how good of a prophet I am.

Democrats: Hillary hands down. Obama may indeed become our first African American President but right now there are two things working against him. First, liberals have been clamoring to get Hillary into the Whitehouse since the day she left with Bill eight years ago. Second, Obama needs more experience. He was a dark-horse nobody during the last Congressional election which he won his seat quite easily, but he still needs more experience in Washington for people to feel comfortable about whether or not he can actually do the job as well as talk the walk.

Democrat Presidential Nominee: Hillary Clinton

Republicans: John McCain is the foil again this year. He hasn't been a serious contender for winning the nomination previously, and this time around that isn't going to change. But he is actually going to play a role this time by becoming a foil between the two that do have a serious chance at the nomination: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Romney is doing everything his speechwriters and his mouth can do to convince everyone that he is just as downright conservative as the Republicans seem to want their people to sound. The only trouble is, he's not, and we know it. Giuliani, at least, isn't running away from his moderate stances on social issues and will get the nomination in spite of it since a good portion of the votes Romney will need will go to McCain in the hope that Republicans can get their true blue conservative.

Republican Presidential Nominee: Rudy Giuliani

Then comes the election. This one will come out close because of Giuliani's moderate stances, but Hillary will indeed become the first woman President of the United States. She has the momentum, and since she is a woman there is a good chance she can pull many Republican women to her instead of them simply voting the party line. There is also enough to Republican backlash in the press to get people who wouldn't normally vote to hit the polls to vote for ANYTHING not Republican. Personally, I think either candidate would make a decent President, but neither is going to be outstanding.

Alright, there's the predictions. We will see how I do.

Now I Can Post This

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:22:00 +0000

Hmm, working on the fourth VO and Coke (I'll leave it up to you about how much VO and how much Coke is going into these drinks) for the evening, and feeling pretty good, so if my typing gets slurry, you'll just have to forgive me. I was planning to post this last night, but thought I might tell the person it concerns before she reads it on the blog.

You know that time when you first wake up? Before your mind has the time to contemplate all the things that will make you want to stay in bed for the day. For me, this period of time lasts about two seconds. After that, my brain goes into overdrive about who's home today, what kind of mood are they going to be in, what I have to do that I just as soon not, and all the other things that goes through my brain before swinging my feet onto the floor.

I consider myself lucky that most mornings I at least wake up to the most beautiful sight in the world to me. It's not the trees in the backyard, I don't have a water view from the bedroom, and it's not the dogs and cats. It's my girlfriend that I usually see when I first open my eyes. Because of our different schedules, she is usually coming to wake me up, and for that two or three seconds I get reminded every morning that there is something to get out of bed for.

So, I know I told her this today, but here it is to the world, me saying "thank you" to Eva for being the most beautiful thing in my life and sticking by me when even I don't want to stick by me!

Who Said Bloggin Was Easy?

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:57:00 +0000

Today was a lesson in how things in the blog world that should be easy sometimes just don't work that way.

You see, I started a blog project in August of last year, and while I really, really liked the concept and idea of what I was doing, I set it up wrong. That blog, or series of blogs, is done on WordPress. I don't have any trouble with WP, but I split the content of what would have been essentially one blog (for most normal people, at least, and we are getting an idea here just how not normal I can be...) and split it up over 6 different blogs. Ooops...

All I managed to do for myself was create an administrative mess, and not enough content going into any of the blogs to get any kind of critical mass going for the readers to respond to. Double oops...

Well, I procrastinated all winter under the guise of "thinking" about what I was going to do with it and how I was going to fix it. I knew I needed to combine everything back into the main blog, but I just didn't have the energy since I had a feeling it was going to be a job and a half. So I got up this morning, and after getting back into the whole writing thing again with this blog set out to finally do something with the other one and get it back in the public's view. And guess what? I was right about it being a job and a half! I am exhausted! (oh wait, the exhaustion may be from the cubic yard of rock we got today for the greenhouse, but that's another story)

So now it's midnight, and I don't know if I have the job completed, but it is presentable and as good as it is going to get for tonight. The other blog is called Gotta Be Reel and can be found at http://gottabereel.com. Basically, it's authentic reel reviews from the peanut gallery, and where I let my more sarcastic side out while giving the scope on the new products from Hollywood. Go check it out!

A Couple More Tidbits

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:46:00 +0000

Yeah, I know I have posted a lot today, and it seems that this may become a habit for me. When I have things on my brain that I want to get out there, I just need to get them out there. They may come in bursts, I may hit dry spells, but like I said at the beginning, we will see where this goes.

Right now I'm not feeling particularly depressed. How do I know this? Because I can sit here and think about it, and what it does to my life. I can't do that when I am depressed. I was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder long enough ago that it was still called Manic-Depression (about 20 years ago). I was in my mid-teens at that time. I don't ever get out of my depressions I don't think. Looking back over my life, I can honestly say that the times I have felt "happy" would be consider just "doin' okay" by most folks standards. I have tried before to explain what depression feels like, and for me, a poem I wrote over 15 years ago seems to sum up my brain pretty well:

Walking The Straight Line

Rust and sandy tan marbled swirl through shale,
The floating foundation of existence.
Limited boundaries of reality
Cloud supported finger of land and trail.

Look back as upon a moment of life.
Sight of blue-gray billowing nothingness.
Not a sight or sound from the world outside
Even though you just stepped from it’s strife.

Squint your pain blurred eyes to the left and right.
Just the same billowed mass of cloud and fog.
In the space occupied by companion
Emptier void than that of the pitched night.

Forward to future only way to gaze.
Follow with teared eyes the course of the rock.
Imagination vexed by depthless view.
No judgements of distance allowed by haze.

Impossible to retreat to haven.
Once left, sanctuaries form triggered snares.
No use trying to scale either blanked side
Cannot rise minus wings of the raven.

Tread onward in search of life in future.
Unsure of frail trail’s continuance.
Narrows to diminished point, fused with clouds
Promised existence no law of nature.

Ambition for movement coming from faith.
Beings dominion over all mankind.
Power of all life encompassed in one,
May it be god, spirit, demon or wraith.

The hiding point of the running torrent.
Moving at speed equal to your approach.
Never glimpse the future, only life of now
Fog shrouds only with your unthought consent.

Close your eyes tight and now witness the view.
The marbled mesa, light hued sky of spring.
Brightness of future, contentment with world
Picture of such power no mortal drew.

Secret of existence, live while awake.
Let the mind not linger on memories.
Nor continue pondering upon hope
For in this gamble, your self is the stake.

Poet I may not be, but I hope you enjoy none the less.

Pagan Faiths and Religions

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Tue, 01 May 2007 18:12:00 +0000

If you haven't figured it out yet, I consider myself Pagan, though I do not follow any specific religious order just as many Christians have not stepped foot inside a church except on wedding and funeral occasions. One of the things that I get asked most frequently is: "What exactly does being Pagan mean?" Of course, just as asking someone what it means to be Christian, there is not a concise anwer that is accepted by everyone. But here is mine in a round about way.

By definition, according to the Illustrated Oxford Dictionary printed in 1998 (ISBN 0-7894-3557-8) pagan is:

n. 1.) a person not subscribing to any of the main religions of the world. 2.) a person following a polytheistic or pantheistic religion. 3.) a hedonist
adj. 1a.) of or relating to or associated with pagans. 1b.) irreligious. 2.) identifying divinity or spirituality in nature; pantheistic.

Or in other words, a pagan is someone who is does not follow either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem religions. There is also an argument over the word "paganus" from which the word pagan is derived from Latin. It seems that when Latin was actually spoken outside of churches, the word was used to refer to either "civilians" as opposed to "military" persons, or as a reference to people living outside the cities (ie: country folk). Neither of these uses would have implied any denigration.

However, this does nothing to explain what it means to be pagan. Before I get into all that, though, let me give a very short list of what is NOT pagan:

Satanism, or Devil Worship: Quite frankly, Satan (also referred to as Lucifer) is a creation of the three main world religions. He is used as the counter-balance in the moral tales of these religions to God's innate goodness. Therefore, if Pagans are those who do not follow these three religions, we are NOT Satanic since the worship of one requires the belief in the other.

I would also list "witch," "sorcerer," and "magician" in this category, personally. Yes, witchcraft is closely associated by most people (including other Pagans) with most pagan religions. It is not a requirement of them, however. I split witchcraft away from the faith of Paganism. Witchcraft is a learned skill, and can be performed as long as there is a belief in a God or Gods. It is the different higher beings that we believe in that makes the distinction between Pagan or non-Pagan.

Now that that is done, let's actually talk about what it means to be Pagan. First and foremost, Pagan religions, in general, are much more focused on "faith" rather than structured religious ceremony. I don't have to go to a certain building in order to get in touch with my god. Secondly, the vast majority of Pagan religions have their roots firmly planted in pre-Christian faith. In a very real sense, what is taught in schools as Greek and Roman "mythologies" are in fact courses teaching those two Pagan religions.

For me, at least, Paganism is simply a reliance on my inner feeling that 1.) there is a "higher being" than man, possibly more than one, and 2.) none of the three dominate religions of the world coincide adequately with what I feel to be true. It is nothing more than that, though nothing less either. It is just a different way that I look at my personal faith (which I am convinced that everyone has). I don't know which is "right" and which is "wrong" in the big picture, I only know what is right for me.

Before anyone goes off thinking that by definition "pagan" only covers such things as ancient mythologies or such belief systems such as Wicca, Druid, Thelema and a host of other sects whose names you have never heard of, let me give you a couple more that also fall under the definition as "pagan." Hinduism and Buddhism are also by definition "pagan" religions. Why do I bring this up? Because it is easy to discount pagans as a couple thousand (or even a couple hundred thousand) isolated wackos when only speaking of Wicca or followers of Greek and Roman mythologies. It is much harder to discount the 2.4 billion followers of these two religions in such a way.

Men and Abortions

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Tue, 01 May 2007 17:15:00 +0000

I know this is a topic that I'm not supposed to talk about. I know it is taboo to even think, in the dark corners of my mind, that a mere man might be able to tell a woman what to do with their bodies... But guess what? I'm going to anyway.

This is one of the things that I mentioned in a previous post that I would like to see changed when it comes to the laws about abortion in this country. We accept the fact that it takes two people, male and female, to make a child. Even the most scientific methods of artificial insemenation cannot get past the fact that you at least need a sperm donor.

We accept the fact that men who father children have a responsibility to that child and its mother even if the adult couple is no longer together, or even if the child was conceived during a "one night stand" with no relationship. Neither of these things do I have the least bit of trouble understanding or accepting. If you are a male in this day and age and do not know how to keep from fathering children you do not want, you ought to be castrated. Plain, pure, simple, and let's save everyone a whole damn lot of money!

But, here's the thing that gets me. In our society, it is readily accepted that it take two to make the child, it takes two to raise it, but for that couple of months right at the beginning of the pregnancy... It only takes one to make all the decisions.

I do not have the right to force a woman I impregnate to have an abortion. I cannot physically pick her up and take her to the clinic. It is absurd to most that I would even mention the possibility of such a thing, myself included. On the other hand, I have no right to stop an abortion that I am against even if I am the admitted father of the child. I have no right to demand that the woman I slept with carry that child for nine months. I have no say either way. In fact, depending on the age of the woman involved, her parents have more say in the matter than I do as the child's father.

Once the child is born, I still have no say, but I do once again have responsibility. I pay child support regardless. Every family court in this country awards child support as a matter of course. I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of child support, it wasn't the child's fault the relationship between its parents went to shit. A man cannot go into family court and tell a judge that "Well, sir, I am not going to pay child support because I offered to pay for the abortion and she refused." He would be laughed out of the room and all the way into a jail cell most likely.

I don't have an easy answer to this dillemna that presents itself day in and day out in our society. But I do have some ideas. One, the father's opinion must be heeded. If we expect the father to take responsibility then there should not be a break in the middle when he is considered as nothing more than a donor without an opinion. I do believe a man should have the right to request the option of being able to compensate the woman for carrying a child if he is against abortion and abortion is her choice.

I suppose what it all comes down to is equality between the sexes. Yes, equality. But equality is not very popular when it comes to this subject. We still live in a mindset that a man's contribution to a child is nothing more than a little sweat, a squirt or two of semen, and eighteen years of bill paying if it comes to that. When will we ever learn that "equality" has nothing to do with weighting one side against the other? Point blank, if it takes two to make the child, then it should take two to make the decisions about the future of that child from the day of conception, not the day of birth. Even if it means that us men have to start paying child support early, during pregnancy, to cover things such as medical bills and trying to make sure the mother has a proper diet. I would much rather be faced with that possibility than what I am faced with now. Afterall, what is another nine months of bills when I am literally faced with 18 years of them due to a decision that I have no say in, no control over? Equality isn't necessarily fun, and it definitely isn't pretty, but dammit, it is time that we stop paying lip service to equality and actually start living in an equal world, on this subject and all the others.

Watches and Laptops

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Peavy) — Tue, 01 May 2007 17:11:00 +0000

I do the vast majority of my posting here working on a laptop. Until I started typing on this thing all the time I never realized just how inconvenient wearing a watch can be. We can put a man on the moon (if you happen to believe it happened on a soundstage in Hollywood, you at least have to admit that it took some damn good technology to pull off the hoax), we can make a car get 50 miles to the gallon, we can even develop weapons capable of killing the entire human race, but somehow we can't seem to make a laptop computer that is comfortable to type on if you have a watch. Incredible!