Stop, in the Name of Love!

Of all the ways in which talentless people manage to parasitize the talented, writing new lyrics to old songs has to be the least artful, most maddening one. Writing new lyrics to an old song, despite some pseudo-songwriters' apparent feelings of fulfillment and self-satisfaction, requires no talent or education beyond, say, the third grade.

We have all seen or heard the substitute lyrics to Christmas carols, usually designed to be humorous. Aside from being stupid, Christians might find them even sacrilegious. O Grandma-mum, O Grandma-mum, your dentures green repulse us!

The greatest achievement one who practices this would-be craft can hope to achieve is to permanently ruin a classic song. The most egregious recent example of this would have to be, Viva Viagra. The genius behind this abomination had better hope he never finds himself in a dark alley with me. Years of pent-up frustration at these insults to my good sense (in the name of commerce!) would be unleashed.

Of course, the biggest, most successful talent leech has to be Weird Al Yankovic. Though he may be able to carry a tune, he has an unpleasant nasal twang that would preclude him from ever being a successful, serious recording artist. And yet, by writing stupid lyrics to real hits, pasting a big-eyed smirking leer on his face, and filming silly, so-called "music" videos, he has managed to make a living. Amazing.

As if to perpetuate this affront to human dignity, there is even a web page dedicated to the family fun that can be had by writing new lyrics to old songs. Really, people, just buy a Scrabble game.

The emperor has no clothes

Okay, now that the press has gotten their Messiah elected, when does the worshipful coverage end? For the lazy among us, who do not wish to follow the issues to determine that the mainstream media have been in the tank for Obama, here is the Reader's Digest illustration for you. While Obama vacations in Hawaii, he is photographed on the golf course and on the beach. On the beach, naturally, he is photographed without a shirt. For a middle-aged guy like me, he looks pretty okay. He obviously works out to keep from ballooning up into the typical middle-aged paunch, but he's no Will Smith. But how do the headlines and captions read? Fit for Office. Fit to Lead. Shirtless Obama Looks Buff in Beach Photos. Hail to the Beef! Obama Abs Cause Stir.

Well, I'm sorry, but I have looked, and I don't see any abs. I see the faintest indication that there are abs under there, but they are disguised under a layer of middle-aged man gut. Trim middle-aged man gut, but gut, nonetheless. And pecs? Gimme a break! Those are man-boobs! If you think I am wrong, Google "abs" and see what kind of images pop up. But, the national press corps sees only the Adonis-in-Chief. Well, I am here to tell you, the emperor has no clothes. And he is mortal.

Oh, for the whipped cream on the Obamas' Hawaii vacation Macadamia-Pineapple pie, the Associated Press has named Tina Fey, whose main accomplishment for the year was to make Sarah Palin look like an idiot, the Entertainer of the Year. This is the same Associated Press that virtually all newspapers in the country use as their main source of news.

Media bias? Na-a-a-a-a-aw!!

'Droid Rage, Courtesy United Airlines

After twenty minutes of witty banter with the android who insulates the human beings at United Airlines from riff-raff like me, I finally got past him. (By the way, I managed that by saying, "Agent," which the android inadvertently tipped me off to, after I said my last name:

"You said, 'Agent,' right?" he asked me.

Why, no, I didn't, but it sounds like maybe I should. Now I am on hold, with an "estimated wait time of 7 minutes." Seven minutes passed by forty-three minutes ago. I think I have probably heard the excerpt from the once-beautiful Gershwin piece, Rhapsody in Blue about thirty times, now. Anyone who flies United is already sick of it before being put on hold for an hour - YES! IT HAS NOW BEEN AN HOUR! - because they play it on the airplane at various times, like before the safety movie.

I give. They broke me. I'm hanging up. What's more, I am not even going to fire off an irate letter, because no one cares.

Random Political Thoughts

Random Thought Number One: Say what you want about Dick Cheney, but I am going to miss the son-of-a-bitch.

I interrupt this message in the interest of full disclosure: So no one jumps to any conclusions about my political leanings, I am a fiscally conservative Libertarian, registered as a Republican. But if you know a little about Libertarianism, you know that we are about individual rights, so there are many things about which I agree with Democrats. For example, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, as long as they are consenting adults. I don't care whether they are married, or not. I don't care whether they are the same gender, or different genders. And I don't even care whether they are of different genders and are married.

Libertarians are also about smaller government, so there are many things about which I agree with at least some Republicans: lower taxes; less government. After all, when you see daily examples of how corrupt government is, why would you think more of it were the best solution to any problems?

But back to Dick Cheney. I just watched Chris Wallace's interview of him, and I just love his no-nonsense, honest responses.

Wallace: Did you really tell someone in the Senate to bleep himself?

Cheney: Yes. That was Pat Leahy. I thought he merited it at the time, and we've since, I think, patched over that wound and we're civil to one another now.

Most politicians would have pussy-footed around, and said that whatever was said would remain between the two parties involved, or some such nonsense, but Cheney just admitted it. I love it.

Random Thought Number Two: With all of the money in the Kennedy and Onassis families, it never occurred to anyone to get Caroline Kennedy into some braces?? Man, that is some unattractive overbite. Even if she didn't want her daughter to run for political office, orthodontia for Caroline should have occurred to Jackie O.

O'Reilly's Christmas War

Oh, man, are a lot of Christians pissed at the Governor of Washington. Leading the charge, wielding the power of his FoxNews pulpit, is Bill O’Reilly, Christianity’s biggest exposed nerve (among other "biggest" titles he holds). Governor Christine Gregoire failed to check with O’Reilly about whether it was appropriate to allow the Freedom From Religion Foundation to post an anti-religion poster or plaque near a nativity scene. Instead, she chose to make the decision to the best of her own ability, based upon the laws of the State of Washington and the United States. The nerve! The incompetence! The outrage!

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t agree with the entire sentiment posted by that particular Atheist group. Nor do I necessarily always disagree with Bill O’Reilly. However, he loses all ability to reason when Christmas is involved; and of course, no matter what the topic, he is always right. (Just ask him!)

I have heard several people characterize the sentiments posted in the Washington State Capitol as an "attack," including O’Reilly, Himself (Oops. That was Irreverent.) In fact, the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker, himself, characterized the display as, "...not a religious display. It is an attack on religion." Ah, but there’s the rub. If it is really an attack on anything (which is too strong a word, in my opinion), it is an attack on a set of beliefs, not on a set of people. O’Reilly and his followers (his Kool-Aid drinkers, as he so frequently calls others who mindlessly follow any ideology other than Christianity), take any statement that disputes their beliefs as a personal attack. This is flawed thinking which reflects the emotion underlying their thoughts - and the lack of logic.

Faith requires trust and a suspension of disbelief. Can’t see God? Can’t hear Him? You have to believe! Having logic or contradictory ideas introduced to this delicate equilibrium throws it out of balance. And the more delicate the equilibrium, the more resentful the believer is of outside interference. Bill O’Reilly is a smart guy. Maybe his hyper-sensitivity to "attacks" on Christmas is a result of his difficulty in suspending his own disbelief.

Really, if your faith is complete, what difference does it make what anyone else thinks? Or what anyone else posts in a public place? Or even whether anyone else believes the way you do? Ask an Atheist how it feels to be completely outnumbered, to have your beliefs constantly questioned, contradicted, and derided, but to still know in your heart and your mind that you are correct.

Which brings me to the question, "Why?" Why do Atheists need to post a sign? The sign posters must not believe they are going to convert anyone (the way so many religious people do). Perhaps it is just to let other Atheists know, in this time of complete immersion in public Christian ritual, that they are not alone; that it is okay to be open about your lack of faith; that you shouldn’t hide in the shadows in fear of the zealotry that is now being exercised so vehemently by the likes of Bill O’Reilly.

For the record, the text of the sign posted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation is as follows:

At this season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail.
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but
myth and superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.

Self-appointed Language Police

Okay, I hate to begin with a gripe that reveals my superficiality, but language is important to me. I watch a lot of cable news, and I have a mental list of the verbal crutches and catch phrases that lazy on-air personalities use to try to sound more intelligent (or something). Some of those annoying phrases that I can remember are:

• That having been said...

Does that really sound more intelligent than, for example, "On the other hand"? Especially when nearly everyone on cable news says it several times per argument? I don't think so. That having been said, an awful lot of talking heads disagree with me on that point.

• The reality is... (or, The reality of it is...)

Former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and frequent Republican pundit on the cable news networks, Michael Steele, prefaces almost every sentence with this crutch, and though he is obviously a bright man, he sure doesn't sound that way. Of course, he is not the only one who uses it, in a business in which all pundits think they hold the only key to "reality." And speaking of pundits....

• Pundents...

Why is it that nine out of ten people on TV pronounce "pundits" incorrectly? There's only one "n" in pundit! ONE! That reminds me of the frequent topic of much of the war reporting in recent history...

• Weapons cachet...

The word "cache" is derived from the French for a hiding place. It means a temporary storage place. It is pronounced "cash." This is the proper word for the place enemies or insurgents might store weapons. "Cachet" (pronounced "cashay") is an entirely different word, despite what so many war reporters may think. A "weapons cachet" would mean, possibly, a design of rifles on an envelope, or an embossment of grenades in the wax seal on the back. Or even the intangible status of owning a Howitzer. But not a hiding place for weapons.

• At the end of the day...

Why does the conclusion of every issue that politicians, pundits, and TV talking heads discuss happen "at the end of the day?" Why can't they sometimes say, for example, "When all is said and done," or, "When the dust clears," or, "When this issue is settled," or, "When this Congressional term ends"? If the proverbial "end of the day" ever really arrives, a lotta shit's gonna hit the fan all at once. These are just the ones I can think of, off the top of my head. More to come.