"On Syntax
Because the amount of grammatical errors on the internet has been getting on my nerves for, well, let's just say a long time I thought I'd take up some of my time to teach you ill-educated little cunts a little bit about proper syntax.
Loose & lose. For fuck's sake, it's really quite simple, I whacked my head on the desk when my English lecturer felt the need to point this out, I thought "there's no way people in the class don't know this, this is A-level English for god's sake!" How idealistic and silly of me.
So, to give some examples:
Your pussy is LOOSE. Note the double 'o'.
I have a bad feeling about tomorrow's game, I think we're gonna LOSE. Note the one 'o'.
NEXT!
There & their. I shan't rant any longer and simply proceed to examples, I'm sure this makes you all very, very sad:
THERE it is! 'There' is used to show the position of something, you know, here, there, geddit? It's all quite simple.
There comes a point in a relationship where the penis is no longer 'his penis', but 'THEIR penis'. Their is the possesive case of they, that is to say, the third person plural.
NEXT!
You're serious?!
Do not be fooled.. it's NOT okay to say this, let alone type it! 'You're serious?' = 'You are serious?' which is a literal translation from Maltese. The correct way to formulate such a question is: 'Are you serious?' colloquially 'you serious?' is also accepted, because, well, that's how we roll. But seriously, do not, in the presence of myself and a few others, attempt to say such blasphemous phrases.
NEXT!
I'm told there's this 'trend' among you 'teenagers' to use what has become known as 'Minglish', it's not funny, it's not cute, it's not mouthwatering, a turn on, or in any way pleasurable. Are you seriously the future of this country?
Example: Mij end maj frendz qin pijvij!
I shall leave you to ponder the moral aptness of this sentence.
NEXT!
It's & its
I admit, this one might be slightly tricky, but try and get your feeble mind to follow this simple explanation. While the apostrophe + s usually means possesive, it doesn't in this case.
"It's" is short for "it is" whereas "its" is the possesive.
Example:
It's not very big.
Its analytical approach isn't at all understandable.
Understood?
NEXT!
Whose & who's
Quite simple, again. "Who's" is short for "Who is" whereas "whose" is the possesive.
Example:
Whose used tampon is this?
Who's supposed to be here but isn't?
NEXT!
Your & You're
"Your" is the possesive, whereas "you're" is short for "you are", dost thou comprehend?
This is your stupidity, take it, I do not want it.
You're an utter cockheaded cunt.
NEXT!
Actually, not really. Cause I've had enough, I'm sure I could keep going if I wanted to. Suffice to say.. STOP MAKING THESE BLOODY MISTAKES.
Thank you for your time.
Loose & lose. For fuck's sake, it's really quite simple, I whacked my head on the desk when my English lecturer felt the need to point this out, I thought "there's no way people in the class don't know this, this is A-level English for god's sake!" How idealistic and silly of me.
So, to give some examples:
Your pussy is LOOSE. Note the double 'o'.
I have a bad feeling about tomorrow's game, I think we're gonna LOSE. Note the one 'o'.
NEXT!
There & their. I shan't rant any longer and simply proceed to examples, I'm sure this makes you all very, very sad:
THERE it is! 'There' is used to show the position of something, you know, here, there, geddit? It's all quite simple.
There comes a point in a relationship where the penis is no longer 'his penis', but 'THEIR penis'. Their is the possesive case of they, that is to say, the third person plural.
NEXT!
You're serious?!
Do not be fooled.. it's NOT okay to say this, let alone type it! 'You're serious?' = 'You are serious?' which is a literal translation from Maltese. The correct way to formulate such a question is: 'Are you serious?' colloquially 'you serious?' is also accepted, because, well, that's how we roll. But seriously, do not, in the presence of myself and a few others, attempt to say such blasphemous phrases.
NEXT!
I'm told there's this 'trend' among you 'teenagers' to use what has become known as 'Minglish', it's not funny, it's not cute, it's not mouthwatering, a turn on, or in any way pleasurable. Are you seriously the future of this country?
Example: Mij end maj frendz qin pijvij!
I shall leave you to ponder the moral aptness of this sentence.
NEXT!
It's & its
I admit, this one might be slightly tricky, but try and get your feeble mind to follow this simple explanation. While the apostrophe + s usually means possesive, it doesn't in this case.
"It's" is short for "it is" whereas "its" is the possesive.
Example:
It's not very big.
Its analytical approach isn't at all understandable.
Understood?
NEXT!
Whose & who's
Quite simple, again. "Who's" is short for "Who is" whereas "whose" is the possesive.
Example:
Whose used tampon is this?
Who's supposed to be here but isn't?
NEXT!
Your & You're
"Your" is the possesive, whereas "you're" is short for "you are", dost thou comprehend?
This is your stupidity, take it, I do not want it.
You're an utter cockheaded cunt.
NEXT!
Actually, not really. Cause I've had enough, I'm sure I could keep going if I wanted to. Suffice to say.. STOP MAKING THESE BLOODY MISTAKES.
Thank you for your time.
"Not an overreaction
Disclaimer: If you think this is directed at you, you're wrong. These are simply the inane ramblings of an insomniac.
So I'm told I have a tendency to overreact when I hear tale of what is going on in this ridiculous excuse for a human society that is Malta. People are so used to not reacting at all to outrageous nonsensical bullshit handed to us by, say, the government, religious institutions, the courts, educational systems and whatnot that they mistake a driven, passionate argument for 'overreaction.'
Unlike most of the public, I've been around. I've met all kinds of people, from all walks of life, with all kinds of stories to tell. I was thankfully not confinded to this rock my entire life and have, from a young age, had access to writings from all sides of the political spectrum. As such, I have a certain world-weariness; I realise things won't always go my way and my minority (some have even described them as maverick) opinions will, most probably, be ignored or insulted, rather than counter-argued in a coherent manner. Go ahead, prove me right, prove to me your intolerance and stubbornness and back away from anything that disagrees with you.
To those who, despite disagreeing with me, keep an open mind, I respect you. To those who, on the other hand, seem to think their dogmatic, imperialist views are the only way to go, I respect you probably just about as much as your respect me. But let me ask you this, what gives you the right to define what is morally right or wrong? What gives you the right to not even give a choice to the people you so proudly call your 'neighbours'?
Liberalism isn't a dirty word, it is simply the acknowledgment that many things are a personal choice, and as long as the choice one takes does not infringe on anothers rights (and by infringe I mean actually harm, not simply take petty offence), who are you to stop these choices? No one should have the right to strip another of their freedoms based solely on what they percieve as moral superiority.
Unless of course you live in Malta.
While this country is considered developed and mordernised and part of what is known as the Western world, it still seems stuck in the Middle Ages. This country that doesn't even have the separation of Church and State, something anyone will tell you should be basic in a democracy. A hellhole, rife with hypocrisy. I find it ironic that the same people I have heard attacking Imam Mohamed El Sadi's statement that chopping off hands of thieves is 'deserving punishment' are fine with the idea of chopping off the hands of those who dare touch their publically placed crucifixes. I find it ironic many of those who preach tolerance and acceptance choose to ignore a whole continent's cry for help, out of poorly-concealed xenophobia. I find it ironic that a society that is supposedly all for love has a problem with homosexuality, still insisting that it is mental condition. I find it ironic that the Archbishop called the ECHR's (we can stop calling it recent now) ruling 'censorship' while he would fight to lock up anyone who dresses as a nun or priest for Carnival, while he has no problem with imprisonment of a student writer who wrote a fictional piece which scratched the surface of taboo. He also has no problem with the Dominicans disciplining Fr Mark Montebello for voicing his (liberal) opinions which supposedly didn't follow the Church's doctrine.
I began writing this as a cure for insomnia, for this reason and many others, I highly doubt this will accomplish anything. But for what it's worth: don't be afraid to come off as an arrogant, pompous, overreacting sod when discussing matters which may seem to have little importance, but could, as history has shown us, turn into something revolutionary."
No seriously, what religious zealot (see: nutjob) would actually react in this manner? After all religion is all about acceptance and loving thy neighbour, right? If only it actually were, I'm sure the world would be a better place. Sadly, these zealots are quick to judge and denounce others as 'evil' for daring to remove their crucifix, even threatening to "chop of their hands," which I'm sure Jesus would approve of. Children go to school to learn, not be indoctrinated into a particular faith, they're getting enough of that from the aptly named 'Duttrina'. I'd rather our children learn to be of use to society rather than be Bible bashing rednecks. The reason I am especially stressing on the display of religion in schools is because young minds are impressionable and can be easily pressured and may very well feel out of place due to the simple presence of a crucifix.
You're quite welcome to follow an outdated, dogmatic, hypocritical, borderline fascist institution (ie, be religious), but do everyone a favour and keep it to yourself. Is your faith really that weak that you must be reminded of it at every street corner? There's more interesting things to be put at street corners, things I might actually bother glancing at. If you must expose your affiliation to an intolerant group of self-righteous cranks, feel free to decorate yourself with some lovely jewelry, that is your right. It is however, not your right to demand that the state endorse your faith. There's such a thing as separation of Church and State, after all.
Do not get me wrong, I have great respect for those people whose faith allows them to live a better life, those who adapt their faith to the times, and not attempt to adapt the times to their faith, which by the way is physically impossible. Personally I chose to disassociate myself from all religion, because it has been the source of too much conflict, and I am sick of hearing people tell me I should be ashamed of what I believe, or that my beliefs are somehow evil. To quote Stephen Fry, "That's not nice, it isn't nice."
What exactly has religion done to be held in such high regard? The Crusades? The burning of all those innocents accused of witchcraft? The Holocaust? The KKK? Al Qaeda? The Republican Party? This is all to say that it baffles me that religion is still taken seriously and why should it be necessary to have public displays of it in environments which should be secular. When I look at a crucifix, I don't see a symbol of love and acceptance, I see a symbol of oppression and an excuse to have Galileo recant his scientific theories. But I'm told that whether I like it or not, Jesus loves me. End of."
I suppose it's possible they're just thanking Obama for not allowing the hypocritical religious fanatics to retain the White House, I know I am.
But beyond that, what has he actually accomplished? You may argue he's given everyone hope for a brighter future, he united and rallied not only his nation, but the whole world behind him. His campaign's slogan, "Yes We Can!" is recognised everywhere you may go, as is his name... whereas if you mentioned "Bush" to your Average Joe, I don't want to know what might come to their mind first. No one has ever captured our attention as Obama has, except perhaps God/Jehovah/Allah/.
Among other things:
He is probably the first President to seriously fight for an end to nuclear proliferation. He ended the "global gag rule" allowing even those clinics that offer (or speak the word) abortion to benefit from American taxes (it'll be back with the next rightist President anyway). He shut down Gitmo (okay, just shipped off prisoners to be tortured elsewhere..)
At least wait until he's accomplished something sustainable. He has the potential. In his term as President I have faith that he will. So just hand him the prize once that happens, not before. You're just putting pressure on the poor soul.
Keep in mind, I write this with an 8" Obama bobblehead standing proud at my desk."
So I'm told I have a tendency to overreact when I hear tale of what is going on in this ridiculous excuse for a human society that is Malta. People are so used to not reacting at all to outrageous nonsensical bullshit handed to us by, say, the government, religious institutions, the courts, educational systems and whatnot that they mistake a driven, passionate argument for 'overreaction.'
Unlike most of the public, I've been around. I've met all kinds of people, from all walks of life, with all kinds of stories to tell. I was thankfully not confinded to this rock my entire life and have, from a young age, had access to writings from all sides of the political spectrum. As such, I have a certain world-weariness; I realise things won't always go my way and my minority (some have even described them as maverick) opinions will, most probably, be ignored or insulted, rather than counter-argued in a coherent manner. Go ahead, prove me right, prove to me your intolerance and stubbornness and back away from anything that disagrees with you.
To those who, despite disagreeing with me, keep an open mind, I respect you. To those who, on the other hand, seem to think their dogmatic, imperialist views are the only way to go, I respect you probably just about as much as your respect me. But let me ask you this, what gives you the right to define what is morally right or wrong? What gives you the right to not even give a choice to the people you so proudly call your 'neighbours'?
Liberalism isn't a dirty word, it is simply the acknowledgment that many things are a personal choice, and as long as the choice one takes does not infringe on anothers rights (and by infringe I mean actually harm, not simply take petty offence), who are you to stop these choices? No one should have the right to strip another of their freedoms based solely on what they percieve as moral superiority.
Unless of course you live in Malta.
While this country is considered developed and mordernised and part of what is known as the Western world, it still seems stuck in the Middle Ages. This country that doesn't even have the separation of Church and State, something anyone will tell you should be basic in a democracy. A hellhole, rife with hypocrisy. I find it ironic that the same people I have heard attacking Imam Mohamed El Sadi's statement that chopping off hands of thieves is 'deserving punishment' are fine with the idea of chopping off the hands of those who dare touch their publically placed crucifixes. I find it ironic many of those who preach tolerance and acceptance choose to ignore a whole continent's cry for help, out of poorly-concealed xenophobia. I find it ironic that a society that is supposedly all for love has a problem with homosexuality, still insisting that it is mental condition. I find it ironic that the Archbishop called the ECHR's (we can stop calling it recent now) ruling 'censorship' while he would fight to lock up anyone who dresses as a nun or priest for Carnival, while he has no problem with imprisonment of a student writer who wrote a fictional piece which scratched the surface of taboo. He also has no problem with the Dominicans disciplining Fr Mark Montebello for voicing his (liberal) opinions which supposedly didn't follow the Church's doctrine.
I began writing this as a cure for insomnia, for this reason and many others, I highly doubt this will accomplish anything. But for what it's worth: don't be afraid to come off as an arrogant, pompous, overreacting sod when discussing matters which may seem to have little importance, but could, as history has shown us, turn into something revolutionary."
"No Specific religion should feature in public places. Do you agree?
What? This is outrageous! Obscene, disgusting and worst of all blasphemous! What heretic, what morally challenged atheist dare come up with such an insulting idea? These dirty hippies seek to trample over our right to religious affiliation, they seek to poison the public with their 'liberal', god forsaken viewpoints. Don't be fooled, they are are spawns of Satan who must be punished!
No seriously, what religious zealot (see: nutjob) would actually react in this manner? After all religion is all about acceptance and loving thy neighbour, right? If only it actually were, I'm sure the world would be a better place. Sadly, these zealots are quick to judge and denounce others as 'evil' for daring to remove their crucifix, even threatening to "chop of their hands," which I'm sure Jesus would approve of. Children go to school to learn, not be indoctrinated into a particular faith, they're getting enough of that from the aptly named 'Duttrina'. I'd rather our children learn to be of use to society rather than be Bible bashing rednecks. The reason I am especially stressing on the display of religion in schools is because young minds are impressionable and can be easily pressured and may very well feel out of place due to the simple presence of a crucifix.
You're quite welcome to follow an outdated, dogmatic, hypocritical, borderline fascist institution (ie, be religious), but do everyone a favour and keep it to yourself. Is your faith really that weak that you must be reminded of it at every street corner? There's more interesting things to be put at street corners, things I might actually bother glancing at. If you must expose your affiliation to an intolerant group of self-righteous cranks, feel free to decorate yourself with some lovely jewelry, that is your right. It is however, not your right to demand that the state endorse your faith. There's such a thing as separation of Church and State, after all.
Do not get me wrong, I have great respect for those people whose faith allows them to live a better life, those who adapt their faith to the times, and not attempt to adapt the times to their faith, which by the way is physically impossible. Personally I chose to disassociate myself from all religion, because it has been the source of too much conflict, and I am sick of hearing people tell me I should be ashamed of what I believe, or that my beliefs are somehow evil. To quote Stephen Fry, "That's not nice, it isn't nice."
What exactly has religion done to be held in such high regard? The Crusades? The burning of all those innocents accused of witchcraft? The Holocaust? The KKK? Al Qaeda? The Republican Party? This is all to say that it baffles me that religion is still taken seriously and why should it be necessary to have public displays of it in environments which should be secular. When I look at a crucifix, I don't see a symbol of love and acceptance, I see a symbol of oppression and an excuse to have Galileo recant his scientific theories. But I'm told that whether I like it or not, Jesus loves me. End of."
"Television has a negative effect on society
Before I start I wish to point out the meaning of negative. 'Tis a subjective thing, negativity. If you view something like open relationships, which I'm sure show up quite often on a number of programmes, as negative, while I find that such things have a positive effect on people, these are simply our differing opinions. You cannot claim to be right and neither can I. Knowing the stubbornness of humanity (well, knowing mine at least) I'm sure we might discuss this at great length and eventually you will crumble before my witty and impressive argumentative style, but still refuse to abandon your beliefs. This is all just to say that nothing is universally black or white, everything is grey.
I shall not speak from my experience, but from my view of society as a whole. Personally the only thing television has taught me is how to predict when the commercials will be over so I can walk back into the room or flip back to the channel I was watching ten seconds before they end. Anyways.
Let us take a look at some of the things television is accused of causing. Has it made society lazy? Do we prefer to slouch infront of the television instead of going for a jog in the park? Well, I would say it makes those more prone to being lazy sit around all day, if they didn't have a television to sit infront of, I highly doubt they would actually be inspired to go for a jog. They would just find something else in the company of which to lounge about. Has it made society somehow dumber? Well, no one can deny that people no longer read as much, and I agree this is a shame. However, there are some really bad books out there, a mindless drone, just like there are some really bad TV programmes. To counter this there are brillaint books, just as there are brilliant TV programmes which truly test the mind. You just have to know where to look.
Then of course there's all this talk of sex, violence, drugs and whatnot, and how television only makes such things more widespread. To quote Graham Chapman, "I object to all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep falling off!" Really, sex is all rather uncomfortable to talk about to most people, television helps them. I think it helps bring sex out of the dark, forbidden basement it's been in for so long. Which I would say is necessary, judging by the sexual education I got at school, which frankly was hardly informative and more of a simple "DON'T DO IT!" Violence? Well, with all that's been going on in the world, who hasn't at least once wanted to take an axe to a priest like in that movie I saw recently? Nothing wrong with it. Drugs, that's a tricky one. Well, only an idiot (or a child who shouldn't be watching such programmes) would be influenced by what he sees on a screen to dabble into illegal substances, and if he's stupid enough to take drugs cause he saw someone take them on TV and dies as a result, I call that natural selection.
Negative effects? I beg to differ. These are only the accusations of 'concerned' mothers (if fathers are involved chances are they're only going along with their wives out of fear). I've been watching television all my life, and I turned out fine. Now if you'll excuse me I must first nail this bastard's head to a wall, then proceed to rape his wife and daughter, then end the day smoking vast amounts of weed."
I shall not speak from my experience, but from my view of society as a whole. Personally the only thing television has taught me is how to predict when the commercials will be over so I can walk back into the room or flip back to the channel I was watching ten seconds before they end. Anyways.
Let us take a look at some of the things television is accused of causing. Has it made society lazy? Do we prefer to slouch infront of the television instead of going for a jog in the park? Well, I would say it makes those more prone to being lazy sit around all day, if they didn't have a television to sit infront of, I highly doubt they would actually be inspired to go for a jog. They would just find something else in the company of which to lounge about. Has it made society somehow dumber? Well, no one can deny that people no longer read as much, and I agree this is a shame. However, there are some really bad books out there, a mindless drone, just like there are some really bad TV programmes. To counter this there are brillaint books, just as there are brilliant TV programmes which truly test the mind. You just have to know where to look.
Then of course there's all this talk of sex, violence, drugs and whatnot, and how television only makes such things more widespread. To quote Graham Chapman, "I object to all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep falling off!" Really, sex is all rather uncomfortable to talk about to most people, television helps them. I think it helps bring sex out of the dark, forbidden basement it's been in for so long. Which I would say is necessary, judging by the sexual education I got at school, which frankly was hardly informative and more of a simple "DON'T DO IT!" Violence? Well, with all that's been going on in the world, who hasn't at least once wanted to take an axe to a priest like in that movie I saw recently? Nothing wrong with it. Drugs, that's a tricky one. Well, only an idiot (or a child who shouldn't be watching such programmes) would be influenced by what he sees on a screen to dabble into illegal substances, and if he's stupid enough to take drugs cause he saw someone take them on TV and dies as a result, I call that natural selection.
Negative effects? I beg to differ. These are only the accusations of 'concerned' mothers (if fathers are involved chances are they're only going along with their wives out of fear). I've been watching television all my life, and I turned out fine. Now if you'll excuse me I must first nail this bastard's head to a wall, then proceed to rape his wife and daughter, then end the day smoking vast amounts of weed."
"No to divorce - tyranny of the majority?
Quite simply, yes, it is. Not everyone on this rock is Catholic and as such not everyone believes that in marriage god is bringing two people together. If you happen to disagree with divorce, then fine, don't ever have one yourself, but how does it affect you if your neighbour is divorced? Is it really any of your business? What gives you the right to tell others what to do? Is it perhaps your alleged moral superiority? News flash: finding Jesus doesn't mean you get to tell others what is right and what is wrong, I'm pretty sure if they want to they can distinguish for themselves.
Please don't give me these idealistic, childish views on marriage. It doesn't always last. It is not an unbreakable bond. This isn't Disney. Nothing is perfect, least of all you and me, and as such, relationships fall apart. Why must two people that do not love eachother anymore need to still be bound legally?
Let me make myself clear, the Catholic Church can do whatever it pleases to those who are married under it. If someone's enough of an idiot to want to be manipulated by them that's their problem, they asked for it. But why does the state not allow for what is simply a legal bond to be severed?
I'm not Catholic and as such I do not believe that this bond between a man and a woman (and never should it be allowed for two men or two women to have such a bond! Homosexuality is a sin! A 'moral evil' in Benedict's own words. This is the same guy who went to Africa and said condoms don't work to prevent AIDS, I think we should listen to him.. anyway, this is a totally different argument) is made by god. But it seems that just because of some people who are either overly religious, or too simplistic in their views on marriage my opinions which will in no way infringe on their rights are completely voided.
All I'm saying is give people a choice. Marriage won't lose its importance, for the simple reason that it was never that highly regarded anyway. No one will be forcing people to have a divorce, but in the current situation people are being forced to still be bound (even if separated they are still stuck with their former partners, and will not being able to benefit economically if they cohabit with a new partner.)"
Please don't give me these idealistic, childish views on marriage. It doesn't always last. It is not an unbreakable bond. This isn't Disney. Nothing is perfect, least of all you and me, and as such, relationships fall apart. Why must two people that do not love eachother anymore need to still be bound legally?
Let me make myself clear, the Catholic Church can do whatever it pleases to those who are married under it. If someone's enough of an idiot to want to be manipulated by them that's their problem, they asked for it. But why does the state not allow for what is simply a legal bond to be severed?
I'm not Catholic and as such I do not believe that this bond between a man and a woman (and never should it be allowed for two men or two women to have such a bond! Homosexuality is a sin! A 'moral evil' in Benedict's own words. This is the same guy who went to Africa and said condoms don't work to prevent AIDS, I think we should listen to him.. anyway, this is a totally different argument) is made by god. But it seems that just because of some people who are either overly religious, or too simplistic in their views on marriage my opinions which will in no way infringe on their rights are completely voided.
All I'm saying is give people a choice. Marriage won't lose its importance, for the simple reason that it was never that highly regarded anyway. No one will be forcing people to have a divorce, but in the current situation people are being forced to still be bound (even if separated they are still stuck with their former partners, and will not being able to benefit economically if they cohabit with a new partner.)"
"My first journey abroad (or how I conquered France)
I was so relieved to have left that death-trap of an aircraft that I did not stop to think of the country I was stepping into. Other than having won the plane tickets at one of many weekly poker games with the lads, I had no reason to come to this place.
As I exited the terminal, the combined stench of cigarettes, garlic and the locals would have knocked me right out, had i not spent the previous week readying myself in ways I do not wish to recall. I was instantly labeled a foreigner (the lack of a beret gave me away) and everyone quickened their pace away from me, so as to avoid any inquiries I might have had. This didn't irk me in the slightest, like I said, they stank.
By now you must have realised I speak, of course, of France. I chose to utilise the tickets for simple reasons. I'd never been abroad, and I wanted to see for myself if there was any truth to all the generalisations made about France and its people. From my my view, they had yet to be proven wrong. The only thing left to prove was that the French are a bunch of cowards. That shouldn't be too difficult. I approached one of the many Frenchies in the vicinity and began rifling through my pockets. He immediately threw himself to the ground, screaming what I can only assume meant "I surrender!" Why was I not surprised?
After a moment of silence, the Frenchie, realising his utter stupidity, got back on his feet. He muttered something completely incomprehensible and just stood there, and there he remained. The situation was beginning to get rather awkward, and I took a step back, the Frenchie followed. I took a number of more steps, he continued to follow. Seems I got myself a French follower. This was going to be fun. I communicated to my slave to lead me to his vehicle, and I departed on my new quest: to conquer France.
After two hours of going around the streets of France, I gathered a couple of thousand followers. It wasn't too difficult, I get within ten feet of one and they stick out a white flag. I was given the name "Jesus of France" for my brilliant and seemingly supernatural ability to gather these Frenchies together. I'm rather modest, and insisted to international media that it wasn't overly difficult. They refused to believe it, and cheered me on in my liberation of France.
Now, a mere two weeks later, I sit
comfortably in the Élysée Palace, resting my feet on Sarkozy's back. France is now a civilised nation, smoking, baguettes, frogs and garlic have been banned, and the women shave their armpits. "Do you have plans to rescue any other counties from ruin?" I get asked often. My response, being quite a blunt lad, usually is "it wasn't at all difficult, in fact, these Frenchies pretty much helped me." "
As I exited the terminal, the combined stench of cigarettes, garlic and the locals would have knocked me right out, had i not spent the previous week readying myself in ways I do not wish to recall. I was instantly labeled a foreigner (the lack of a beret gave me away) and everyone quickened their pace away from me, so as to avoid any inquiries I might have had. This didn't irk me in the slightest, like I said, they stank.
By now you must have realised I speak, of course, of France. I chose to utilise the tickets for simple reasons. I'd never been abroad, and I wanted to see for myself if there was any truth to all the generalisations made about France and its people. From my my view, they had yet to be proven wrong. The only thing left to prove was that the French are a bunch of cowards. That shouldn't be too difficult. I approached one of the many Frenchies in the vicinity and began rifling through my pockets. He immediately threw himself to the ground, screaming what I can only assume meant "I surrender!" Why was I not surprised?
After a moment of silence, the Frenchie, realising his utter stupidity, got back on his feet. He muttered something completely incomprehensible and just stood there, and there he remained. The situation was beginning to get rather awkward, and I took a step back, the Frenchie followed. I took a number of more steps, he continued to follow. Seems I got myself a French follower. This was going to be fun. I communicated to my slave to lead me to his vehicle, and I departed on my new quest: to conquer France.
After two hours of going around the streets of France, I gathered a couple of thousand followers. It wasn't too difficult, I get within ten feet of one and they stick out a white flag. I was given the name "Jesus of France" for my brilliant and seemingly supernatural ability to gather these Frenchies together. I'm rather modest, and insisted to international media that it wasn't overly difficult. They refused to believe it, and cheered me on in my liberation of France.
Now, a mere two weeks later, I sit
comfortably in the Élysée Palace, resting my feet on Sarkozy's back. France is now a civilised nation, smoking, baguettes, frogs and garlic have been banned, and the women shave their armpits. "Do you have plans to rescue any other counties from ruin?" I get asked often. My response, being quite a blunt lad, usually is "it wasn't at all difficult, in fact, these Frenchies pretty much helped me." ""On Crucifixes in Classrooms
As a devout Pastafarian, the presence of a crucifix in my classroom does in fact give me the heebie-jeebies. Us Pastafarians do not feel the need to hang symbols of the FSM in public to remind us of our faith in Him, in fact, He would rather we didn't. He would rather we keep our beliefs private, because he acknowledges not everyone believes in Him, He's not a pompous, intolerant being. Is the Christian following really that weak that it must be continually reminded of its belief by having crucifixes hung above every blackboard?
Was the court's decision democratic, you ask? Well, any step away from the fascists' decision to make crucifixes in classrooms a must, I would call democratic. This isn't the European Court bending over backwards to please the growing Muslim population, as some seem to believe. Nor are they pleasing the atheist, liberal, dirty COMMUNISTS. They are simply pointing out that a public school should be a secular environment, the government shouldn't endorse (verbally or otherwise) any particular belief.
Was the initial presence of crucifixes in classrooms democratic? Well, as I've stated, Mussolini* decided to hang them up. I think that speaks for itself,
RAmen.
- Ben
*a man so devout to his beliefs he decided to ally himself with another man devout to his beliefs, and together they thought they should eradicate those evil Jews who nailed Jesus to the cross, as any good Catholic also should"
Was the court's decision democratic, you ask? Well, any step away from the fascists' decision to make crucifixes in classrooms a must, I would call democratic. This isn't the European Court bending over backwards to please the growing Muslim population, as some seem to believe. Nor are they pleasing the atheist, liberal, dirty COMMUNISTS. They are simply pointing out that a public school should be a secular environment, the government shouldn't endorse (verbally or otherwise) any particular belief.
Was the initial presence of crucifixes in classrooms democratic? Well, as I've stated, Mussolini* decided to hang them up. I think that speaks for itself,
RAmen.
- Ben
*a man so devout to his beliefs he decided to ally himself with another man devout to his beliefs, and together they thought they should eradicate those evil Jews who nailed Jesus to the cross, as any good Catholic also should"
"Was Obama the right choice for the Nobel Peace Prize?
I'm sorry, but does anyone actually still have faith in these kinds of awards?
I suppose it's possible they're just thanking Obama for not allowing the hypocritical religious fanatics to retain the White House, I know I am.
But beyond that, what has he actually accomplished? You may argue he's given everyone hope for a brighter future, he united and rallied not only his nation, but the whole world behind him. His campaign's slogan, "Yes We Can!" is recognised everywhere you may go, as is his name... whereas if you mentioned "Bush" to your Average Joe, I don't want to know what might come to their mind first. No one has ever captured our attention as Obama has, except perhaps God/Jehovah/Allah/
Among other things:
He is probably the first President to seriously fight for an end to nuclear proliferation. He ended the "global gag rule" allowing even those clinics that offer (or speak the word) abortion to benefit from American taxes (it'll be back with the next rightist President anyway). He shut down Gitmo (okay, just shipped off prisoners to be tortured elsewhere..)
At least wait until he's accomplished something sustainable. He has the potential. In his term as President I have faith that he will. So just hand him the prize once that happens, not before. You're just putting pressure on the poor soul.
Keep in mind, I write this with an 8" Obama bobblehead standing proud at my desk."
No comments:
Post a Comment