WHAT?!?!

One of my philosophy comrades told me today that Chuck Norris totally being awesome is becoming too much of a "marginalized fad".

I assume you know what I did to his face.

Another Reason To Keep the Internet Around

Don't be shy, ladies! I'd love to know what your penis name would be!!

Your Penis Name is: Beefy McManstick

Get your own Penis Name

I Hate That Last Post

I'm having trouble saying what I want to on this stupid blog. I swear, my real-life projects are much more developed and eloquent. It's this goddam internet. Lazy, no good internet. I would just delete the last post, but someday my blog will sell for $0.0000000002 and I couldn't handle it selling for less. You can't get that much money unless you have a complete set of ramblings, crap and all.

I hope this day finds you all doing something exciting, something new and not something Courtney Love would do.

Response to Ben

I would encourage you to read Ben's post regarding Brokeback Mountain before proceeding. In fact, if you don't, Chuck Norris will most likely roundhouse kick you in the face.

The reason I feel compelled to respond to this article is doubly influenced: 1) I mostly disagree with the article he referenced and 2) The opinion he echoes is, I find, a common thread in the "gay intellectual" community.

The article begins, in part, with this quote:

"Instead of playing into the homophobia about how courageous it is to play gay, the media should be examining why it’s OK to play a rapist, a demon, a vampire from hell, a serial killer who eats his victims with fava beans and nice chianti, or any of the hundreds of sick, warped, twisted characters Hollywood puts out and we gobble up."

The problem here is that of identifiability. Other people don't have a problem disassociating themselves with such creatures, for these creatures are not only fictional, they are something people absolutely, positively, cannot relate with as that creature. People don't watch movies and then wonder what it's like to eat another human being. Or at least, their ideas are entertained by an immediate revulsion that they could even think such a thing. I'm casting a rather large net here, and I realize that, but I stand by it. Society's actions would dictate otherwise if movies were affecting people in such a way that these creatures/situations caused a shift in the way society treats one another. Besides, there are people trying to quash violence in the movies, they're called the Christian Coalition.

The other problem with identifiability, and one that is more relevant to the issue of homosexuality, is how people are "repulsed" by gays on the silver screen. I am speaking directly of the philosophical concept of the "other" and how "others" (women, gays, ethnic people, etc.) are treated by society. Unlike the creatures or nasty killers in movies, the Other is one who would not necessarily be killed or abolished from society (not always the case, I know), but who operates in a double-role. They are included, allowed to participate, yet not given the same social status as those who comprise "real society". Therefore, to say that the media should be paying more attention to the atrocities experienced by fictional movie characters than fictional gay characters doesn't seem to mesh with the common view of homosexuality, as experienced by society at large. My common argument throughout this article will be just this: ANY exposure to homosexuality, outside of the normal "somebody got AIDS and died in the end" route, is a breath of fresh air for me. I could really care less if the characters playing the gay characters are actually gay.

This brings me to the bulk of the article, that of the media referencing Jake and Heath's "bravery" in this project. I have seen many, many, many interviews with both of them and this question comes up every single time. Sure, I'm totally sick of hearing it, because you'd think some of the media would read their own colleague's scribblings and realize that goddam question has been asked four-thousand times that day. However, that shouldn't suggest that I don't think it was a very brave thing for both actors.

Being gay in Hollywood, one of the gayest places on earth, necessitates this same idea of the Other I spoke of. It's definitely the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of Hollywood. No actor, male or female, would traditionally have a career should they play a gay person outside being a party-slut, drug-addicted ne'er do well who eventually dies of AIDS. Never before, in the mainstream, has the subject of homosexual LOVE been so broadly treated.

I can't imagine such a lifestyle, I can't imagine being an integral part of the flashiest, most "open-minded" place and not having a voice. Yet, I can't feel sorry for these people. I, like any other gay person, must deal with my "otherness" every day I live, but as it stands right now, I must shoulder that burden.

The article references gay actors who deserve the roles Jake and Heath got, how it isn't "brave" to play someone and then get paid millions (or however much) to do it. Yet, it IS brave. As I said before, those who aren't gay (or who are, who knows) in Hollywood are (traditionally) submitting to career suicide should they take up such a role. This isn't a closely guarded secret or something, it's told by every agent to every actor. In bringing a story such as Brokeback Mountain into the mainstream, gay people must realize that reaching the broadest audience should be the goal. Sorry to say, but if Ang Lee had cast "traditional" gay actors, who've acted in gay movies, who NO DOUBT could have given oscar-worthy performanced, this movie would not have the impact it did. Do I wish it could be different? Absolutely. Do I wish the media would shut up about the same question? Definitely. However, Jake and Heath braved something many other actors would not dare, and the finished product will do more for gay culture in the future than it would if it were released straight-to-DVD (e.g. 99% of other gay-themed movies).

Risking your career for something you know to be amazing, true, and important defines bravery for me. I completely disagree with the article that pay had anything to do with it. No amount of money (which, both Jake and Heath didn't receive their normal asking price for this movie) would make ending two young, talented actors' careers worth it. Would I think it's brave now for a famous actor to play an openly-gay, loving character? Yes, and it will be until gay people are recognized as equals in society.

Homosexuals are fighting a hard-wrought battle right now. We are on the verge of becoming an equally-represented populace. The steps taken right now by movies like Brokeback Mountain will echo far into the future and when we look back, I don't doubt the makers of that movie will be thanked.

Hells Yeah I Could Pass!

How would you do??

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 9/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

Chuck Norris Totally Rules

Thanks for the email, Eric! Totally awesome. Y'all better respect Chuck:

Since 1940, the year Chuck Norris was born, roundhouse kick
related deaths have increased 13,000 percent.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.

MacGyver can build an airplane out of gum and paper clips, but Chuck Norris can kill him and take it.

Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

If you ask Chuck Norris what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds till." After you ask, "Two seconds to what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face.

Chuck Norris only masturbates to pictures of Chuck Norris.

Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.

Chuck Norris appeared in the "Street Fighter II" video game, but was removed by Beta Testers because every button caused him to do a roundhouse kick. When asked bout this "glitch," Norris replied, "That's no glitch."

Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his dad did.

Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.

Filming on location for Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris brought a stillborn baby lamb back to life by giving it a prolonged beard rub. Shortly after the farm animal sprang back to life and a crowd had gathered, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked the animal, breaking its neck, to remind the crew once more that Chuck giveth, and the good Chuck, he taketh away.

Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.

Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.

Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly to his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly after all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.

There are no disabled people. Only people who have met Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris uses ribbed condoms inside out, so he gets the pleasure.

There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist.

The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more than meets the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided.

The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.

Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.

It was once believed that Chuck Norris actually lost a fight to a pirate, but that is a lie, created by Chuck Norris himself to lure more pirates to him. Pirates never were very smart.

Chuck Norris recently had the idea to sell his urine as a canned beverage. We know this beverage as Red Bull.

If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.

Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya".

Chuck Norris can mathematically make two wrongs equal a right.

The quickest way to a man's heart is with Chuck Norris's fist.

Chuck Norris died ten years ago, but the Grim Reaper can't get up the courage to tell him.

Crop circles are Chuck Norris's way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie the bleep down.

There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.

When Chuck Norris goes to donate blood, he declines the syringe, and instead requests a hand gun and a bucket.

In an average living room there are 1,242 objects Chuck Norris could use to kill you, including the room itself.

Chuck Norris has two speeds: walk and kill.

Chuck Norris is the only man to ever defeat a brick wall in a game of tennis.

It takes Chuck Norris 20 minutes to watch 60 Minutes.

When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.

Addicted, Not Diseased

This post has been a long time coming for me. I have made several attempts, none of which read very well after the fact. However, I realize now that words will fail at every attempt of this difficult subject, so I better just do what I usually do and spew forth anyway...

Drugs. This is what I'm talking about here. Coke, heroin, alcohol, cigarettes, acid, ecstasy, weed, perscription medication, you name it. I'm not interested in which one is more addictive than another, for I do not believe it matters. There are many who would warn children that any amount of the afore mentioned would bring immediate addiction and cause your life to spin out of control. While I agree that this is a possibility, I know many people who use purely recreationally and don't suffer the same addictive properties I did or others do. This shouldn't suggest I'm not for drug counseling at early stages of development, particularly when our society is becoming more and more obsessed with living in an alternate reality (kinda like our President).

I'll spare you all the gritty details of my foray into Drugville, suffice to say I made an extended stay and vacationed in the lovely Coke Hotel on Smoke It Avenue. I was addicted. My body ached without it, my mind reeled in a tortuous cycle, Real Life was not what I wanted Real to be. Of course, I was always fabulous and always in control; just like you hear all the time, I could stop whenever I wanted to. But I didn't for some time.

My confrontation with the "disease" of addiction came when I began attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings. During these sessions of remorse and guilt, we were told that we had lost control of our lives, that we could not turn ourselves around without clear steps to take and certain values to believe in. We were not to associate with anyone, family or otherwise, who "used", nor were we to attend functions where there may be drugs or alcohol. Then we went outside with our coffee and smoked five cigarettes during our seven minute break.

Something wasn't right. Though I wanted so badly to believe the NA message, it wasn't working in me. Not for lack of trying, I assure you. I spent many a meeting in tears, faced with my decisions. I listened to people who had been using for decades tell their nightmarish accounts of theft, rape, anything so they could have their drug teddy bear.

I cannot tell you what it is like to be addicted to a substance. Of course, I could easily extend this to other aspects that do not involve substances of the drug-related kind and point out addictions people have to work, school or label makers. However, I think that the messages society gives to the "diseased", addicted folks mainly concerns drugs so that's what I'll address.

Addiction is not a disease. I say this with trepidation, for once being there and knowing people who were in the grip of it, it feels very much like a disease. After all, your mind is working against itself - on the one hand, you've become conscious of the fact that you don't want to use anymore; on the other, your body is aching for its teddy bear. Here sits the addict; some for the remainder of their lives, particularly the ones who have spent most of their lives dependent on a drug. Bottom line, and the reason people call it a disease, is because they don't want it anymore and are taking steps to get rid of it.

This is problematic, and what I confronted in NA (and caused me to leave) was that the people telling their stories, including myself, remove their own decisions from the equation. By definition, a disease is something you "catch" unwillingly and unknowingly. Now, the only aspect of addiction that could maybe pertain to this definition is that after taking the drug, you had no idea how addictive it would be. However, that isn't inherent to what a disease is or how it acts. Of course nobody knows how bad a cold will be, but you know you're going to get one and there's little you can do about it. One could say that addicts are taking steps to rid themselves of the disease (like the common cold-sufferer is) by going to meetings and reading their steps. However, the common cold-sufferer was taking these steps at the onset of their cold. The moment they feel sick, they're dosing up on DayQuil, sudafed and the like. Okay, okay, spare me the argument that these are drugs too and one can become addicted to them. That would only happen if the cold-sufferer consciously took the medication after they knew they were no longer suffering from a cold. The problem here is that the addict wants to think it wasn't them that loaded the pipe, lifted it to their mouth, covered the carb, flicked the lighter, touched it to the Crack and inhaled. The problem I found, what drove me away from these meetings was that not one person took responsibility for their actions.

Here's where it gets tricky - they say they take responsibility for their actions. They say that they understand what they did and where it led them. My experience, and the experience of others who have successfully kicked their habit, is that paying lip-service to one's accidtion and embracing it is quite another. It is not enough to take pre-determined steps to find what it is you still love about yourself. The failure rate of those who attend NA meetings is staggering. Why? Well, of course people in the program say it's because they weren't ready, they weren't trying hard enough, blah blah - It's never their message.

The steps NA and programs like it revolve around one "submitting" themselves to their disease and acknowledging they cannot live a normal life anymore. They must avoid, at all costs, situations that put them in contact with drugs or alcohol and (as I said before), NEVER associate with those who do. Then, as if by magic, you go through the steps and must live your life according to the virtues set forth by them. This is exactly why so many addicts can't kick their addiction. Virtues shmirtues. They want to be friends with friends who may drink or use on occasion. They need their family (if they aren't estranged from them) to love and support them. Moreover, they need to find the confidence within themselves to love what they were before they became addicted.

I had the benefit of a good education and a loving family to help me through my addiction. I had a large support base and got cards from loved ones giving me encouragement. Some addicts have very little of this, if any. However, I know that our experience of addiction is one in the same. Honestly, many of the addicts I knew had exactly what I did and said "fuck it" anyway. Even though my family loved me, even though I had attended middle and high school, I had to rediscover something that every addict, regardless of their family or level of education, must discover - themselves. For me, it was facing my sexuality in a positive and affirming way, even though that meant possible confrontation with my family. For some, it's dealing with their abusive parent or dead loved one or plain-old addictive personality. In any case, the decision to turn your life around means admitting that YOU CAUSED YOUR PAIN and ONLY YOU CAN HELP YOURSELF. There never was, never is and never will be such a thing as the "disease" of addiction. I believe what would help people the most in this situation is tell them that nothing, nothing is going to be easy, that in fact it will become much harder, but that they're worth it.

Support of a system founded on a faulty principle does not lead to success. Telling people that they were miserable pieces of shit, to love it, hug it and learn to live despite it should be the goal. Don't live in denial - you are the product of your past decisions but what you can do is still undecided.

How Patriotic 'R Eew?

Could you pass??

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 8 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?