You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rant’ tag.
We live in an age of innovation. Using the great scientific advances of previous generations and implementing them in new and creative ways is huge part of our progress. No longer burdened by what we can do (mostly), the question for most fields now is how we can do it better. Can we do it faster? Can we do it cheaper? Can we do it greener? Can we do it prettier? Can we do it easier?
In these pursuits we have seen some phenomenal advances. Urban transportation has seen cars go from obnoxiously loud, disgustingly dirty, and horribly dangerous automobiles for the social elites to quick, small, light, potentially electric cars for most families, some having two or three vehicles. Computers have gone from hand cranked, room-sized bean counters to tiny tera-byte twirling do-almost-anything devices. Body armour has gone from heavy, ill-fitting, steel barrels to light-weight, bullet absorbing liquid kevlar vests. Cast iron stoves to electric grills. Horse-drawn ploughs to John Deeres. Muskets to laser-sighted assault rifles. Absolutely everything is being made with advanced materials to get the most out of just the right resources. All these technological wonders flashed through my head as I waited in yet another traffic standstill due to construction. Why are roads still made of asphalt?
Asphalt roads began being made in the early 1800’s (even before the first combustion engine cars hit the streets) and all I can find, as far as research and advancement goes, are efforts to make asphalt cheaper and faster to produce. That’s it. No new materials for roads. No ideas for the super draining, no-slip driving surface. No new compound that will last more than a year before cracking and developing potholes. Nothing. Why the hell not? Read the rest of this entry »
I’m not much for the Hollywood movie-culture scene. Either I’m getting to old or too smart for the usual smarm of what Hollywood has to offer; and on that note I’d like to think of my self in the later rather than the former category.
Ironic self-delusion aside, pop culture these days rarely entices me with its chintzy glitz and shiny images. Enter Iron Man 3. This is the end chapter for Tony Stark and the current Disney/Marvel money machine. IM3 hastily ties up the plot lines started in the previous movies and attempts to give the viewer a satisfying denouement to the Iron Man story (rest assured dear readership the money-mantle is just changing form, prepare yourself for Avengers “9” and Thor Infinity).
Iron man 3 is a mediocre flick, it had all the prerequisite action and ‘witty-dialogue’, but as a final chapter those are now baseline expectations, and thus I expected more.
I suggest looking at rotten tomatoes or metacritic for an actual review of Iron Man 3 because it is not really my intent to review the movie so to speak, but rather set up a preamble to some inane meta-thoughts spawned by the viewing of said movie.
Meta-Thought #1 – How long is the superhero fad going to last? Marvel and DC are currently churning out flick after flick about super powered characters and the woes that they face, but the saturation point must soon be coming. There are only so many times we can genuine feel someone with fledgling superpowers/super-situation rediscover their humanity and victoriously battle evil to save the girl/earth/multi-verse.
Why do I tire of this? Because humanity isn’t that fucking special. Human dignity and worth are crushed as a matter of routine and a large majority of people who are not the ones with Orwell’s perpetual boot stamping on their face do not know or do not care to know about it. We stand atomized in our societies and hem and haw about the injustice going on, while those without the burden of conscience continue to perfect the system that allows for the savage exploitation of so many.
We have ‘super-problems’ in the present on a scale that individuals cannot fix. Yet, we are fed a stream of movies that exemplify individual action and ‘sacrifice’ that always somehow manages to resolve the problems and win the day. I think that the glut of hero movies being promulgated as Triple A entertainment of late represent the subconscious desires of people who feel fundamentally powerless to escape that crushing reality and identify with a idea/role that gives them some feeling of autonomy and power.
Meta-Thought #1A – A meta thought on a meta thought (Groovy!). Gee-Wilikers! How far can the Arbourist go on this thought-wanking experiment? Don’t worry gentle readership it will be all over soon, my interest and angst are waning as writing stuff like this depresses the heck out of me. But, back on topic, (let’s, like good academic writers, paraphrase the last sentence to establish a sense of coherency ((another level of meta! Holy Frak!))) the idea that somehow an individual can rid themselves of the sense of powerlessness through exclusively embracing individual action is at its very foundation misleading. Misleading in the sense that, back here in the real world, it is going to take to change things is mass-coordinated, cooperative action to change what is wrong with our societies.
The great man (and I do use “great man” because it is part of the trope, women-folk with their “feelings” just don’t cut it) that is going to change society for the better does not exist. Great men wannabees are identified and either destroyed or co-opted to work for the system rather than against it. Herein lies my discontent – the model of change we are being shown simply does not work. Individuals, without organizational support, that go against the system are crushed. It is only through collective action and coordination that change can be affected on the societal level. But we’re never given that set of blueprints to base our narratives on.
Why? Because it might inspire people to get together and actually change the system. And that is why Iron Man 3 is a mediocre movie.
(Wow…concluded just about as well as the movie did…)
The vast amount of shit the forced brith advocates spew into the interwebs lends new meaning to the word grotesque. Our anti-choice friends have been faffing on long and hard about Dr. Kermit Gosnell conveniently forgetting about Savita Halappanavar’s terminal experience with their fetid dogma .
Let me spell it out, you antediluvian, dim-witted, anti-choice bastion of fuckwitttery.
Cases like Dr.Gosnell’s are exactly what happens when you limit women’s access to abortion. His practice was under-regulated and in clear violation of any sort of reasonable set of medical expectations. We need less of what Dr.Gosnell did, not more. Yet, you cro-magnon bible thumping gits harass and scare away ethical doctors and practices – you know places where women can get safe medical care – and leave them with the back ally option offered by Dr.Gosnell. This case is squarely on your heads my forced-birth friends, now and forever as your insipid campaign against women and their autonomy creaks along.
We now get a closer look at the hollow arguments you put forth in your crusade against women with a helpful deconstruction to show exactly how wrong you are.
If a choice of any kind supersedes a right to life, then the choice is not only wrong but unthinkable. (Oh completely, because being forced to give birth is fucking freedom loving fun.) In 1973, a handful of people dressed in black robes (A.K.A The Supreme Court – You know, one of the bastions of a free secular society that is holding the religious theocracy your are pining for at bay.) told the United States that life will not impede law.
(ed. Adding paragraph break to mitigate the crazy.)
While it is broadly known that abortion has been happening since ancient times, it was not blatantly lauded as a personal right to save your own life from the burden of being a mother or father (Yes, because you know what is best for each and every woman in the world, the view must be positively rosy from your religious high-horse.). Abortion was not an assumed option for married couples, but it was and continues to be for adulterers and those who are sexual active before marriage (Your constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion – follow your founding documents Theocrat and stop forcing your dogmatic shite down peoples throats). If you are prepared to have sex either before or outside of marriage, then be prepared for parenthood. (Yes, because all sex should be only for procreation…*facepalm forever*.) Sacrificing a child’s life for your own is the highest form of narcissism (Oh completely,because women need to be forced to give birth, mandatory pregnancy will only make family life and child-rearing easier. Why? Because god said so…)
But I love these idiot articles (I do as well, it makes showing how full of fecal matter Forced Birth Advocates are) ; it makes me thankful that I know THE God (Embracing mythology and fairy-tales to prove how right you are is prima-facie example of intellectual-assholery.) that knows the right answers (*ring-ring* It’s unsupported claims office, they want their statement back), that gives LIFE and loves us spite of us.
I’m smart enough(?) to know I don’t speak for God – He speaks for Himself while the prochoice rhetoric tries to speak for everyone despite our right to say no, which we have. (So, the god that happens to share your exact opinions is the only one allowed to speak, convenient that.) The only person that speaks for me is God (If you are hearing voices, you should consult a psychiatrist.) not some flippy idiot dressed in a ‘lady parts’ costume or a death-defying God hater (Kinda sounds like a superhero persona – The Masked Death Defying God Hater; it may have some mileage to it :).)
“He said MYTH, 1: Laws against abortion have always been based on concern about unborn life.”
The unborn have always been forefront in every illustration, every example and every instance of the Prolife Movement. The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE: If it weren’t for the unborn victims and dead or injured women, there would not be an argument: MYTH EXPOSED.
The utter lack of reading comprehension on display is amazing. This is what the article said: (editorial note: I quote here from the original article being thoughtlessly dissected by the idjit of the day)
“Abortion was generally legal in the United States until the mid-19th century. At that time, physicians eager to professionalize obstetrics pressed state legislatures to outlaw midwifery and abortion while granting doctors sole authority over pregnancy and childbearing. State anti-abortion statutes were primarily justified on the grounds that women needed to be saved from uneducated folk practitioners, infections, future infertility and other physical risks.
In the courtroom, prosecutors rarely discussed the unborn, instead accusing abortion providers of preventing women from fulfilling their destiny: motherhood. When early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion, they argued that the disconnect between sexual intercourse and maternity endangered women’s chastity — at the time considered their main basis for moral standing and personal dignity.”
So arguing against the veracity of the provided historical context is one thing, but coming up with a statement like this is nothing more than mere confabulating: “The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE”. I hate to break it to you, but there is only one asinine person in the room cupcake, and it happens to be you.
Popularity? Posting “too much” on the feminism tag? Do I give two shits? Things don’t change if people don’t know about it, so off we go – a few things that feminism is actually fighting for. Oh and go read the whole post on “If I Admit That “Hating Men” is a Thing, Will You Stop Turing It Into A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?”.
(ed. Italics mine for highlighting the theme of what feminism is actually fighting.)
”Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.”
The abject fuckwittery of some people never fails to astonish. Somewhere in the universe the being in charge of giving clues just died a little on the inside. I shall deal only with the header from this particular cesspool of a blog. We’ll just file this under I’ll pull remarkably erroneous shit out of my ass and whinge about it in public ad nauseam.
Feminism – denotes women who want to be men and who act in a totally unfeminine manner, so feminism is the opposite of its definition.
This construction made entirely of straw seems to be the guiding principle of what this clueless individual goes on about. The only thing missing in this particular site is multicolour flashing html tags to really drive home the point.
Feminism is the movement toward equality in our patriarchal society for women. Not women wanting to be men, not cats sleeping dogs, not ants drinking coffee and demanding artificial sweetener and most certainly NOT the devil dancing the Watusi on my front lawn (he cuts a mean rug FWIW).
Somedays, it just isn’t my job to combat the stupid on the internet.
Arbourist, out.
The RPOJ comes for thee BJ!
I had a sense on this one, as I was typing my reply to the burning stupid present on this site, that my commentary might not be published. Given that dudes, with what they deem to be important opinions, tend not to like being shown how audaciously wrong they are. I took it upon myself to save a copy of my reply. Much to my surprise(?) my comment did not make it past moderation, and thus, because of the supernovae grade idiocy on display, the commentary in question became a prime candidate for a RPOJ post.
This fine individual, I think we’ll call him Bobby-Joe, has some strong words for the female folk and how they need to behave to make his man-wishes come true and for society to continue to function. BJ’s notion of bodily autonomy and women’s rights fits nicely into to Dark Ages – I’m sure he and the New Pope-pitude could hate-fap for days about the nefarious wimmenz and their evil plot(s) to destroy mankind.
This RPOJ post is a little on the low-hanging fruit side because the exceedingly insipid nature of the argumentation, but hey, even dour feminists need some R and R once and awhile. So let us explore, together, the deep wisdom BJ expounds but cowardly won’t defend in his little corner of the Internet.
Let us begin:
“I have been looking for something to write a blog about and why not this(not naming the topic, in well, your topic sentence isn’t usually a good start BJ, unless of course you are deliberatly being obtuse to increase the tension, not that you have much choice…). It seems to be in my newsfeed a lot lately. And is definitely something (oooh! this may actually be purposeful) that cannot be ignored. You would not ignore a serial killer would you(Drama!! No, says the careful reader, we certainly would not!)?”
I believe women have the RIGHT to end their pregnancies (Wow! A firm statement of support for women and their autonomy, hurrah!), I also believe they have the RIGHT to be arrested and tried as a murderer for doing so (Oh, so close! Throwing your hat in with the crackling anal-fissures known as the forced birth movement just destroyed your credibility!). Just as anyone has the right to do whatever they want in this country (It would be nice if you would exercise the right not to act like a privileged, ignorant, misogynist bastion of douche-a-tude.) but they also have to face the consequences (and yours will be the upcoming excoriation of all the stupid shite you’ve written and posted on the internet.) for their decisions in this country.
I find the entire abortion thing hilarious (because the discussion surrounding the rights of women are of a particularly jocular nature…but full marks for setting up and then slam dunking the incredulity fallacy.) For a country trying to turn to “science” for answers, it is completely ignored when it comes to unborn babies (Let it be noted here that BJ does not have even the faintest idea was Science is, how to use it, or what it actually says on the topic of abortion). Science (One might, if not dramatically ignorant, delimit “Science” down to “Biology”) proves they are living things, unique, individuals (err…actually no, we haven’t been able to nail down when individuation happens) before the time that is deemed acceptable to end their lives in the womb. But for a society saying (BJ, speaks not only for science, but society as well – he is well and truly and expert of many, if not all fields.) to turn to science and not religion, we sure are avoiding science (BJ’s interpretation of what science “says” can be interpreted as “what my inept seedy little mind shits out”) as much as possible when it comes to this. Why? Because it supports what “religious freaks” have been saying.
At this time, I’d like to state that BJ neither cites, quotes nor accurately depicts anything resembling science, biology or, to be painfully honest, fact. Most of what follows is just the sketchy byproduct of the 3 or so neurons knocking around in his braincase. The RPOJ demands accuracy and completion, so gentle reader, we must continue fastidiously forewarned with this fabulous foray into fail.
This would be the same for everything if they could somehow get it to fit (so many pronouns, what do they refer too?), but with this, they cannot. Therefore, they have to ignore the science (‘Science’ being what I’ve recently pulled out of my ass and declared to be “fact“). If they looked at the science, abortion would be made illegal (“Science”, Binkey,…errr…BJ… says nothing about the moral/legal/ethical nature of abortion. Science deals with empirical knowledge, and that is it. It would be nice if you stopped pretending to be the spokesperson of “Science” or anything important for that matter.) and those undergoing the procedure or those doing it, would be arrested and put into prison for murder (because I understand what women have to go through during pregnancy and I ‘get’ the choices that women have to face when family planning, like totally. I’m not just some wanker with a fatuous opinion…) Murder is not acceptable in any case, only sometimes it is deemed as self-defense (contradicting yourself in the same sentence – I’m gobstruck by the amount of noise your intricate neural net must produce, maybe we can distill and bottle it as intellect depressant) but this cannot be claimed as such.
There is no reasonable cause to kill an unborn baby (ectopic pregnancies and host of other medical necessities be damned! Not to mention that whole treating women 
as people thing.). People can throw whatever emotional traps (that strange sound eminating from women demanding the right to their bodily autonomy. BJ, ensconced deep within your fortress of ineptitude, it might be valuable to consider that radical notion that women are people too.) forward to make you cry before giving in, but it does not change the facts (Fun Fact: everytime BJ says something is a fact, it provably isn’t! It is like some perverse episode of Jeopardy.). If I said this five-year-old child is going to make these parents broke in ten years as a hungry, rebellious teenager, does that give them the right to get rid of the child (If I said that your ass was actually your hat, would you be an ass-hat? – Of course you would, making irrelevant analogies firmly plants you in the realm of asshatery!)? I hope most people would say no, and be in outrage at the thought it. This is my thought (and what a mighty singular thought it was) when people say, oh, the parents cannot afford to have a baby, they will go broke, and they will be homeless.
[Skipping a paragraph because I’m running out of synonyms for “stupid”]
By logic I hear from pro-murder people (It is nice that you admit that logic is on the side of women, but then you just say inane things. In my original response I said that you mischaracterized the pro-choice position, but now in sombre second thought we can safely deduce you’re just confabulating a nice straw argument to bash the crap out of later.), is that the simplest solution to this is to stop of sex (Like the ides of March….beware of the “stop of sex”!!/!). If you want to end the problem before it becomes one with abortion, why not go one-step back and stop the process from happening in the first place (because sex only for procreation is such a realistic solution? *headdesk* )? If you are not on the page of being ready to have a child, do not initiate the process.
Coming to work today I was listening to the CBC morning news there was the usual doom and gloom, but what was remarkable was the amount of time devoted to telling Canadians about how awesome the commercials were going to be for the Superbowl and the lengths people were going to get the American cable feeds to be able to watch the commercials.
To watch the commercials.
I think of the amount of creative energy expended to make a mere advertising and despair. The creative genius of our society is not only being flushed down the crapper, but smeared in an orgy of debauched garish technicolour into the cultivated passive brain boxes of eager consumers. Not citizens, not people in living in a vibrant culture, not enabled beings in a swirling maw of democratic give and take. Nothing like that.
Nothing like that at all.
People wonder why stunning masterworks are not frequently made anymore. Looking at the fetid mess that is commercial culture is not a bad place to start. Does anyone, while growing up say, “Wow, I think I can realize my potential in the wonderful world of Advertising!” The creative genius being cravenly abused in the pursuit of profit is emblematic of what is wrong with our culture.
Imagine, if just for second, if we made the choice to channel our creative forces back into meaningful pursuits. What if we valued art, music and literature as much as we value the tawdry glorification of consumer culture. How many Klimts would be painting? How many Beethovens would be composing? How many Jane Austins would be writing? How much many more cultural epochs would we have reached by now if not for hollow banality of consumer culture?
Humanity’s grand claim for the 21st century should not be “perfecting the exploitation of everything for the short sighted benefit of the few”. It is shit; and irredeemably so.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…