TheLastManInAmerica

Somewhere between my early teens, up until a few years ago, smoking pot stopped being fun. Instead of laughing hysterically at the most inane things and raiding the fridge late at night, I began putting things off that I should’ve been doing and pondering things that I’d say and scrutinizing the minutest details of my social life. Other than those things affecting me, I can’t really see a down side to the legalization of marijuana, which, with the proposed bill from Rep. Barney Frank, that would put an end to federal penalties for citizens carrying less that a quarter pound, seems to be a near reality. With upsides including nearly limitless uses, cultivation of the crop could be a boon for the economy, while at the same time we’d see a cutting back on crime caused by trafficking and the subsequent funds landing in the hands of gang members and other figures involved in organized crime going away and downsides hardly that of minimal alcohol use, I find the stand against it to be weak.

100 grams is a lot of pot. I’ve known quite a few dealers in my life and if you can imagine four plastic sandwich bags stuffed full of weed that’s just a little more than 100 grams. That is how much this new bill, if passed, would allow you to carry without repercussions. I don’t agree with this. Anyone carrying nearly four ounces of weed is a dealer, it’s not like someone carries that much weed on them just in case. Hell, one ounce is enough to assume intent to sell and they’re talking about four?! As long as it is illegal, I can’t abide someone carrying that much weed.

But why not legalize it? Unlike alcohol, which, for all intents and purposes is worse for you, it has so many positive things that accompany its production. An industry built around the cultivation of marijuana and its cousin, hemp, would flourish, creating thousands of jobs, on the farms and in the factories. Marijuana is known to be used in to help cancer and AIDS patients in their struggles with their respective diseases, including nausea and clinical depression and some studies go so far as to say that CBDs found in marijuana can inhibit the growth of cancer cells. Could you imagine what could be done with thousands of acres of fields growing the plant and funding from the government for research. Who knows what other medicinal benefits could be discovered?

Hemp, marijuana’s less distinguished cousin that is often confused for the psychoactive drug, is less fun yet more practical. The fibers of this plant can be used to make clothes and rope. As far back as Colonial America, hemp was being grown by the likes of George Washington and used to make paper by Ben Franklin. Even the Declaration of Independence was written on paper made from hemp! It is becoming popular in the world of health food and its oil can be found in milk and ice cream. And with regard for the environment on the rise like never before, Hemp Plastic, a biodegradable fiber-reinforced composite is being produced in hopes of cutting back on waste generated from the over 200 billion ponds of plastics produced every year.

And what of commercial production? Do we really want to see a bunch of giggling stoners wondering around, eating gravy fries everywhere we go? This is one thing that divided me on the subject, but to present a tired cliché, is it much different than alcohol? Yeah, it impairs your cognitive capabilities and slows reaction rime but think about alcohol and what that does. Booze can put you on your ass like any hard drug, rendering you unable to walk or talk or recall anything that happened during a binge. Too much consumption of alcohol can put you in a coma or even kill you! On the same token, too much weed will put you to sleep; I’ve never heard of anyone overdosing on pot. Then there are the social effects. Drinking is notorious for turning people into superhuman assholes, searching for trouble and lashing out at the slightest provocation. It also goes hand in hand with stupid decisions, such as one night stands and unprotected sex with virtually anonymous partners. Weed, on the other hand relaxes people, and while they’ll still do stupid thing while high, they have more control over themselves than if they were drunk and they can still handle thinking rationally.

It would be easy enough to regulate if it were handled the same as alcohol. For instance, just like alcohol, pot could be relegated to bars with the owner or bartender having discretion on who has had enough. It could be sold in stores, naturally, with the same age restrictions as alcohol. It would fall under Driving While Intoxicated, if caught operating a vehicle under the influence, much like it is now. The only touchy thing would be public consumption, since it would be difficult to distinguish who is smoking a cigarette or a joint, but with uber-liberals working hard to rid the world of tobacco, that problem will soon be taken care of.   

There are millions and millions of dollars that go into the trafficking of marijuana every year, all of which ends up in the hands of criminals. Why not take this money and give it to farmers and thousands of other workers to better our country’s situation? With the economy in the tanks right now, it could prove to be a great pick-me-up for the nation. And with many contending that drug money goes to support terrorism, wouldn’t we want to keep money out of their hands as well? When rationally thought out, there is really nothing that would outweigh the benefits of producing this infamous crop; and most of the hindrances are nothing that doesn’t apply to other substances that are currently legal. There are plenty of other drugs which cause real harm and are a real drag (heh, heh) to society. The time has passed when it was considered the “Assassin of Youth.” Today crack and meth are the real substances that need to be snuffed out, forget worrying about arresting some dude smoking a blunt at the bus stop, it’s the guy selling rocks in the alley that needs to be taken care of. Hell, the taxes brought in from the sell of legalized and regulated marijuana could even go towards combating these blights of American Society. Now wouldn’t that be poetic? The money brought in from the sell of one drug going towards the fight against another, I think Regan would be proud.                     

I have stated in my personal life that the people who are always trying to bring an end to smoking should quit wasting their time and go after the country’s obesity problem instead. But I didn’t think they’d do it! The L.A. City Council today approved a moratorium, banning all new fast-food restaurants in the South Central area of L.A. Citing concern over a growing (heh heh) obesity problem, the city imposed the plan in hopes of attracting sit-down eateries and grocery stores with healthier alternatives. But in an area that is notorious for violence, especially gang violence, what kind of places do they think they’ll attract? But say it does work and public markets bring in throngs of customers and salad bars start breaking the bank, then what? Will they lay down the iron hammer of fascism and ban fast-food completely and shut down all chains in the area for good and all?

            I find it amusing that I’m writing this while eating a skinless chicken breast dinner with a side of broccoli and spinach. But you know what? I’m overweight and I know it, therefore I should eat healthier. But you know what else? There are few things that taste better to me than a nice fattening cheeseburger, piled high with bacon and cholesterol. Of course it’s bad for you, that’s part of what makes it so good. If broccoli tasted like cheeseburgers, then there’d be no problem selling broccoli, right? The point being, did the Council consider that maybe these people eat there because they like to eat there? Are we to assume there are no fresh produce stands near by?  What about the other %71 of Latinos and the other %72 of blacks, how do they manage to not become obese? Surely it isn’t through genes alone.

            Nearly three quarters of the restaurants in South Los Angeles are fast-food joints, making it quite the easy meal to come by. But if everything goes to plan, the area will see an influx of diners with healthier menus. So what about the nearly %75 of fast food joints that are around now, were they never home to such places in the past. Could it be possible that they were driven out of business by consumers who would rather dine at McDonalds or Taco Bell? And who’s to say that such businesses would want to set up shop in these neighborhoods? We’re talking about an area of Los Angeles that includes Compton and Inglewood and Watts, areas that are swarming with gangs and the subsequent violence brought on by turf wars. Would any decent restaurant chain want their parking lots turning into crime scenes when a young Crip decides to pump a few rounds into a rival Blood?

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say things do turn out well and South L.A. begins to eat healthier and cholesterol and obesity start to decline. Other than being able to say, “We told you so,” what will the City Council do? Do they expect to be able to ban fast-food chains completely for the greater good of society? As opposed as I am to attempts to ban smoking, this perturbs me even more. Yeah, some say that second-hand smoke kills, but the thought of outlawing something that is only harming yourself is preposterous! We, as Americans, have every right to eat whatever we want, no matter how harmful it may be in the long run. It is an act of Fascism for a government to step in and prevent you from eating something you’ve chosen to ingest of your own volition! And if they aren’t, this whole thing still is an act of Fascism to me. The L.A. City Council is preventing companies from doing business where their market thrives, and why? Because they believe them to be the cause of rising obesity in the area, neglecting the fact that these people can think for themselves and make a conscious decision to eat at these locations.

It’s easy to blame McDonalds with their value menus as the cause for obesity. After all, why blame the people and risk offending all the wide loads with handicap parking permits who say their problem is glandular, yet just choked down a Bacon Ultimate Cheeseburger Combo Meal, but opted for the Diet Coke because they’re watching their calories? This is just another attempt by some who want to alleviate the guilt of those who are truly at fault by blaming the problem on morally bankrupt corporations who just want to make billions of dollars. But the last time I checked, most of these places offer salads and other healthy alternatives, so why aren’t the people buying them? Because they don’t want to. Go ahead and slap a Surgeon General’s Warning on all Whopper wrappers. Will it stop people from buying them? No, because, just like cigarettes, people know the harm that can be caused by consuming such products, yet they invoke their Right as an American to do these things, despite the dangers. And that’s what Freedom is all about.

For the first time in over a decade the Green Bay Packers began training camp without Brett Favre. Asked by Packers GM Ted Thompson for “a couple days” to resolve the situation, old Number 4, the Iron Man of the NFL, agreed. What will be done in those couple days remains to be seen, but a few things are certain: 1) Favre wants to play football, 2) the Packers don’t want him to play for them but, 3) they won’t release him and 4) they won’t trade him anywhere in the division, which may be the only place he stands a chance to win. We’re looking at uncertain times for Brett but no matter how opaque the future may be, it’s clear he’s headed for an end that is not befitting of one of the greatest QBs of all time.

            It’s been this off season’s soap opera with Brett Favre once again announcing his retirement following the end of last season and then wrestling with that indecision until he finally decides he’s not quite done yet, assuming his locker to be ready and waiting for him at Lambeau Field. But having gone from the Iron Man to the “Boy Who Cried Wolf,” the Pack decided they’ve had enough of the yo-yo act and said that if Favre wished to return it would be as a backup, as they are now committed to Aaron Rodgers, the 4-year vet out of California.  Not pleased by this, the saga proceeded with Brett contacting other teams on phones owned by the Packers and asking the team to eiter trade him or release him from his contract.

            And although the Packers are not too keen on having Brett around anymore, they aren’t ready to let him go so easily. Still a dangerous threat at his old age, Green Bay most likely will not trade him to any team within the NFC North for dread of facing him twice a year. This is also the reason they won’t release him before his contract expires in 2010 as it seems the team most interested in Favre and the most interesting to Favre would be the Minnesota Vikings. This leaves few (if any) positive alternatives for Favre because, as of now, the only other teams showing genuine interest are Tamp Bay and the New York Jets, clubs that are destined for mediocre seasons at best.

            So what to do for Favre? It seems he’s painted himself into a corner through his own indecisiveness. Had he not decided to retire or made up his mind to return in March when the Pack was still offering him his rightful spot, everything would be fine. Instead, he’s faced with unglamorous prospects any way he turns. He could come back to Green Bay and ride the pine behind Rodgers and in the process forfeit his record of 253 consecutive regular season games started, an idea that could cause the whole town of Green Bay to form a lynch on the hunt for Packers Coach Mike McCarthy. He could take the trade to Tampa orNew York and finish out his days of football as a great on a team of second-rates. Or he could end them now and let that fire that has burned so bright for years smolder inside of him, knowing that he did this to himself.

He’s been unable to shake it, no matter how hard he tries. It’s been a major hindrance to his campaign as well as a major weapon for Senator Obama to use against him. If he could do one thing, Senator John McCain would want to dismiss all comparisons to George W. Bush and continue his campaign, free of any ties the current president. Despite his best efforts, it has taken him up to now to get people to start viewing them in a different light. With Bush’s recent agreement to a “time horizon” for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq, it’s starting to look as though the two might not be on the same wavelength after all. But looks can be deceiving and it seems as though McCain won’t let Bush get away so easily. While it would be good for him to distance himself in the interest of swaying folks back to his side who have been deterred by their seeming to be in cahoots, McCain is holding on loosely to the president for some unknown reason and it once again begs the question: Where the hell does this man stand on anything?

            Obama has said a McCain presidency would essentially be a third term for Bush. And honestly, it’s been to discern the two in such matters as foreign policy. They’ve long held the same belief that we should “stay the course” in Iraq while remaining weary of engaging in talks with other “Axis of Evil” countries, Iran and North Korea. But now McCain is left scrambling as President Bush has apparently taken a 180 degree turn on positions he once so staunchly defended. Now agreeing to consider a “time horizon” for withdrawing troops in Iraq and Condoleezza Rice engaging in talks with North Korea as well as Under Secretary of State William J. Burns in Geneva last week to talk with Iran about their nuclear program, it’s unclear what McCain will do about the diverging road he appears to be traveling on.

            Once (a week or so ago) so steadfast in his slandering of Obama’s 16 month time table for withdrawal from Iraq, the Arizona Senator is now backpedaling, following Bush’s agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki to start planning a withdrawal, saying it is now, “A pretty good timetable,” though he won’t fully commit himself to a fixed schedule, saying a withdrawal should still be based on conditions on the ground. If this half-concession isn’t enough to dumbfound those who have kept tabs on his policy bashing of Obama, McCain is now backing down from his opposition to talking with the leaders of Iran and North Korea. But don’t let this fool you into thinking he’s running off to a four o’clock tea time with Ahmadinejad. No, he won’t fully give in and says that talks should not be president to president.

            So what are we to make of this man? In a week’s time he has gone from obstinacy in his refusal for a timetable to semi-acceptance. We’ve also seen him relent in his stance against talking to hostile nations. All of this has coincided with the current president’s change of mind. He has tried to distance himself Bush in the past and now he is pacing his stride. At least Obama can stand by what he believes in; having not supported the troop surge to begin with, he still says he wouldn’t have, even given its success. He isn’t, like McCain seems to be, checking the weather vain to see which direction the wind is blowing. No, Obama is playing the part of the wind, pushing the weather vain and showing the people where things are going. And all the while, McCain is standing there with his wet finger in the air and his head up his ass.    

            When it comes to the right way to handle the war in Iraq, Republican senator John McCain says Barack Obama has “failed” to make the right decisions by not supporting last year’s troop surge and also his reluctance to acknowledge its success. Never the one to support the war, the Illinois senator has come under fire from McCain as he tours the globe to bolster foreign relations. The tour has created a spike in popularity for the presumptive Democratic nominee but back home Senator McCain has gone on the offensive, attacking Obama’s continued stance against the surge and using it as a compass to gauge his future plans for the war.

            Addressing veterans in Colorado, McCain said of his  support of the surge, “I believe my judgment passed the test. And I believe Senator Obama’s failed.” And as he rides the success of the strategy that, at one time, it seemed only he supported, McCain has been using it as leverage to prove himself the better choice for Commander-In-Chief. “Given the opportunity to choose between failure and success,” McCain said, “he chose failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander-In-Chief making that choice.”  

With Obama pushing for a complete withdrawal of troops in 16 months, McCain has pushed back, convinced that pulling out now would result in disaster and jeopardize any success gained there. McCain himself believes that a withdrawal needs to be based on “conditions on the ground”  and has refused to consider a fixed schedule for redeployment until the country is fully secure. Once again taking Senator Obama’s opposition to last year’s troop surge into account, McCain said, “We face another choice today. We can withdraw when we have secured the peace and gains we have sacrificed so much to achieve are safe. Or we can follow Senator Obama’s unconditional withdrawal and risk losing the peace even if that results in spreading violence and a third Iraq war.”  

It’s hard these days for anything to live up to the hype it generates. Even more insurmountable is when the hype surrounding it is all about how it surpasses the hype surrounding it. From music to movies to presidential candidates, the media and the masses alike attach themselves like leeches and ticks to anything with the slightest notion of being great. And nothing has been receiving more hype over the last month than “The Dark Knight,” Christopher Nolan’s follow up to the extraordinarily entertaining “Batman Begins.” With the film slated to pass the $300mil mark this weekend, a feat never before accomplished within the first ten days of theatrical release, it’s time to ponder if it is really that good. And, surprisingly, it is! More than just a comic book adaptation, the film is alive with plot and characters that add a sense of reality that far outdoes the previous incarnations of the story. Action is rife throughout the 152min long feature, as well as terrific performances by all characters, topped off by a timeless depiction of the Joker by Heath Ledger.

            Transcending the typical superhero action film, “The Dark Knight,” evolves into a top-notch thriller. With every moment that passes you, along with all of Gotham, become sucked deeper into the Joker’s wildly cunning plot to turn the city into frenzy and let chaos reign. Deception and turmoil abound as the city turns on itself, not knowing if even “The Batman” can be trusted. Like a master angler it reels you in from the very beginning but doesn’t release you until the credits roll. And although the movie is two and a half hours long, very few lulls make the time fly by.

            From a technical standpoint, the movie is superb. Great sound shakes the floor and rattles your eardrums to accompany some of the best live action stunts and CGI work I’ve ever seen. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference! Entire blocks erupting in balls of flames, incredible flights between buildings and dramatic reentries into moving jets are all pulled off so brilliantly that I just didn’t care if I knew it was real or fake. One of the more amazing aspects when it comes to the CGI in “The Dark Knight” is the attention to detail paid to Two Face’s expressions, which is phenomenal, especially in such parts when he scrunches the bridge of his nose and the wrinkles move seamlessly from the real side of his face to the exposed sinew and muscle tissue on the computer generated half. Things like this make me believe the filmmakers wanted to give it everything they had.

            Christian Bale is one again outstanding as the eponymous superhero. This time around he proves he is the definitive portrayer as he pulls off both the suave young billionaire and the gravelly-voiced vigilante with ease. Maggie Gyllenhaal adds depth to the character Rachel Dawes, a component missing from Katie Holmes’ portrayal of the young assistant DA in “Batman Begin.” In this film she is torn between her lifelong feelings for Bruce and admiration for her new boyfriend and Gotham District Attorney, Harvey Dent. The three form a strong circle, not only over the love for Rachel from the male leads, but over their determination to rid the city of crime. Harvey, who shares a similar internal struggle with Batman to not let his personal feelings get in the way of justice, is ultimately lost due to the scheming of the Joker to break Gotham’s Knights down until they become what they’ve been fighting against all along.

            But, as you’ve undoubtedly heard, the showstopper is of course, Heath Ledger, whose portrayal of the maniacal, Joker will be long remembered as one of the grittiest, most inspired performances of this generation, if not ever. I honestly can’t recall being so glued to a single actor’s presence on screen. And as I recalled that the first time I saw Ledger act in “The Patriot,” alongside Mel Gibson, and not really paying attention to anything he’s done since, I sat watching him thinking, Where the hell did he come from?! He is absolutely convincing as the deranged bank robber, whose every facial contortion, every mad cackle, and every lick of his lips belies a man who was truly insane in real life. His lunacy is eloquently summed up as he explains to Two Face, “Do I look like a man with a plan, Harvey….I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do if I caught one.” He is in it strictly for the chaos. Why? “Because it’s fair.”

 I am fully aware of the tragedy of losing such a talented man so young in his life and career. But as tragic as it is, I am also aware of what it means. When I was a boy, around eight years old, I became fascinated with Kurt Cobain, a young man on top of the world whose life ended tragically soon. I will refrain from using the term Kurt’s mother used to indict the rest but Heath has now joined a group of the utmost talented artists whoever lived and died far too soon. Along the likes of Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and James Dean, Heath Ledger now rests as one of those who we talk with our friends about, wondering what they would do in the future. And although he has one more movie to be released, we will never know what that future would have brought. But from where we stand now, with him gone and this chilling farewell performance to remember him by, I doubt anyone denies he will live on for much, much longer.

Dear John,

They say the best defense is a good offense and it’s very true at times. You seem to have taken this as your life’s motto, not only in what little you’ve revealed for you plans fir the War on Terror, but also for your presidential campaign. You critique and criticize your opponent at every cue but all the while you seem reluctant to speak of your plans for the war. Are we to assume that you represent the flip side to everything Obama stands for? Are you the yin to his yang, the 7 Up to his Pepsi Cola? Because here’s what I know for sure 1) the troop surge worked (and simultaneously I know that Obama didn’t think it would) and 2) you were a POW and that somehow makes you fit to be President. Other than that, all I can decipher is that you are not Barack Obama.

            When pushed by the New York Times this week to sum up your plans for the War on Terror you made it your goal to attack your opponent’s strategy and relying on the fact that the recent troop surge has succeeded in putting down insurgent violence in Iraq and that the same plan will work to combat the increasing violence in Afghanistan. While he has set timetable for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq, you say that such a move would admit defeat and that a withdrawal should be based on the conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary schedule. But I’m confused, aren’t you are the one touting the success of the recent troop surge and the accomplishments of the Iraqi government? If conditions on the ground really are this good, shouldn’t we be drawing up plans to extract our forces from that country? Using rhetoric instead of words, you make it clear that you wish to continue the thinning out of our military across the Middle East. But why not just say it, John? Haven’t you made it abundantly clear in your speeches that you know how a war should be run?

            Indeed, which reminds me, why does your service in the Vietnam War all of a sudden make you Alexander the Great? I seem to remember from the history books that we lost that war. Don’t get me wrong, John, I completely respect your service in the military but you can only ride that wave of glory so far. And just because you were a POW doesn’t mean you’d make a good President. After all, the Vietnam War ended over thirty years ago, and you’ve been out of the service for nearly three decades as well. So what part have you played in any wars since then?

            If you believe that we need to keep fighting until very last terrorist is defeated, then say so, at least then we know where you stand. But this beating around the burning bush thing doesn’t do anything to help the situation or your chances. I remember a few years ago John Kerry took the same stand as you and built his campaign up around the idea that he wasn’t George Bush and we all remember how that turned out. A bad stand is better than no stand at all. However, you can’t just keep hyping the success of the most recent maneuver to go your way; you need to proceed from here in the best interest of everybody involved, you need to be a good leader. Being indecisive is not the sign of a good leader. No, a good leader takes charge and stands by his actions, he’s someone the people can rally around, right or wrong. I mean, hell, Dubya is no leader but at east he can stand by the decisions he’s made, right or WRONG. We understand that you think Obama has it all wrong but if you want people to listen to you you need to show them how you have it all right.

Sincerely,

The Last Man in America

The New York Times has rejected an op-ed article by Senator John McCain on the grounds that he didn’t follow strict guidelines that would have him give a detailed strategy for the War in Iraq and rising violence in Afghanistan. Prior to this, Senator Barack Obama published his own article in the newspaper where he laid out  his own detailed plans on how he would handle the War on Terror should he be elected president. McCain’s piece, however, resembled that of a high school English teacher, grading a student’s paper, criticizing every point of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s plan for action. But the Times need not let their bias shine through so completely; if they support Obama and wish to push McCain into stating his view, fine, but don’t be upset with the result because it only shows that he has not given it enough thought or perhaps likes it the way it is.      

      Obama described a transition of power that would see the redeployment of U.S. troops out of the country and in 16 months would hand over the reins to an autonomous Iraqi Government. There would be troops left to train Iraqi security forces and quell any remnants of insurgent forces but all in all we would be done with military operations in
Iraq. His opponents call this surrender but Obama asserts that it would help with his strategy to focus our attention once again on Afghanistan, the country that grabbed us by the scruff and yanked us into the War on Terror. Obama’s plan is exactly that, a plan. Whether it’s right or wrong only time could tell but at least he has the first part down.      

      Senator McCain, however, gave hardly a look to the past and no look to the future; instead he focused on the only thing that has worked in this war. Still flying high from the success of the troop surge that has seen a subsequent drop of violence to its lowest point in four years, McCain gave no estimate of a planned withdraw from the country, merely stating that he expects to have most of the troops home by the end of his first term in 2013. But McCain was happy to point out that 15 of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress had been met and that Sunni Muslims, once enemies of the State are now joining the Sons of Iraq and fighting insurgency. Well, riddle me this: if everything is going so swimmingly in Iraq, why do we not have a plan to withdraw in the works? His plan of action remains counterinsurgency. How? With troop surge after troop until one side runs out of troops (hopefully them)?   

               Where the New York Times support lies is no big secret but if they want to play the part of Fox News they should be smarter about it and not present only one side of the story. They should let McCain’s words speak for themselves as it’s obvious he has no other course of action than action itself. This whole situation could actually be useful for Obama if the Times let it be; they’d have McCain in print, outlying his strategy of complacency in this war. Barack is a man with a plan, which is more than anyone can say about the senator from Arizona. And who knows if the plan would work, but so what, not much else has in this war. At least the man has direction and isn’t content with playing the part of Moses for the next 30 years.

        Purity. It means the absence of anything harmful, inferior or unwanted. Purity Balls are elaborate ceremonies that mark the father as guardian of his daughters’ chastity until marriage. In these cultish rituals girls as young as toddlers swear to their fathers to keep themselves wholesome and abstain from sex until they get married. While it might look like the pledge is a nice gesture from children with healthy morals, it’s more a play of deprivation that encourages ignorance towards safe-sex and indoctrinates them with the idea that the act is impure, until marriage that is. It is also a twisted act of control from the fathers who swear before god to protect their daughters purity by teaching them fidelity, and the shunning of pornography. Does anyone else picture these girls growing up with serious daddy issues?     

       Like the “Silver Ring Thing” these girls swear to abstain from sex until marriage, writing off the alternatives such as protected sex or any other healthy way to express love through intimacy. And while no one is encouraging young girls to go off and bang anything that moves, it’s unhealthy for them to not know how to express themselves or conduct themselves when the act finally does happen. Who’s to say they are going to want to get pregnant as soon as they get married. This suppression (oppression?) of the self also plants the seed that there must be something wrong about sex and as that grows, it will either mean the girl will gain an unhealthy curiosity about it that could lead to promiscuity or they will continue to harbor ill feelings about and never feel quite right about doing it once they do get married. Either way, they could be facing an unhealthy sex life down the road.    

        And what about their partner? Surely there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that they would find a man who has dedicated himself to the same way of life, and if they did, the young man would obviously run the risk of harboring the same inclinations towards it. So what about the sexual history of their partner? Who knows what kind of fetish someone could be hiding deep down, perhaps the rough deflowering of daddy’s little virgin? Surely you’d want to clear the air of any such thing before you got married! And what if they are unaware of a disease lurking inside them? Due to a lack of knowledge about safe sex, the first-timer is now open infestation from a myriad of stealthy diseases.        

      The part of the fathers in this whole thing is awkward and invokes the thought of incestuous fantasies on their part. While that might seem far-fetched and a little disgusting on my part, just think that this all has to do with the father caring so much about his daughter’s sex life. Yeah, it’s a nice thought that you’d want to keep your daughter pure and wholesome but what about her growing up and taking these things into her own hands (or Heaven forbid somewhere else!)? What if she isn’t married by the time she’s twenty-five? Will the dad’s still be meeting every potential boyfriend and introducing himself by saying “I still hold the key to my daughter’s chastity belt so mind your cock!”?    

       I’m reminded of the stories of how cavemen would sew their mate’s vulva shut while away on hunting trips or completely cut off their labia so as to disfigure them and make it that no other man would want anything to do with them. And I get the idea that if these fathers could manage a painless way to do it, they would! My good friend and his wife are about to have their second daughter in the next few weeks and I know Garron would be ready to brutally murder anyone who did wrong to his babies but I’m sure even he would see something wrong in keeping his daughters from growing up and becoming women. I mean, sure, no one wants to think of their daughter growing up to be a sexual being but you can’t stop it. Part of becoming an adult is learning about the sexual side of yourself and it has a great affect on who you are, as both an adult, and part of an intimate relationship. And for all the dad’s taking part in these purity balls, I think they need to stop and reflect on all the depraved acts they perform with their wives, after all, she was someone’s little girl once, too.

“Oops. Our bad” These might as well have been Pope Benedict XVI’s words as he apologized for the reports of sexual abuse of children by Catholic Priests. He called the events “evil” while speaking to a congregation in Sydney, assuring them, “…as their (the victims) Pastor, that I, too, share in their suffering.” So the Pontiff knows what it is like to be molested and sodomized and forced to perform depraved acts on a man who, as a Priest, is supposed to be there to comfort children, not rape them of their innocence? I hardly think so and think if truly he did, he would’ve elaborated on his call to have the culprits brought to justice.        

    The abuses suffered at the hands of members of the clergy are horrors only the victims can know, sure we can feel for their pain but we can never understand and the Pope feigning empathy for the victims belittles the amount of damage they’ve truly sustained, not only physically but mentally. Sure he may “suffer” over the bad press the Church must endure amid the controversy, and I’m sure he’s truly sorry for the pain inflicted upon young members of the flock, but it would’ve done more for him to say, “I can’t begin to imagine how hard this must be for the victims but let me assure you I feel for their pain and will do everything in my power to assure such evils do not happen again.”      

       The man is definitely in a precarious position. On the one hand, he must protect the sanctity and good name of his Church and not let such reports get too much attention but on the other hand, he must also not turn a blind eye to them and corroborate them through inaction. The best way to go about it is to attack it, bring the wrath of God upon those who would use his name to harm the innocent. He says he wants to see them brought to Justice, well, my friend, Batman only exists on the silver screen. The Catholic Church is your backyard and it’s up to you to keep these dogs from shitting in it.     

       It’s strange to me that the Catholic Church, who considers homosexual acts sinful, are quick to condemn the actions of gay priests and bar them from service but when it comes to these pederasts, they may censure their behavior but seem to never take action against them, aside from shipping them to another parish. If homosexual acts are to be considered a sin, then what is to be made of them being performed with children? Perhaps if the Pope himself were bent over and forced to take something as big around as his forearm up the ass, he’d know what kind of suffering has been inflicted on innocent children. And maybe then he’d be a little quicker to take action against these degenerate monsters. Oh, I’m sorry, I meant Servants of God.       

Child molesters and Jesuits

Holding secret conference

Underneath the Pontiff’s nose

And only god will ever know

“Sinister Rouge”- Bad Religion (2004)