--Enough of this crap about Dana Reeve already. We lost Darren McGavin and Dennis Weaver mere days prior, and both of them barely got a mention. But the news spent at least one entire day talking about this broad. What did she do? WHAT DID SHE DO? She was a housewife who did some charity work, that's all. Don't mourn her just because she was married to a self-important crippled guy.
--So Isaac Hayes is quitting South Park as the voice of "Chef", and I'm pretty pissed about it. Hayes is a Scientologist, and apparently got all upset over last November's episode lampooning Scientology (one of the best episodes ever, IMO), saying that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone had crossed the line into "bigotry and intolerance". This is very confusing. He never complained about their ribbing of other religions, but as soon as they make fun of his he feels the sting. He expects a double-standard between his religion and all others. Is that not "bigotry and intolerance"? Besides, the episode didn't really knock Scientologists themselves, in fact it seemed pretty sympathetic towards them. It merely called Scientology a "global scam" and explained what Scientologists actually believe, which is something that Scientologists don't want outsiders to know, mainly because of how fucking stupid it all is. Maybe it was the revelation of the tenets of Scientology that REALLY made Hayes quit.
In any case, so long, Chef.
--I just watched Good Night, and Good Luck last night, and I was very impressed by it. Films like that seem so subversive now, and for good reason. Our country has now entered into another McCarthy era, where dissent of opinion is likened to disloyalty to the country. Hell, Bush even said once "You're either with us or against us." In that case, Georgie, I'm against you.
We need more Murrows now, but I think the way broadcast news works today it's not going to happen. The corporate owners of the media outlets would never allow it on the air, not for an instant, and everyone is terrified of sponsors pulling out of news programs. How can CNN broadcast without sponsorship from Ameritrade? Whatever would they do?
There are a few out there who aren't afraid to speak their minds (Bill Maher immediately comes to mind), but these people are primarily comedians and columnists, not purveyors of the news. That's where the bloggers come in. Not guys like me, I'm just some asshole who shoots off on subjects that bother him and makes goofy observations of daily life and hopes that maybe someday more than three people will regularly read it all. I'm referring to the actual news blogs, provided you can find one that doesn't proudly proclaim itself as having a right or left wing bias. I think there's a new medium of reliable information, and I think it's far beyond the reach of government influence.
At least I hope it is.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Marriage Can Kiss My Ass
I'm really getting tired of this "sanctity of marriage" malarkey that's being thrown this way and that in the media these days. Every other TV show or movie is about an "emotional coward" with a "fear of commitment", like this "commitment" thing is something we all secretly aspire to but some of us just don't want to admit it.
Okay, so some assholes get married, and they want other people to get married, too. They give a lot of reasons for this. What are these reasons?
1. Married people have better health than unmarried people.
Oh, I see. So marriage is magical. If you get a blood test and a slip of paper and get almost irreversably financially tied to another person, that will make you healthier. This is exactly why common sense should sometimes take presidence over statistics.
2. Married individuals have lower rates of alcoholism than their unmarried counterparts because they tend to offer encouragement, support, and protection from daily problems that could otherwise lead them to using alcohol and other drugs.
And they can also provide reasons for alcohol abuse by generally being a pain in the ass. By the way, be sure to rattle this statistic off to that woman whose husband beats the shit out of her every time he's drunk. Or I should say those women. There are plenty to choose from.
3. Married men and women have lower suicide rates than unmarried ones because married people have meaningful social networks of friends and relatives. Meaningful relationships give people a sense of personal value and a feeling of responsibility to others.
Ah, I see. And you have to be married for that. You have to have that blood test and that slip of paper and the woman has to change her last name in order that you don't kill yourself. Besides, am I the only person left on Earth whose personal value is not based on how many other people I know?
4. Married individuals tend to have stronger immune systems, making them less likely to catch colds and develop other illnesses than unmarried ones.
I'm not kidding, I actually read this bullshit in a pro-marriage article. So being married turns you into Superman. You become the complete opposite of an AIDS patient. Hey, maybe AIDS patients should all get married! EUREKA! I've just found the cure for AIDS!
5. Marriage tends to make individuals to be more motivated to do well at work.
Yeah, because your spouse is a selfish fucker and you have to make plenty of money to keep him/her satisfied with material possessions.
6. Married persons are less likely to be lonely because they always have someone to share their thoughts, feelings, and lives with.
Because it's not like cohabitated couples can do that or anything.
7. Married couples have sex more often and enjoy it more physically and emotionally than their unmarried counterparts.
More often? Yeah, probably. Enjoy it more? I'm going to have to answer "like hell" on that one. I'll guarantee if statistical information was gathered about which women are more likely to fake orgasms, married women would probably own that dubious distinction.
8. Married couples have higher incomes than single men and women.
Yeah. And they have to share it with each other.
9. The most valued and beautiful of all human relationships and a fundamental social institution which is central to the nurture and raising of children.
Since when? When I was a kid, all of the most fucked up kids I knew were the products of married households, while some of the most well-adjusted had not only unmarried, but single parents. Granted, I had married parents throughout my childhood, but I think that just goes to show that not all people benefit from the same environment. Besides, what about folks like me, the proudly child-free?
10. A strong commitment to marriage is therefore fundamental to the health and stability of any home, community or nation.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe such a legal bond is beneficial for some people (fuck if I know why), but it's ridiculous to assume that it is fundamental to the health of ANY home. There is nothing as small-minded as assuming that everyone has the same goals that you do.
I thought about coming up with my list of ten reasons to stay single or cohabitate, but that last bit reminded me otherwise. If you're already single, you already know the benefits. If you already cohabitate, you already know about the benefits of that, too. If you are already married or for whatever reason really want to reach that status, then you likely don't care. As for me, I'm a happy single person and will likely stay this way for some time (and if I ever do lose my single status, it won't involve marriage). I just can't bring myself to throw away my individuality just so I can become psychologically dependent on another person and somehow act like I'm "fullfilled" as a result.
Plus, it gives me an excuse to eat alone in restaurants and walk by myself through the supermarket with my head held high. Yes, I'm single and no, I don't want your life. So there.
Okay, so some assholes get married, and they want other people to get married, too. They give a lot of reasons for this. What are these reasons?
1. Married people have better health than unmarried people.
Oh, I see. So marriage is magical. If you get a blood test and a slip of paper and get almost irreversably financially tied to another person, that will make you healthier. This is exactly why common sense should sometimes take presidence over statistics.
2. Married individuals have lower rates of alcoholism than their unmarried counterparts because they tend to offer encouragement, support, and protection from daily problems that could otherwise lead them to using alcohol and other drugs.
And they can also provide reasons for alcohol abuse by generally being a pain in the ass. By the way, be sure to rattle this statistic off to that woman whose husband beats the shit out of her every time he's drunk. Or I should say those women. There are plenty to choose from.
3. Married men and women have lower suicide rates than unmarried ones because married people have meaningful social networks of friends and relatives. Meaningful relationships give people a sense of personal value and a feeling of responsibility to others.
Ah, I see. And you have to be married for that. You have to have that blood test and that slip of paper and the woman has to change her last name in order that you don't kill yourself. Besides, am I the only person left on Earth whose personal value is not based on how many other people I know?
4. Married individuals tend to have stronger immune systems, making them less likely to catch colds and develop other illnesses than unmarried ones.
I'm not kidding, I actually read this bullshit in a pro-marriage article. So being married turns you into Superman. You become the complete opposite of an AIDS patient. Hey, maybe AIDS patients should all get married! EUREKA! I've just found the cure for AIDS!
5. Marriage tends to make individuals to be more motivated to do well at work.
Yeah, because your spouse is a selfish fucker and you have to make plenty of money to keep him/her satisfied with material possessions.
6. Married persons are less likely to be lonely because they always have someone to share their thoughts, feelings, and lives with.
Because it's not like cohabitated couples can do that or anything.
7. Married couples have sex more often and enjoy it more physically and emotionally than their unmarried counterparts.
More often? Yeah, probably. Enjoy it more? I'm going to have to answer "like hell" on that one. I'll guarantee if statistical information was gathered about which women are more likely to fake orgasms, married women would probably own that dubious distinction.
8. Married couples have higher incomes than single men and women.
Yeah. And they have to share it with each other.
9. The most valued and beautiful of all human relationships and a fundamental social institution which is central to the nurture and raising of children.
Since when? When I was a kid, all of the most fucked up kids I knew were the products of married households, while some of the most well-adjusted had not only unmarried, but single parents. Granted, I had married parents throughout my childhood, but I think that just goes to show that not all people benefit from the same environment. Besides, what about folks like me, the proudly child-free?
10. A strong commitment to marriage is therefore fundamental to the health and stability of any home, community or nation.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe such a legal bond is beneficial for some people (fuck if I know why), but it's ridiculous to assume that it is fundamental to the health of ANY home. There is nothing as small-minded as assuming that everyone has the same goals that you do.
I thought about coming up with my list of ten reasons to stay single or cohabitate, but that last bit reminded me otherwise. If you're already single, you already know the benefits. If you already cohabitate, you already know about the benefits of that, too. If you are already married or for whatever reason really want to reach that status, then you likely don't care. As for me, I'm a happy single person and will likely stay this way for some time (and if I ever do lose my single status, it won't involve marriage). I just can't bring myself to throw away my individuality just so I can become psychologically dependent on another person and somehow act like I'm "fullfilled" as a result.
Plus, it gives me an excuse to eat alone in restaurants and walk by myself through the supermarket with my head held high. Yes, I'm single and no, I don't want your life. So there.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Merry Goddamn Christmas and Happy Fucking Holidays
If you've been looking at the news for the past month, surely you've noticed the "Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays" debate that has suddenly crawled out of the sewers this season to consume the unsuspecting populace, much like the Blob. And if you're anything like me, you're probably quite perplexed by it.
It goes something like this: Although people have been saying both "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" interchangeably for as long as anyone can remember, suddenly this year some people decided that it should not be so. Although many people blame the politically correct "Happy Holidays" crowd, I place the blame more on the "Merry Christmas" end.
In recent years, there has been a growing trend that I (for lack of a better name) have dubbed "The Belligerent Christian Movement". These people see approximately two points of view - Christian and atheist - and think that the latter is "out to get" the former and wipe it completely off the face of the planet. They're in a constant struggle to force their religious views onto everyone else, and when denied the opportunity are quick to create a false dilemma, somehow coming to the conclusion that U.S. courts are "hostile" towards religion and are keeping them from keeping their own religious views. These are the people I solely blame. They believe that the ultra-PC crowd wants to take their holiday away from them, and they also frequently labor under the misapphresion that Christmas is the only holiday this time of year.
Earlier I was reading an article in the online Kinston Free Press (a North Carolina paper) which contained a quote from a local minister by the name of the reverend Chuck Lyons: "Happy holidays is kind of humorous to say anyway...What is the holiday they're celebrating? It's Christmas."
Really? So I guess the Jews, they're celebrating Christmas, too? The New Age religions? What about the Muslims? Every group I just named has its own holiday this time of year: Hanukkah, Solstice, and Ramadan, respectively. Hence, "Happy Holidays". Plural. With an "S".
"Merry Christmas" is not necessarily an offensive phrase to anyone, although it could be considered exclusionary. Saying something like "Merry Christmas" to someone you don't even know is to presume you know what their religion is, which is somewhat rude. But then one also has to consider that Christmas is to many basically a secularized holiday. This is why the phrase never bothered me - before.
One has to stop and consider...why would some of the water into wine crowd be so offended by "Happy Holidays"? After all, that phrase includes their beloved Christmas. It's simply wishing well on whatever holiday they celebrate. But it seems the aggressive evangelists aren't content in being included in the holiday season, they want complete ownership of it.
This is why the phrase "Merry Christmas" bothers me now. Every time I hear it now, I've begun to hear a slight towards non-Christians. I don't acknowledge the phrase when it's spoken to me (unless if feel the person truly means it), and I certainly will not return it.
As for me, I just say "Have a Nice Day". It works all year, and nobody is bothered by it.
It goes something like this: Although people have been saying both "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" interchangeably for as long as anyone can remember, suddenly this year some people decided that it should not be so. Although many people blame the politically correct "Happy Holidays" crowd, I place the blame more on the "Merry Christmas" end.
In recent years, there has been a growing trend that I (for lack of a better name) have dubbed "The Belligerent Christian Movement". These people see approximately two points of view - Christian and atheist - and think that the latter is "out to get" the former and wipe it completely off the face of the planet. They're in a constant struggle to force their religious views onto everyone else, and when denied the opportunity are quick to create a false dilemma, somehow coming to the conclusion that U.S. courts are "hostile" towards religion and are keeping them from keeping their own religious views. These are the people I solely blame. They believe that the ultra-PC crowd wants to take their holiday away from them, and they also frequently labor under the misapphresion that Christmas is the only holiday this time of year.
Earlier I was reading an article in the online Kinston Free Press (a North Carolina paper) which contained a quote from a local minister by the name of the reverend Chuck Lyons: "Happy holidays is kind of humorous to say anyway...What is the holiday they're celebrating? It's Christmas."
Really? So I guess the Jews, they're celebrating Christmas, too? The New Age religions? What about the Muslims? Every group I just named has its own holiday this time of year: Hanukkah, Solstice, and Ramadan, respectively. Hence, "Happy Holidays". Plural. With an "S".
"Merry Christmas" is not necessarily an offensive phrase to anyone, although it could be considered exclusionary. Saying something like "Merry Christmas" to someone you don't even know is to presume you know what their religion is, which is somewhat rude. But then one also has to consider that Christmas is to many basically a secularized holiday. This is why the phrase never bothered me - before.
One has to stop and consider...why would some of the water into wine crowd be so offended by "Happy Holidays"? After all, that phrase includes their beloved Christmas. It's simply wishing well on whatever holiday they celebrate. But it seems the aggressive evangelists aren't content in being included in the holiday season, they want complete ownership of it.
This is why the phrase "Merry Christmas" bothers me now. Every time I hear it now, I've begun to hear a slight towards non-Christians. I don't acknowledge the phrase when it's spoken to me (unless if feel the person truly means it), and I certainly will not return it.
As for me, I just say "Have a Nice Day". It works all year, and nobody is bothered by it.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Dr. Hysteria, or How I Learned to Stop Thinking and Believe in Man-Made Global Warming
Ever see The Day After Tomorrow? It was that really lame environmental activist propaganda film disguised as a disaster movie written and directed by Roland "I love to destroy New York with computer effects" Emmerich. If you did see it, I sympathize. I sat through the thing too. But if not, let me fill you in:
Everyone will continue to not buy all-important hybrid cars, and those evil V8 engines in everything else will spit up a cloud of Hydrogen Dioxide, which will create a sudden spike in global temperatures. This will make it hail in Tokyo. Afterwards, every one will begin to freeze to death (because the world is getting hotter and all), New York will be destroyed for the 80th time, wolves will suddenly start attacking people, and then we'll fall through some ice. And the survivors will start burning books to stay warm.
Powerful statement, huh? Because believe me, it IS a statement. This isn't just a work of fiction...there are some - nay, many - who actually seriously believe this shit. The popular view of GLOBAL WARMING (to be forever after placed in all caps, to emphasize how scary it is) is that not only is it for real and for true, but people are causing it. Because we drive cars. Environmentalists hate cars, unless they're powered by hybrid drive or solar power.
Ask any liberal (I hate to use the either of the terms "liberal or "conservative" as dirty words, because it makes me sound like I side with one of those groups - trust me, extremists from either end are equally unpleasant people) and they'll tell you that there's a mountain of evidence for GLOBAL WARMING, most notably that something is melting somewhere. That's what it always leads to. Something is melting somewhere, whether it's an iceberg in the North Atlantic, the entire continent of Antartica, or some little girl's ice cream cone in Des Moines. They use the term GREENHOUSE EFFECT sometimes (although not often anymore, 'cause it doesn't sound scary) to describe the hypothesis that our atmosphere traps in carbon dioxide, and that cars produce more carbon dioxide than we can get rid of, since we keep destroying the rainforests. This carbon dioxide will keep building up in our atmosphere and start to raise the temperature of Earth, thus naturally killing everything living on it. There's certainly no statistical evidence for this, but just remember that something is melting somewhere. And if ice is melting in one part of the world, obviously the entire world is getting hotter.
Here's what you don't hear from proponents of GLOBAL WARMING:
1. Climatologists only have just over 100 years of global weather data to work with. You can't predict what's going to happen several centuries from now based off of 100 years of data. You can't even predict what's going to happen 100 years from now based off of 100 years of data, due to the lack of any kind of control group. The question of whether the last century has been typical or atypical in terms of global temperatures is unanswered, as is the question on if there even is such a thing as a typical century, since it could be argued that Earth's climate has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years.
2. The term "GLOBAL WARMING" itself is misleading, since it does exist, in a sense. If one were to look at the global weather data we have, they would see a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s, a cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1970s (which paved the way for "second ice age" theorists, which were just as fanatical and hysteric as GLOBAL WARMING proponents are today), and then another warming trend from the 1970s to today. But even that hasn't remained constant: although the hottest year since the 1970s was 1998 ("a mere seven years ago", proponents like to point out smugly, which by itself chips the credibility of a world constantly getting hotter), the coldest year since the 1970s was 1992...a mere SIX years prior to the hottest year. Oh yeah, and in case you're wondering, this last century has averaged out to a temperature rise of around 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Although some proponents gloat about this fact, it's well within a reasonable scientific margin. When global temperatures are constantly rising and falling, it's a logical fallacy to assume that the overall global temperatures will average out to the same number every 100 years.
3. Although proponents love to point out that the majority of climatologists believe in GLOBAL WARMING (and this may well be so), what's never taken into account is the (sizable) number of them who insist that our current warming period is a part of a natural cycle occurring every 30 or 40 years and is not caused by man. Majority belief is flimsy, anyway: A true inquiring mind doesn't grasp an idea just because it's fashionable, and if the climatologists can produce no evidence for their beliefs, then they're merely personal beliefs. I'm sure most climatologists believe in a god, as well. That doesn't mean theism has been scientifically proven.
4. I hate to take away the GLOBAL WARMING crowd's favorite argument away (no, on second thought, I love taking it away), but not every bit of ice in the world is melting. For example, the sea ice seasons in the southern oceans have been getting noticeably longer over the past 10 years or so. And although proponents constantly bring up the polar ice caps melting, most experts agree that the ice caps have been melting for around 1,000,000 years now...which is a pretty fucking long time before the Industrial Revolution started.
5. Many have theorized that the planet is coming out of the "Little Ice Age", a global cooling period that lasted from the Middle Ages to the early 19th century and making a natural recovery to its previous state, however this theory is hampered by the lack of reliable global temperature data from over 100 years ago.
6. Satellite temperatures have shown little to no warming in the upper atmosphere since the 1970s...and the warming of the atmosphere is crucial to the idea of GLOBAL WARMING.
I honestly hope that our current warming trend is part of a 30-40 year cycle...that way, very soon now, we'll see GLOBAL COOLING. No, make it GLOBAL FREEZING. The hysterics will jump right back to their second Ice Age, and I'll still be laughing at their complete ignorance and lack of research.
So what to do until then? I guess I'll just CHILL for a while. HA, get it? Chill! Because of GLOBAL FREEZING!
.....
Screw you, I thought it was funny.
Everyone will continue to not buy all-important hybrid cars, and those evil V8 engines in everything else will spit up a cloud of Hydrogen Dioxide, which will create a sudden spike in global temperatures. This will make it hail in Tokyo. Afterwards, every one will begin to freeze to death (because the world is getting hotter and all), New York will be destroyed for the 80th time, wolves will suddenly start attacking people, and then we'll fall through some ice. And the survivors will start burning books to stay warm.
Powerful statement, huh? Because believe me, it IS a statement. This isn't just a work of fiction...there are some - nay, many - who actually seriously believe this shit. The popular view of GLOBAL WARMING (to be forever after placed in all caps, to emphasize how scary it is) is that not only is it for real and for true, but people are causing it. Because we drive cars. Environmentalists hate cars, unless they're powered by hybrid drive or solar power.
Ask any liberal (I hate to use the either of the terms "liberal or "conservative" as dirty words, because it makes me sound like I side with one of those groups - trust me, extremists from either end are equally unpleasant people) and they'll tell you that there's a mountain of evidence for GLOBAL WARMING, most notably that something is melting somewhere. That's what it always leads to. Something is melting somewhere, whether it's an iceberg in the North Atlantic, the entire continent of Antartica, or some little girl's ice cream cone in Des Moines. They use the term GREENHOUSE EFFECT sometimes (although not often anymore, 'cause it doesn't sound scary) to describe the hypothesis that our atmosphere traps in carbon dioxide, and that cars produce more carbon dioxide than we can get rid of, since we keep destroying the rainforests. This carbon dioxide will keep building up in our atmosphere and start to raise the temperature of Earth, thus naturally killing everything living on it. There's certainly no statistical evidence for this, but just remember that something is melting somewhere. And if ice is melting in one part of the world, obviously the entire world is getting hotter.
Here's what you don't hear from proponents of GLOBAL WARMING:
1. Climatologists only have just over 100 years of global weather data to work with. You can't predict what's going to happen several centuries from now based off of 100 years of data. You can't even predict what's going to happen 100 years from now based off of 100 years of data, due to the lack of any kind of control group. The question of whether the last century has been typical or atypical in terms of global temperatures is unanswered, as is the question on if there even is such a thing as a typical century, since it could be argued that Earth's climate has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years.
2. The term "GLOBAL WARMING" itself is misleading, since it does exist, in a sense. If one were to look at the global weather data we have, they would see a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s, a cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1970s (which paved the way for "second ice age" theorists, which were just as fanatical and hysteric as GLOBAL WARMING proponents are today), and then another warming trend from the 1970s to today. But even that hasn't remained constant: although the hottest year since the 1970s was 1998 ("a mere seven years ago", proponents like to point out smugly, which by itself chips the credibility of a world constantly getting hotter), the coldest year since the 1970s was 1992...a mere SIX years prior to the hottest year. Oh yeah, and in case you're wondering, this last century has averaged out to a temperature rise of around 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Although some proponents gloat about this fact, it's well within a reasonable scientific margin. When global temperatures are constantly rising and falling, it's a logical fallacy to assume that the overall global temperatures will average out to the same number every 100 years.
3. Although proponents love to point out that the majority of climatologists believe in GLOBAL WARMING (and this may well be so), what's never taken into account is the (sizable) number of them who insist that our current warming period is a part of a natural cycle occurring every 30 or 40 years and is not caused by man. Majority belief is flimsy, anyway: A true inquiring mind doesn't grasp an idea just because it's fashionable, and if the climatologists can produce no evidence for their beliefs, then they're merely personal beliefs. I'm sure most climatologists believe in a god, as well. That doesn't mean theism has been scientifically proven.
4. I hate to take away the GLOBAL WARMING crowd's favorite argument away (no, on second thought, I love taking it away), but not every bit of ice in the world is melting. For example, the sea ice seasons in the southern oceans have been getting noticeably longer over the past 10 years or so. And although proponents constantly bring up the polar ice caps melting, most experts agree that the ice caps have been melting for around 1,000,000 years now...which is a pretty fucking long time before the Industrial Revolution started.
5. Many have theorized that the planet is coming out of the "Little Ice Age", a global cooling period that lasted from the Middle Ages to the early 19th century and making a natural recovery to its previous state, however this theory is hampered by the lack of reliable global temperature data from over 100 years ago.
6. Satellite temperatures have shown little to no warming in the upper atmosphere since the 1970s...and the warming of the atmosphere is crucial to the idea of GLOBAL WARMING.
I honestly hope that our current warming trend is part of a 30-40 year cycle...that way, very soon now, we'll see GLOBAL COOLING. No, make it GLOBAL FREEZING. The hysterics will jump right back to their second Ice Age, and I'll still be laughing at their complete ignorance and lack of research.
So what to do until then? I guess I'll just CHILL for a while. HA, get it? Chill! Because of GLOBAL FREEZING!
.....
Screw you, I thought it was funny.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
The Dangers of Rae Dawn Chong
What will it take to warn you about the dangers of Rae Dawn Chong?
The EPA has concluded numerous times that there is a definite link between lung cancer and Rae Dawn. She's a threat in three out of every ten homes. About 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year in the U.S. are Rae Dawn-related. Exposure to Rae Dawn is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. She's also been linked to sudden mood swings in pregnant women, sore throat, brain-freeze, stabbings, ringworm, explosive flatulence, meningitis, and in some cases premature death from unknown causes. She can also cause children under 12 to bleed profusely from all of their pores.
Rae Dawn is ubiquitous. She can be found in most homes in trace amounts, usually when a person unintentionally switches to Cinemax when The Principal in on. However, some homes have deadly levels of Rae Dawn, ranging from one or more of her films on VHS or DVD, all the way to a physical incarnation of her stalking in the shadows with glowing eyes and a large knife. You can't see her, smell her, or taste her. Therefore, many lung cancer victims never knew of the dangers of their extremely high levels of Rae Dawn.
Rae Dawn can enter the home many ways, normally through an open door or window, although she can also phase through solid walls if the conditions are just right, and has been known to crawl out of television sets, like that little ghost girl in The Ring. Also be aware of cracks in the floor or walls: She's very thin.
Rae Dawn is very easy to check for. One must look for corpses lying randomly in the floor, as well as the site of her lurking about and staring like a hungry wild dog. Be also aware of her droppings: They are invisible and have no scent, but are very slippery, much like a banana peel. Other warning signs could include post-apocalyptic plotlines, excessive monster make-up, and James Belushi.
Once it has been established that the home contains dangerous levels of Rae Dawn, one must be careful never to attempt exterminating her through the use of force. Not only is she bad as hell and could probably kill you with two or three of her fingers, but she is also an entity that can jump from the body of one person to another, causing a physical metamorphosis of her host body into that of a skinny, ethnically mixed middle-aged woman.
The proper way to exterminate Rae Dawn is to pray to the wood nymphs (be sure they are EPA-certified wood nymphs, however) and brush some sage against your right elbow, while chanting "I'll be your number one with a bullet...doodlebop, soda pop, grab it and pull it".
WARNING: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU BRUSH THE SAGE AGAINST YOUR LEFT ELBOW. THIS CAN CAUSE A SUBATOMIC REACTION THAT COULD CAUSE CATASTROPHIC SUBATOMIC FAILURE ON THE SUBATOMIC LEVEL, AND CAN CAUSE YOUR NOSE TO FALL OFF.
After these steps are complete, Rae Dawn should let out a piercing scream that can be heard throughout the entire region of the country you live in, which will shatter all glass and burst all car tires within a five mile radius. She will then explode into a shower of sparks and rose petals. Your home should now be Rae-Dawn free.
For further information, please refer to the Internet Movie Database at www.imdb.com.
Remember, only you can prevent Rae Dawn Chong.
The EPA has concluded numerous times that there is a definite link between lung cancer and Rae Dawn. She's a threat in three out of every ten homes. About 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year in the U.S. are Rae Dawn-related. Exposure to Rae Dawn is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. She's also been linked to sudden mood swings in pregnant women, sore throat, brain-freeze, stabbings, ringworm, explosive flatulence, meningitis, and in some cases premature death from unknown causes. She can also cause children under 12 to bleed profusely from all of their pores.
Rae Dawn is ubiquitous. She can be found in most homes in trace amounts, usually when a person unintentionally switches to Cinemax when The Principal in on. However, some homes have deadly levels of Rae Dawn, ranging from one or more of her films on VHS or DVD, all the way to a physical incarnation of her stalking in the shadows with glowing eyes and a large knife. You can't see her, smell her, or taste her. Therefore, many lung cancer victims never knew of the dangers of their extremely high levels of Rae Dawn.
Rae Dawn can enter the home many ways, normally through an open door or window, although she can also phase through solid walls if the conditions are just right, and has been known to crawl out of television sets, like that little ghost girl in The Ring. Also be aware of cracks in the floor or walls: She's very thin.
AHHH! She's a known carcinogen! Run, bitch, run!
Rae Dawn is very easy to check for. One must look for corpses lying randomly in the floor, as well as the site of her lurking about and staring like a hungry wild dog. Be also aware of her droppings: They are invisible and have no scent, but are very slippery, much like a banana peel. Other warning signs could include post-apocalyptic plotlines, excessive monster make-up, and James Belushi.
Once it has been established that the home contains dangerous levels of Rae Dawn, one must be careful never to attempt exterminating her through the use of force. Not only is she bad as hell and could probably kill you with two or three of her fingers, but she is also an entity that can jump from the body of one person to another, causing a physical metamorphosis of her host body into that of a skinny, ethnically mixed middle-aged woman.
The proper way to exterminate Rae Dawn is to pray to the wood nymphs (be sure they are EPA-certified wood nymphs, however) and brush some sage against your right elbow, while chanting "I'll be your number one with a bullet...doodlebop, soda pop, grab it and pull it".
WARNING: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU BRUSH THE SAGE AGAINST YOUR LEFT ELBOW. THIS CAN CAUSE A SUBATOMIC REACTION THAT COULD CAUSE CATASTROPHIC SUBATOMIC FAILURE ON THE SUBATOMIC LEVEL, AND CAN CAUSE YOUR NOSE TO FALL OFF.
After these steps are complete, Rae Dawn should let out a piercing scream that can be heard throughout the entire region of the country you live in, which will shatter all glass and burst all car tires within a five mile radius. She will then explode into a shower of sparks and rose petals. Your home should now be Rae-Dawn free.
For further information, please refer to the Internet Movie Database at www.imdb.com.
Remember, only you can prevent Rae Dawn Chong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)