| the asskickingest shit evah! |
[15 Aug 2005|08:28am] |
More punk
More rock
More glam
More ass
More beer
Better beer
Open bar
More love
More beauty
More bearhugs
More fuck
Less war
Less bull
Better government
Tighter pants
Bare chests
Younger boys
Better boys
More gloss
More bling
Pink water in swimming pools
More joy
More horniness
More kisses
More frenching
More stars
More heat
Brighter northern lights
( explanation insideCollapse )
|
|
| gobsmacked like a mofo |
[03 Aug 2005|02:27am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 enraged |
] |
so, there i was, channel-surfing and looking for something fun to watch.
"ooh, this looks like it might be funny" i said to myself.
the scene was prisoners just having come off the bus that was transporting them to prison and the comically evil guard was giving them the standard this-is-my-house-speech. the camera switched between showing the guard and panning from one prisoner to the next.
"wow, this is such piss poor acting that i MUST be Son Of The Beach or something funny-in-a-dumb-way like that", i thought.
then i saw Chuck Norris and wondered if he'd started doing comedy for real (instead of the unintentionally funny stuff he usually does). then i checked the program info and, lo and behold, it was Walker Texas Ranger.
can somebody, please, tell me why this show is on the air?
it's got crap acting, about as much plot as a hot dog has easily identifiable animals parts, and (as far as i can see) serves ONLY the purpose of making sure Chuckie's face is on the tube when his infomercials aren't being shown.
crist, what dumbass sadist came up with the idea of having a TEXAS ranger take down criminals using karate??? hello! Texas! the state that's known the world over for having trigger-happy nednecks! rednecks don't use high-kicks, rednecks use "them there shawtgons, y'all". even Steven Seagal is more refined an actor than Chuck Norris!
|
|
|
[19 Jul 2005|07:28pm] |
just finished Killing Pablo. took me about three days so it was about time.
an interesting read, even though my main reason for reading as that i like the author, Mark Bowden.
anyways, now it's smoking time and then transcribing the phone entries of our beloved Krazycat.
|
|
| it's all been said and done |
[19 Jul 2005|12:27am] |
there's a lot of talk about britain introducing some new ID cards, and it's nothing new that the US government has, and plans to further, impose severe restrictions on people's freedom. all in the name of fighting terrorism.
i think my thoughts on this can be summed up in a single sentence, a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that goes a little like this:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
with the risk of sounding ever so slightly paranoid, doesn't any of this remind you at all of George Orwell's '1984'?
|
|
| riddle me this, and riddle me that.... |
[18 Jul 2005|07:25pm] |
the other day, at dinner, the talk turned to corruption among business leaders, and it made me wonder....
in this country (norway), anyone who's been convicted of stealing would have a seriously tough time getting a gig as a security guard. a known pyromaniac wouldn't be allowed to become a fireman. anyone even accused (needn't be tried, just charges being pressed) of being anything close to a child molester wouldn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a job in a kindergarten or anything else to do with kids.
now, those requirements are all well and good. you wouldn't want someone with a shady past working for you in a trusted position.
basically everyone understands this and noone thinks this is odd. if you have a criminal record then you don't even try to apply for that high-level government job you'd love to have, let alone whine if you don't get a positive answer to your application.
but, what i wondered about was this:
if you've been found to have participated in corruption, being bribed by someone or having bribed someone, making deals with competitors and thusly breaking competition laws to increase profits, using blatant lies to gain an advantage against your opponent(s), spreading malicious untruths as facts, using propaganda that's been proven to be false, or done any other corrupt act, are you then automatically excluded from government and/or business leadership positions?
these "white-collar criminals" often do extreme amounts of damage, yet face little if any legal retribution.
a junkie who breaks into ten homes, stealing items of a total worth of, say, £10 thousand would be thrown into jail faster than they could say "ohcrap" and be labeled as an incorrigible menace. but the really big crooks, the people behind things like Enron, WorldCom and things of that magnitude, they steal millions and get sent to a minimum-security detention facility (something often called Club Fed, a play of words on the Club Med holiday trip) for a short while.
why is that?
are their crimes somehow lessened by the fact that they didn't pose any potential direct physical threat to their victims? shouldn't then, equally, their crimes be considered worse because of the huge damage they made? someone who loses a tv, vcr, home stereo and some jewelery in a burglary can get those things back through their home-owners insurance. someone who loses their life savings cannot get that money back so easily from a bankruptcy estate or lawsuit against the crooks' accountants who signed off on the books not having been cooked.
the "rule" is that the bigger the crime, the longer the time (you have to serve in prison). why not then follow that rule across the board?
|
|
| Muttley and Dastardly ride again |
[16 Jul 2005|01:03am] |
so i'm reading this article about how some british right-wing extremists and hooligans are going to join forces so they can beat up muslims together.
let's take them up on the offer, i say!
the royal marines must have some guns and hand grenades lying around that they part with and the RAF probably has some transport planes to lend, so why not fly the fuckers off to Afghanistan and let them fight al-qaeda there? or we could send to brush knuckles with the armed wing of hamas, hizbollah and fatah? maybe even let them try to deal with the suicide bombers in iraq?
really.
i mean, two flies, one stone, anyone?
not only would it help rid the world of stupid european people, but it could also make for a few less stupid middle-eastern people.
i'm certain that the average muslim would agree with me here that lowering the count of violent idiots (regardless of their skin colour or self-proclaimed religious affiliation) is a good thing.
they needn't be given the latest and greatest guns, just something from the nearest arms depot would do. there's transport planes going back and forth probably about every day so giving up a few seats wouldn't make much of a difference. they'd not need any wages, or at least not for long as they'd most likely get themselves killed rather quickly. they could be given air support by the planes already droppings bombs in those neighbourhoods, just to give them a little advantage. the only real expense would be supplying them with copious amounts of lager. that'd demand a few of more transport planes, or a cargo ship or two, but it'd be worth it!
hell, give them head-mounted cameras and we could make a reality show out of it!
the networks love showing us dimwitted people performing harebrained schemes, so why not this too?
i know i'd be laughing my ass off with a mouth full of crisps watching that show!
come on, people. it's win-win for us all!
|
|
|
[12 Jul 2005|08:04am] |
i'm reading a few pages on a reality series called 'Welcome to the Neighborhood' that got killed by the tv channel before it got aired. in short, three white, Bush-voter families were supposed to choose a new neighbour from a group of families. the candidate families were a black family, a latino family, an asian family, the two gay men who'd adopted a black baby, a extensively tattooed republican couple, a supposedly normal white family where mommy is a stripper and a Wiccan couple who met at the woman's initiation as a witch. or to put it another way, stereotyped conservatives were put face to face with their prejudices.
some of the articles actually went to say that this reality show lacked reality. it could very well be that i've really fucked up and missed a meeting, but i thought journalists were supposed to have at least half a brain. we ALL know reality shows have bugger all to do with reality. Big Brother, very realistic that a dozen shitheads are put into a single house with videocameras constantly filming their every move. Paradise Island, very real that half a dozen couples get separated into groups based on gender, then put into a setting where the booze flows freely and they have buttloads of "attractive members of the opposite sex" try to tempt them to stray from their wife/fiance/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever, all for the cameras to see. seriously, grab your glasses and spot the obvious!
then again, maybe i shouldn't put too high demands on a guy who's both founder and president of 'Media Research Center' which claims to not only be "America's Media Watchdog" but also "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias".
hate to break this to you, Brent, but it's the conservative parts of the media who do most of the distortion of facts and marketing their bias and opinions as truths. just check out 'Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting' at www.fair.org so you can claim you've read what the liberal bastards have to say with a little more credibility. not that i'd really expect a guy who, according to the bio on his MRC site, "is frequently invited to appear on Fox News Channel shows such as Hannity & Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor" to read stuff that might not coincide with his right-wing views.
anyways, on one of the pages i read there were comments at the bottom, including such idiotic remarks as:
"Hey, when this kid turns out to be gay? will it be because he was Genetically disposed to being gay? Or will it be that he was raised by two perverts? just a question, not being judgmental"
first off, learn some punctuation; i'm not saying my punctuation is great, but your's sucks. second, who's to say the kid will turn out gay? thirdly, homosexuality isn't a perversion, it's a (sexual) preference. fourth, you were being judgmental.
is it any wonder i think it'd be a good idea to kill off all the idiots in this world so the rest of us don't have to suffer for their lack of reasoning and logic abilities?
|
|
| on the trail of my ancestors |
[11 Jul 2005|11:35pm] |
so, we went to merry olde england to loot, rape and pillage. y'know, to carry on the traditions and stuff.
came back before the bombings though, so we got away easy, i guess.
however, i think several shops in Brighton have a somewhat diminished stock after our little escapade.
laid waste to Borders and came back with a stack of books from there. a couple of books on Bill Hicks, Al Franken's 'Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them', 'Globalization and Its Discontents' by Joseph Stiglitz, Richard Feynman's 'Don't You Have Time to Think?' and several others. when i went to pay for them, the clerk lady actually said "i'll say, you like to read" with surprise in her voice. yes. the cashier at a bookstore commented on my stack of books like it was one of the biggest she'd ever seen a customer bring to her. and yes, i do like to read. am actually on my third book from said pile and we haven't even been back for a week yet. though, i did finish one before we even went back.
i won't go into detail about the other stuff i left there with, except for one item.
went into a second-hand store and came across the most amazingly fantastic t-shirt of all time!
picture this, white t-shirt, and on the front it says in all uppercase letters "God bless America...", below that a, well, a bust-type-picture (of the person in the text below the picture) with an American flag background, and at the bottom it says "God bless Oliver North".
oh yes. good old Ollie North, the guy who sold weapons to Iran and gave money to the Contras in Nicaragua.
no offense to the merkins who may read this, but when such a golden opportunity to take the piss out of one of your government's dumb-ass ideas presents itself, i just have to jump at it.
|
|
|
[06 Jun 2005|03:19pm] |
yesterday, nobody was home when i woke up, which is strange because there's usually someone up and about when i finally open my eyes.
when my head starting working i realised i was going to visit my brother who's studying in england, so i thought about how you lot could give me tips on what i should take time to see. then when my body had started working semi-properly i made the effort to go to school and try to read a bit, in addition to posting my last entry.
i got fuckall reading done, so i decided to just skip that for the day and go home instead. on the way i came across a park, and decided to sit there for a little bit, just watching the sky while having a smoke and eating an apple.
....and if none of you gets any of the references in the above lines, i shall be very disappointed.
|
|
| the results of boredom... |
[05 Jun 2005|03:57pm] |
last night (after i'd gotten home from watching Tori play her guitar and jockeying some discs, both of which she was good at, btw) i read an ebook called "Sex-Ploytation: How Women Use Their Bodies to Extort Money from Men" or some shit like that.
it was quite amusing to read how somebody could fit all those illogical conclusions and contradictions into one book. basicly, the guy's pissed off because he can't get laid and according to him all women refuse to take any responsibility for not climbing the corporate ladder as fast as men do, not earning the same wages as men, and for being raped, yet he somehow neglects to see that he himself is refusing to take responsibility for shit that happens to him. it reminds me of the following conversation:
Pot: "Kettle?"
Kettle: "Yes?"
Pot: "You're black!"
so, he's saying that all women just want money from men, not cash-in-hand because that'd be outright prostitution, but gifts like diamonds and cars and whatnot, and he's calling out for a revolution to overthrow this heinous system that'd in place.
well, this is just a thought here, but isn't HE to blame for being a dolt and catering to the whims of those women who actually are golddiggers? yes, those women are cunts to say the least, but when a woman (or anybody) expects you to do everything for them and they're not willing to do anything in return (not to mention offering a favour without asking for something), then they're not hanging out with you because of your sense of humour or sparkling personality! it's not exactly fucking rocket science.
i had a much more scathing point in my head about half an hour before i got online, but it's obviously gone into hiding now so i'll have to make it another time.
----
in more fun news, i'm going to merry ole England in about three weeks and staying for a week. we (yours truly and parental units) will be visiting my older brother and his gf who live in, ehh, Brighton, i believe, well, right outside London, in any case, and i was wondering if any of you UK people wanted to meet up for a piss up or just shoot some shit and perhaps give me tips on what i absolutely MUST see while there? :)
|
|
| anybody got a boundary indicator for sale? |
[24 May 2005|09:35pm] |
y'all know how people have boundaries or "borders" that decide how close physically other people are allowed before you get uncomfortable?
i think it's supposed to be like strangers can go as close as 2-3 meters away, acquaintances 1.5-2 meters, friends 1-1.5meters, close friends and family 0.5-1 meter, and lovers and others who you're very close to can go inside the 0.5 meter boundary.
well, i don't have that boundary system, but since lotses of other people do, that can easily lead to me overstepping someone else's boundaries without realising it until it's too late.
in short, and a tiny bit simplified, people are in one of three groups for me. strangers in one group, people i hardly know or don't like in the second, and people i know at least to a degree, like and otherwise feel comfortable around in the third. my boundaries are basicly like this:
strangers - stay at more than an arm's length away till i get to know you.
group 2 - you can sit next to me at a table, but that's about as close as you can get.
group 3 - anything short of a sexual activity is fine by me.
for instance, my little brother is in group 3 and on more than one occasion when he's, say, lying on the couch watching tv and the other seats are taken, i've lied down behind him on the couch and had my head and an arm on his hip or shoulder and proceeded with watching the tv without hardly considering whether this was going too far or not. now, he's family and we're not very timid of physical contact and over the years we've gotten used to not worrying about whether touching eachother is a trespass or not. hugs, fine. pat on the back, fine. groping eachother's ass and making lewd comments while the other is having a piss, fine.
most other people, however, prefer more distance, it would seem.
which leads us to the pickle i'm in...
i slept at a friend's house, in the same bed as her, we started joking around by hogging the duvet so as the other was left without anything to sleep under, i did my patented "Gah!" and practicly spooned her. for various reasons, some unknown and unknowable to me at the time, this led to her being pissed off at me.
did she at any time tell me to back off? yes. did i back off when she asked me to? yes. did i stay back and on my side of the bed? yes.
however, she did wriggle a bit from time to time which i thought was part of the joking around and attempts to gain a more comfortable position instead of as her trying to push me back as she intended it.
now you see the pickle in 32-bit colours and 1600x1200pixel resolution?
this shit sucks because i like her and i enjoy hanging out with her, but what more can i do when practicly all she has to say is something as un-constructive as "if you were really my friend you should've known" (in addition to the "neh, i'm busy" when i asked her if she had time to grab a coffee and talk) after i've apologized and tried to explain to her that it wasn't a dumbass lead-in to "wanna have sex?" or something stupid like that?
what's even worse is that she has my "Spaced" season 2 dvd :P
|
|
| holycrapit'sbeenforeversincelasttime |
[27 Jan 2004|05:21pm] |
i just realised i haven't updated my journal since the dawn of time, and i haven't even read through my friends list in half that long. at least.
i blame school.
speaking of which, i was supposed to take a test today, a test that i've been reading and preparing for for ages, but about an hour and a half before it was supposed to start they call me and say it's been cancelled because they couldn't download the test from Prometric.
that kinda sucked. i'll have to reschedule it for some other time, but that doesn't really fit all that great into my plans of moving to Oslo. oh well, it's probably sort itself out somehow.
so, what's up, people?
|
|
|
[05 May 2003|11:49pm] |
| Your Ultimate Purity Score Is... | | Category | Your Score | Average | | Self-Lovin' | 43.3%
When I think about you - or anyone - I touch myself | 57.8% | | Shamelessness | 88.1%
Has yet to see self in mirror | 74% | | Sex Drive | 86.8%
The Pope is envious | 71.2% | | Straightness | 83.9%
Just go fuck something, okay? | 35% | | Gayness | 92.9%
Repressed, are we? | 75.1% |
| Fucking Sick | 92%
Refreshingly normal | 85% |
You are 78.52% pure
Average Score: 65.8%
| |
|
|
|
[04 May 2003|06:40am] |
i haven't really been following things much lately. am yet to set up any newsserver accounts since i reinstalled everything a few weeks back, rarely check my email (except for my hotmail address). in other words, i haven't read amp or seen any replies to my comments on other people's ljs for a while now.
it's basicly just me being lazy, yeah.
y'see, i have two installations of windows on this comp. one is win2k pro where i have my email accounts set up (and will be setting up newsserver accounts eventually), and the other is win2k server where i'm doing drew's site on (it's good to have a local server for testing stuff, i'd go ape if i had to upload every file every time i changed something in the php scripts).
i just can't really be bothered to shut down every program and reboot to the other installation just to check my email or whatever.
in my head, the choice is "1. i kill all running programs, then wait for the comp to shut down and then start up again, check email and read it, then kill all the programs there, then wait while the comp is shutting down and starting up into this installation again, or 2. i could not do that and just keep doing what i'm doing now. door #2 sounds like less of an effort, i'm gonna go with that."
oh, for drew (and any other poor misguided souls who'd want to see how making his site is going), i've got a little news page here which i update after every "breakthrough" i have.
i'll also be putting up full details of the task when it's done, or even before it's done if there's any requests for it.
|
|
|
[03 May 2003|04:31am] |
i'm bored as fuck, and not at all motivated to do anything at all.
i should be working on drew's site, but, alas, i am not.
maybe it's because i've made it past any big hurdles or large difficulties with the site. i mean, i made a rather intricate login system in php from scratch and all i really have left now is to write admin tasks (adding/changing/deleting entries in the database) and their respective sql queries. it's like i've beaten the boss on the final level and now i just have to get past a few dumb henchmen to reach the final end and watch the credits roll by.
bah, i'm gonna read that last unread comic book i have here somewhere and then go do something productive.
|
|
|
[16 Apr 2003|07:47am] |
in the last couple of days i must've spent at least five to ten hours doing stuff on the comp for other people.
not that i mind, quite the contrary.
i "made" an image for my brother for one of his classes and i also reconfigured the template onmy brother's girlfriend's blogspot page.
the image was, simply put, getting a few pieces handed to me and then putting them together and colouring them and adding a few details.
go here to see what pics were handed to me and what i was supposed to make the end result look like.
it was fun fiddling about in photoshop trying to make it all come together to form something ok-ish.
the blogspot template, however, was oh so frustrating because i had to make changes to the template (which was in HTML and some blogspot specific tags) though the browser, "publish" the template (ie, making the public page actually use the template) and then going back to edit the template to do more changes and/or fix code that didn't work as planned. but still, it was fun.
it felt good to do stuff for other people. i mean, doing small favours that only take a few seconds is nice too, but this was better because i could immerse myself completely in it.
in a way it gives me more motivation to do stuff for myself, like pushing on through my textbooks and things.
ah well, i'm off to go read now.
good night, good morning, or both.
|
|
| long see no time |
[15 Apr 2003|04:10am] |
haven't posted in, uhh... *thinks* ... a while now.
guess i'm "neglecting" lj. not that i'd have much to say, anyways.
i set up the puters here at home into a little network of sorts. both running win2k because it's stable and doesn't suck up as much resources as winxp does. i'm wanting to make it so that the comps would see eachother and stuffs even after the cable has been unplugged and the replugged, but that's something that'd take a good deal more effort than i can give it right now.
i'm also gonna be getting my site up again, again. if i can be arsed to fiddle about with it, that is.
but i'm not muchly happy with my current domain name. i want something better.
i was thinking i'd get "faustus.com/.net" or maybe even "wowbagger.com/.net" (name the books those characters are from!) but they're taken, so i'll have to go with something else.
i want something that says "don't take this site too seriously, it's just for shits and giggles really". something like "thissitesucks.com", only snappier.
i think i should be less frazzled by sleep deprivation when i make my choice, but pat came up with some good ones. such as 'thisshouldnotbeonthe.net', 'youareretardedfortypingthiswholeaddress.com', 'gluemakesyouhappy.com', 'imadethiswhileondrugs.com, 'concreation.net' (pat: "as opposed to PROcreation") and 'anization.org' (pat: "switch them- anization.org - org.anization").
perhaps i should use one of his ideas, just to suck up a bit. after all, he is providing me with free webspace and all.
ah well, i'll decide that later.
now it is night and i shall sleep. nightnight.
|
|
