Beautiful Evil.

Why are churches, synagogues, mosques and temples, etc always such beautiful pieces of architecture? It seems such a waste.

Given that organised religion's main purpose is to accumulate power and money for its leaders it seems that they wouldn't particularly want to waste money on building beautiful places of worship, especially as the bible gives Christians an out: God says 'Nothing you build on earth can do me justice because I am so much way cooler than you freaks'.

That's not a direct quote because I can't be bothered looking up chapter and verse. Why don't you just pretend I'm a religious leader and so believe everything I say unconditionally? That would make things a lot easier, none of this 'proof' stuff to complicate matters.

Sadly, that's not likely to happen. It seems only the unbelievable can be believed by the religious types out there. Such a pity.

Where was I?

So, the religious leaders take the tithe which is ostensibly given to help the poor and is certainly collected to help the collectors' but somehow it gets spent on something that seemingly benefits neither- the place of worship.

A conundrum indeed.

My theory is that its like paying for advertising. Given that the religion can't actually perform miracles or such the only way to show their coolness is to build a huge hulking piece of beauty and permanence.

Further, its something of a sleight-of-hand as the beauty of the building serves to distract from the evil it represents.

No one would join a religion if it were in a hut because that's not sexy enough, nor would they join if the place looked evil and otherwise representative of the actuall goings-on. So the whole thing is addressed by the facade of beauty. More people join: more money and power is accumulated.

I can't wait for the day when religion is replaced by science and spirituality and the beautiful buildings heretofore dedicated to such immoral decrepitude can be put to more befitting uses like brothels and such.

I am free to dream.

You gotta be cruel to be kind.

The platitude 'You gotta be cruel to be kind' was probably just a sadist validating themselves, but they were onto something.

As an aside, I don't understand S&M. Sadism by itself and masochism by itself is ok, but together?! The whole point of sadism is to subjugate someone. However, if the 'victim' is willingly subjugated, as a masochist would be, then its not really subjugation, is it?

In reality, the sadist is being kind to the masochist and the masochist is depriving the sadist of their desires. Role reversal.

Sorry to all those whose sex live I've just ruined, but you should have thought this through, people.

Anyway. Back to the main topic: 'being cruel to be kind' is a true truism if ever there was one.

Take, for example, someone preparing you a sandwich for the first time. They smother it with vegemite and pineapple jam. After reluctantly taking a bite against your better judgment and once the gagging subsides they ask you "Do you like it?"

If you were a kind idiot, you'd probably say "It's the best vegemite and pineapple jam sandwhich I've ever had." While probably true given that someone would be unlikely to eat such a thing twice, the problem here is that the perpertrator of this crime against humanity will be encouraged in their ineptitude.

I would reply more truthfully thus: "That's the most disgusting travesty against nature I've ever had the misfortune to become aware of!" While this may have a short term negative affect on morale, relationships, etc., the long term good justifies this. The sandwhich maker will either attempt to improve their skills to the benefit of all or they'll give up and save the world from their 'skills' (putting the 'kills' into 'skills').

If I were to answer "Fantastic! You are a deity of the arts! God painted all the beauty in the world with the shit from your arse!" then that would be 'false kindness'. This false kindness is the root cause of mediocrity in society. If everyone is politely telling everyone else that what they are doing is good enough then we'll never actually get anything that is good.

So, who is more polite? The sycophant who says "what a lovely painting!" while secretly thinking that they've vomited more impressive creations; or the person who says "the painting sucks, and I don't mean in a good 'oral sex' kind of way! Stop befouling my sight with it!"

I think the answer is obvious.

Zarmanji and Juthura

What do Peter Benchley and Chris von Allsburg have in common?

They both wrote the same story multiple times. They are obviously both American and followed the 'if it was ever a good thing, stick to it' way of life.

Peter Benchley wrote:

• 'Jaws', about a big killer shark menacing a small island;
• 'the Beast', about a big killer squid manacing a small coastal village; and
• 'Creature', about an amphibious shark-like monster tha terrorizes an abandoned secret military base and the people who live on the island it is located on.

Chris von Allsburg wrote:

• 'Jumanji', about a jungle based board game becoming 'real'; and
• 'Zarthura', about a space based board game becoming 'real'.

These 'artists' must be proud of the sweep of concepts their canons encompass.

I, however, prefer someone capable of a little more diversity, like Roger Hargreaves with his Mr Men franchise. Now theres good story telling! And no repetition in concepts from book to book.

Surely even the children at whom Jumanji and Zarthura are pitched are wise enough to realise that they're receiving the same bollocks twice.

Next Chris'll write about a TV game show that becomes 'real' like Survivor or some shit.

Tofu is the AntiChrist

Tofu is nutritious. And that's all that's going for it really.

Does it taste nice? Well, um, no. And it doesn't taste bad either. If it tasted bad then maybe I could get used to that taste. The fact is, though, that tofu doesn't taste at all. It doesn't taste so much that it actually sucks the flavour from whatever food its served with.

I suppose if you were required to eat something awful, then adding tofu might make it palettable by nullifying the flavour. Perhaps all medicines should be mixed with tofu instead of making them so horribly sweet with sugar in an attempt to mask the flavour.

Guys can start injecting tofu into their testicles in an attempt to get their partners to give them head without complaining about the flavour.

Maybe we could make a paste to smear over all the food in a fat person's house so that they don't get cravings. We'll they'd still get the cravings but no way of fullfilling them. Unless they crave tofu in which case they're fucked.

Even talking about tofu saps the flavour from the conversation.

Alerts

Right- who was it? Stand up and admit it! Who was the utter utter utter utter fucking dickhead who decided it would be a good idea for an alert or dialog to popup from some other application and steal the focus from whatever you're currently doing. Who!?

Who made this the default method of behaviour? Who?!

If this particular person is a male then weights must be attached to their testicles until such time that the scrotum and little tubey things have stretched so far that they can watch as I put the aforementioned balls into a garlic press and squeeeeeeze. Slowly.

I hate them. I dunno who they are. I dunno what else they may have done to the benefit of society but this negates it. If they brought peace and prosperity to the entire world it wouldn't be good enough- it would just mean that more people who would otherwise be fighting or starving to death would have to put up with fucking stupid fucking pop-fucking-up fucking alerts and fucking dialog fucking boxes. Fuck!

Words fail my rage. Fluffy bunny rabbits of morbid death and joy.

The Simpsons

The one defining thing about Americans is that they don't know when to stop. This is why their presidents are restricted to two terms in office. Imagine those half wits electing him again. We'll be lucky if the world survives his current incumbency.

Another key example of Americans over doing things is TV shows.

Remember when the Simpsons were edgy, insightful and clever? No? It was over ten years ago, probably. Its what made them so popular: their commentary on American life, popular culture and their clever reference to classic movies were the hallmarks of the (then) intelligent comedy series.

Now they are just retellings of popular movies with standard, safe sit-com variations. They ran out of intelligence gradually and became formulaic. People were so used to them being cool that no one realised they weren't.

The platitude "when you're on a good thing, stick to it" is all well and good. Americans seem to be following a variation, though: "when you're on a thing that was good, stick to it".

The British, on the other hand, know how to quit while they're ahead (with the exception of 'Red Dwarf' and 'Absolutely Fabulous' and maybe others of which I am ignorant).

The world is a sadder place due to America's tenacity. Although when embracing same-old same-old mediocrity is the modus operandi then 'tenacity' is not quite the right word.

Let the Simpsons die. Burn the last seven or eight seasons and we'll get on with our lives.

Power to the Sheeple!

Evolution

If somebody says that evolution doesn't exist, kill them. They are too stupid to be allowed to breed and because we enlightened ones know that evolution does exist, we're doing future generations a great service.

To say evolution does not exist is either the sign of an idiot or the sign of a liar. Either way I hate them. What they probably mean to say is that they believe natural selection cannot account for the diversity and complexity they see in nature.

What they fail to grasp (or what they hope you fail to grasp) is that evolution is a concept destinct from natural selection.

If evolution were non-existant then there'd be a great many breeders around the world throughout history who were wasting their time producing new and improved breeds of animals and plants.

Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are not wolves.

Evolution exists, works and is used now and has been used through history as a tool by which to improve livestock, pets and plants. Its why so many plants come in so many different floral colours. Its why roses have fewer thorns than their wild ancestors.

So the next time someone says that evolution doesn't exist and you happen to not be feeling homocidal, then at least correct them. Do it for me.

Gay Icon

A gay icon is not something on my desktop that I double click to become gay. Imagine what the religious right (oxymoron) would say if such a thing existed? They claim it as final proof of the gay agenda. Dickheads.

The problem with the concept of the gay agenda is that there isn't one.

The problem with the concept of the gay icon is that I, as a card carrying homosexual, have no idea why certain people are gay icons.

Kylie Minogue? Why?
The girl from the Wizard of Oz. Why?

I'd list more but I have no idea of any others. There are others, but I have no idea who they are and I don't care.

The defining feature, for me, insofar as homosexuality is concerned is the fact of the sexual act itself and the desires that lead (or attempt to lead) to such an act. The rest is bullshit.

Homosexuality is not a taste in music. Its not a sashayed walk with limp wrist. It is not a make-up brand or a cologne. It is not a dress sense. And it is not the 'worship' of gay icons.

So you other faggots out there can keep all that shit to yourselves and just let me at the cute guys for fuck's sake.

Ugliness

I hate it when I'm stuck staring at someone ugly. Some morbid curiousity keeps me looking at the hideousness incarnate and it sucks. Especially when I'm caught looking! What if they think that I think that they're sexy or something? Its terrorfying.

Just the other night I rode the train home with a couple of sets of very large teeth that were unceremoniously attached to a couple of young girls. I suppose a dentist with a sledge hammer might rectify that particluar problem but there was still something intrinsically abhorent and fundamentally ugly that would render the whole exercise a waste of time and money. Although it might be therapeutic for the dentist.

A face only a mother could love? Maybe. If she were blind. But lo! There she was next to the poor children who must have fair idea of what they'll grow up to look like.

Genetics strikes again. Heredity is amazingly powerful, especially if the mother's sperm source is also her brother.

I have nightmares about those teeth, even during the day. They would give a walrus pause. Most bull walruses would back down in fear. The others would be desperate idiots.

Ugliness is the proof that there is no god.

Open Ceremonies Suck.

(from: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/15/flyingtram2_wideweb__470x275,2.jpg)

I didn't watch the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. Judging from the 'highlights' that I saw on the news (repeatedly) I didn't miss much. For example, I didn't miss the exquisite sense of loss you feel when you've realised you just pissed a couple hours away indulging in popular culture.

'Popular culture'! While arguably popular (and, as such, as good an argument against democracy as you'll ever get) it is not actually culture. When will people learn?

A flying tram for fuck's sake! What is the closing ceremony going to have? An aeroplane on tracks? Trams are stupid. What the hell do Melburnians seen it them?! They have all the inconvenience of a bus (get stuck in traffic) coupled with all the inconvenience of a train (stuck to the tracks). Brilliant.

It seems to me that if the expression 'what the fuck' didn't exist, then Opening Ceremonies would have necessitated its creation.

Not since the Moscow Olympics has there been a worthwhile ceremony. I look forward to the Beijing Olympics. I'm working on the assumption that the communists will get the shit done right. Lets face it:

• Communists have something to prove to the capitalist world; and
• Communists have the means to coerce their people into performing or else.

Liberty has its draw backs and one of them is that we have to put up with mediocre shit at opening ceremonies.

The guy who 'designs' these things has done a few now. When asked how he got into this line of work he responded "When I was a teenager I was an over indulgent wanker so this was just a logical follow on".

I have no proof that that previous paragraph is true but that doesn't mean it isn't.

Roll on Beijing.

Baby's Brown Boggy Bottom

God hates babies and parents. Exhibit A is the evil black slime the baby gives as its first gift of defecation.

Well, ok, maybe God doesn't hate them, may be it just likes pushing them. First it makes this undying love between parent and child and then it makes the child gross. The denizens of heaven probably have a bet going on as to how smelly and self befouling a baby can be while still allowing the whole parenting thing to work.

The individual who came up with 'cold air urine reflex' probably won awards- silver at least. Bronze went to the other individual who revised this lark so that the boy child's penis is oriented in one of two ways with the result being that either the child or the parent gets a good dose of pee in the face.

The race is on for the coveted gold medal. Areas of research include a method to allow a girl child to better aim. So far she only has the rather disappointing ability to pee on the parent's front.

We'll leave the number ones for a while and move onto number twos.

The thing about infant number twos is that they are not really number twos. Insofar as consistency is concerned, they are more like one-point-fives and from the point of view of the aromatic potency, they're probably fives.

No matter how absorbent a nappy is, the number twos (we'll stick with common nomenclature in spite of the above) will remain sufficiently wet so that they'll be able to penetrate under your finger nails. On the up side, a friend of mine stopped chewing his finger nails just after the birth of his first child.

Then there're the baby wipes. They are some clever bit of chemical engineering or something. The way the first few wipes know that they're the first few wipes and so actually spread the shit around rather than doing anything useful. How do they do that?

Finally, even though Adam and Eve saw their nakedness and were ashamed, babies seem to feel their nakedness and want to rejoice in it. If it comes to a fight between the Bible and a baby's instinct, I'm going to go for the baby's instinct. However, it is always disturbing that they're intention to paint the town red in celebration of the joy of nudity results in their actually painting the floor brown.

With a Geneva Convention banned package of biological warfare in hand to contend with so that it can be safely disposed of, it is difficult to keep the baby under control. God created octopi, squids and star fish to show that we could have had more hands if it chose so. But here we are with at least one limb too few. This means the baby feels the freedom (instincts are an amazing thing) and its all you can do to keep baby and nappy and sanity in control. And if you do manage to keep the baby stationary but have left their hands free, where will their hands go? I imagine that the popularity of finger painting with that goopy paint is due to the fact that, as children, we are denied the joy of playing with our own shit. Sure, if we could play with it, the images we create would be all sepia, and there's no real market for that at this time. Some enterprising children do manage to explore the art of finger painting using their nappy as the palette but the images have a kind of Dadaist feel to them, which is why children often learn to say 'dada' before 'mama'.

Some how, despite all this, there is still joy in parenting. And the hope that one day your child will probably experience all the shit you've put up with so far is always encouraging.

Dick Tags

In my limited experience, every person I've ever seen doing graffiti of any form has been male with one exception. The exception was a female (no! really!) interviewed on one or another kids program (Saturday morning cartoons or something) and she did the cool, colourful graffiti.

When it comes to crappy graffiti (aka tagging), it seems to be a male's domain. Which is sad, because I ordinarily have respect for males. But tagging is the idiot's form of expression.

The scariest thing is that the perpertrators of tagging and similar scrawled line pictures seem to be incapable of drawing penises. Don't they own their own? Are they too busy holding their chunky pens to know what their dick is?

Hmm.

Maybe that's it. Maybe the fat pen is a penis replacement. Deprived of the ability to hold their own cock in a fist because of its diminutive size, they feel compelled to hold something else. The size of these pens is amazingly similar to the average size of a penis. Coincidence?

This might also explain the fact that these dickless shits feel compelled to write their tag over and over and over: being deprived of a respectable penis has obviously given them low self-esteem and they counter this by proclaiming their existence and, supposedly, their worth in an incessant spattering of tags. At least learn to spell!

Oh, and if you want to know what a real dick looks like, the internet, bless its pornographic soul, has numerous examples of images, drawings, diagrams of real penises. Educate yourself.

Workers

What is it with council workers? They're obviously a hearding animal, on the side of the road in groups, doing what one could easily do.

If council workers were in charge of masturbation, there'd be one to move their hand up your penis, another to move their hand down, a third would be moaning, a fourth would be watching and a fifth would be in the corner leaning on a shovel. I'd rather not speculate as to whom provides the orgasm.

And even with all that, council would charge you for posessing two hands.

On the way here I saw a somewhat more realistic example. One guy up a ladder fiddling with something, two 'holding the ladder' and two watching.

Is it merely that they have a union? I wish I had a union. Then I wouldn't have to earn my money, either. Ah, the joy.

It is with great irony that unions are often called the 'such and such workers union' (SSWU) when the whole point is to protect people's right to not work. In honesty, it should be the 'such and such money takers union' (SSMTU).

Not that I have anything against unions. I fully respect a person's right to not work. I am merely jealous that I am not protected in a similar fashion.

Now, if you excuse me, I need to find five guys and a shovel.

Is that your ringtone or is there and orchestra in your pocket?

What the fuck is it with ringtones? Haven't you all realised that they are fucking stupid? More power to the people making money from selling this shit to idiots, if they're so stupid to part with their money for this then they may as well give it to predators.

Ringtones. Shit. I don't get it.

It's like sticking little woodwind instruments up you nose so that your breathing sounds musical.

Or combining a toilet paper dispenser with a pianola so when you pull the toilet paper out with the intent of besmearing it with shit, the pianola dispenser plays music. How cool would that be? It would be cool. Honest.

Sure the toilet paper would have holes in it so the pianola could read it, and sure that would make little brown marks on your hands but you could pass that off as Henna.

Would the music that people chose for their ringtone differ from the music they chose for their wipetone? How would their choice of music enlighten those around them as to their personality? Obviously, the fact that there is music at all already shows them to be idiots- but what kind of idiots?

If its the latest 'music' then they a mindless, conservative, vogue following idiots.

If its ABBA's "Ring Ring" (for the ringtone) then they're the kind of idiot who thinks they are original and amusing.

If, for the wipetone, they have Frankie Goes to Hollywood's "Relax", then it could just be that they have a twisted sense of humour and may actually deserve some respect. Unless they stole the idea from here in which case total derision is in order. The same goes for any classical piece of music that is a 'number 2' of some form or other.

The reason you might want to know the kind of idiot the person is is so that you can tailor your approach to selling them something of your own. If they are the vogue idiot then you'd say "I only have one left because the thousand I had this morning have already been sound to all these cool people I met". If they are the 'original' idiot then you'd say "No one has this yet because people fail to see the novelty of this item, and its amusement value".

Two very different tactics. Of course, you could change tactics midway, you're dealing with idiots after all.

Boobies

I don't get boobs. By which I mean, I don't understand their attraction. What's so exciting about two bags of flab stuck unceremoniously onto the front of what might otherwise be an attractive chest?

I understand the pragmatic purpose of boobs for the suckling of infants. But that's becoming a thing considered out of vogue now; every child is raised on Perrier Milk at the moment. This would mean we could do away with boobs and then females might be attractive to me. If they had dicks, I suppose. Not that dicks are attractive, mind you, but they are fun.

Oh, and before you assume I find bottoms attractive and that they are roughly boob shaped and so I therefore have the same fixation as a straight guy. Stop. While I've seen this 'seriously' suggested, in my particular instance, I don't get bottoms, either.

So what, then, do I get? When I check out a guy I usually look at things in this order: face, arms, legs (assuming they are exposed for viewing). If the guy is topless, I look at things in this order: chest, chest, chest. An I make sure there's no boobies there ruining the contours.

The curves of boobies are too pronounced for my liking; I like the softer curves of the male torso (with or without the ripples of the six pack), provided there's no chest hair disturbing the flow. That is beauty. Not gratuitous hemispheres of fatty tissue- they just look awkward.

You're a bloke who likes boobies? You can have 'em; get fat and grow a pair yourself. But stop trying to convince me that they're anything special. After all, that leaves more for you.

Boobies! Indeed! Next I'll hear that partners without penises are sexually satisfying. Somehow. Haha. Woteva.

Cross with Care

I was driving home the other day from a soiree dripping with sexual innuendo when I noticed ahead that an individual of an undisclosed gender was crossing the road. She was strolling across the oncoming traffic lanes before she noticed me coming, at which point she 'sped up'.

The problem here is that the speeding up that occured was of the pumping of her pudgy legs rather than the speed with which she was crossing the road. So, although her pace had doubled, her strides had halved; she was crossing at the same, inadequate speed as she had been all along but now looked like a fucking idiot doing it.

I felt compelled to run her down; rid the gene pool of her stupidity. Alas, I believe it would have been too late as she was already well passed her breeding years. Which raises the question: how?

How can idiocy live to the ripe old age of the post breeding era? Natural selection is meant to rid the world of such people, making the lives of their peers and following generations happier. This has obviously not happened. Why?

I blame the government and welfare infrastructure which panders to those who would ordinarily have been sumarily drop-kicked off the mortal coil.

Sure, that sounds fascist, but does that mean its wrong?

The world is over-populated, the health and welfare system are under strain and idiots are being idiotic all over the place: injuring themselves and others or breeding. But if we allow the idiots to die out then we'll all be happier for it.

A world without idiots would be fantastic. America would finally shut the fuck up. All those beautiful churches, sinagogues, temples etc would be handed over for noble secular purposes. And Microsoft would finally be supplanted by... by... we'll we may have to wait a while for something in that arena.

I'm all smiley and happy now.

No fat women who can't run were harmed during the making of this entry. At least, not by me. Undoubtedly, somewhere in the world something awful is happening.

Porn

As a god-fearing downloaderer of newsgroup porn, I feel it is my god-given right to be able to expect that the porn in a given newsgroup actually reflects the title of the newsgroup. Oftimes this is not the case and an old, wrinkled straight couple is found having sex in a group dedicated to svelte, gay youths. Or vice versa, I imagine.

What, in god's name, is the point of such cross posting?! I'm hardly going to change my sexual preference from svelte, gay youths to wrinkled, breeder geriatrics just because this image appears in front of my eyes. The only purpose it serves is to piss me off and waste my bandwidth. Which serves no purpose at all.

The ISO should come up with a standard for the classification of pornography. Not from a moral stand point, but a descriptive one: M2 for example, might mean 'photo of two males'. Of course I would expect the coding to be more detailed- what are they doing, how physically fit they are, what is visible and what is not, are they hirsuite, what nationality, etc.

International law should then be created to enforce the encoding of these details in the file in a standard way so that people like me can download porn without being exposed to unwanted images, like- well- porn.

I mean, there are all these laws and things to protect underaged people from accessing porn, why can't I be protected as well?

Kids get everything these days.

Name that smell

Being the enquiring mind that I am, I feel it my duty to judge the aromas of my own flatulence. Call it a hobby. Don't get me wrong, I'm no freak- I draw the line when it comes to the aroma of others' flatulence. That would be sick. Sick sick.

Over my years of research, I have made two impressive discoveries.

Discovery the First: after a meal of pancakes, my flatulence acquires a distinctive aroma. It does this in a time frame far shorter than I would imagine would be adequate for the aroma to be a direct result of the digestion process. We're usually talking about 15 to 20 minutes from the first pancake to the first aromatically altered emission.

What could be the cause of this? A strange phenomenon indeed. And quite distinct from the asparagus-urine phenomenon which at least requires a respectable time for digestion to occur.

Discovery the Second: Regardless of the overall aroma-scape one might be producing at a given time, the smell is distinctly and consistently altered upon stepping into the shower.

Empirical experimentation shows that this is not related to the clothing filtering out specific chunks of gas or some such. Current theory holds that there is some chemical reaction occuring with the steam in shower stall.

While I'm at it, I may as well add that some Indian food causes the smell to become somewhat burnt in it character. I'll have to do more research in regards to this before posting anything conclusive.

Scientifically yours,