The Bird is the Word
Everybody knows that the bird is the word but the Slovenik Christians believe that the bird is the word, as in the word of God. The sect originated with a group of people who "got together to research why over thirty context speaking [as opposed to simply mimicking] parakeets were talking about God and religion... Within days of establishing the group they began to have direct communication with God as these parrots passed messages from Him." Apparently the budgies have also shown them how the Bible has been misinterpreted throughout history and have elucidated God's true path. The first prophet is Victor, a budgie that died in 2001. His owner, and coincidentally the founder of this religion, Ryan Reynolds, transcribed some videos of Victor's, uh, sermons. Here's an example:
The world misuses funds Poor people it should feed. Support a good boy for Victor Hear Victor First bird. A bird's bird For(poor) Victor's a poet.
Why does he talk like Yoda? "The world misuses funds?" Who doesn't know that? Apart from being a cheesy religious prophet, Victor was also a prognosticator and apparently predicted both the war in Iraq (because nobody saw that one coming) and the tsunami. Here's a short video sample that includes subtitles. Without the subtitles, there's no way you would understand all the parakeet's words. And for all you skeptics out there, that's just because you're not used to the "budgie accent." Listen to a parakeet talk long enough and you'll pick up the budgie accent, which (incidentally) mangles words until they're mostly incomprehensible. But truth be told, and despite what the Museum of Hoaxes has to say and unless the footage is doctored somehow, I actually understood many of Victor's words. It's weird... Praise Victor! I've been born again!
2006-11-29 20:26:19 UTC
I'm Animated
I started my new temp job and this is what I did yesterday. I went to this site and spent an hour and a half designing my character. It's me, licking a giant lolly in the future! It's an excellent way to waste a good deal of time and it's free. (Well, I was actually getting paid to do it). Most of it's free anyway. Some of the choices cost "beans." I'm not sure how you obtain a wallet-full of beans, but you need beans for certain outfits, hairstyles, accessories, etc. I don't really understand how they decide to charge for some things and not others. The stuff that costs beans isn't especially desirable. You're only allowed to make one, but you can keep changing it. All you need to do is give them an email address and minimal demographic info. It doesn't take long to register and it's not too invasive. Oh, the time you'll waste!
2006-11-28 10:00:06 UTC
Junior Animal Cruelty Badge
Let me start by saying that this is an honest-to-god real girl scout badge. You might be asking yourself: what the hell? And I would echo that confused utterance. What exactly does a Girl Scout have to do to earn this badge? Poke a dog's eyes out? Is this the coveted Animal Cruelty Badge? Is this what the Girl Scouts have come to? Maybe they're trying to boost sagging membership by recruiting sadists since sugar and spice and everything nice is in short supply. Or maybe there's an anti-Girl Scout organization filled with Wednesday Addams-types who meet after school to torture animals and cut themselves up, hoping to earn the Self-Mutilation Badge as well. It's actually called the Junior Pet Care Badge and you presumably earn it by caring for a dog that's crying blood and not causing the damage yourself.
2006-11-26 11:28:37 UTC
Thoughts on the Michael Richards Thing
I've been reading lots of comments on different blogs about the whole Michael Richards thing and what pisses me off way more than Richards' tirade is the sanctimonious and superior attitudes that people have about it. People seem to be getting off on talking about what a big racist he is, implying that they could never be capable of such disgusting behavior. Everybody's getting high off the self-righteousness. It's just another case of people trying to distance themselves from the worst aspects of humanity by trying to make our inherent assholery into something abnormal. And what underlies all of these outraged comments is the mind-numbing and erroneous fear that when we express our anger, we are showing our true colors. Michael Richards wasn't showing his true "evil" nature. He was filled with rage and hurt the shocked recipients of that rage the best way he knew how. It wasn't conscious. We're human beings and we instinctually know how to hurt each other in the cruelest ways possible. Racial epithets, words like "whore" and "bitch," and terms like "pussy" and "fag" are the most hurtful words we have. I'm not saying that they're not rooted in racism, sexism, and homophobia because they are and that's the world we live in. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you are automatically a racist, sexist, or homophobe if you've used those words in anger, or at least any more so than any single member of our society is. When we are angry we try to hurt the person we are angry at as much as we can. It's human nature and for anyone to suggest that they are above it (human nature, that is) is absolutely ridiculous. We all do our best to control our rage because we know it's a scary thing that comes from a part of us that's capable of things we consciously detest. Some of us are better at it than others.
So I've run across several interviews with Kenny Kramer, the guy who the Cosmo Kramer character was based on. This guy has been capitalizing on Seinfeld for years. Initially he wouldn't let them use his name without both "monetary and non-monetary" compensation and he eventually developed some kind of NY bus tour that visits Seinfeld sites called "Kramer's Reality Tour." I really don't get why anyone deserves to be paid for being the basis of a character. If someone wrote a movie with a character based on me, why would I deserve anything? They wrote the movie! They have the talent! Anyway, so now "The Real Kramer" as he likes to call himself is telling anyone who'll listen that he doesn't condone Michael Richards' acts. In large obnoxious font on his website he declares: "In no way do I condone or endorse what Michael Richards said or did. It is really annoying, and sad, that people are saying that Kramer is a racist." So I sent Kenny Kramer an email:
Dear Kramer, Why do you feel the need to tell anyone who will listen that you "in no way condone what Michael Richards said or did?" Why would anyone think you did? Nobody would think of you at all. And that's the problem isn't it? The only reason you're going on and on about it is because you're taking this as just another opportunity to get some publicity. In a word: tacky. That's just tacky. You're capitalizing on a human being's public disgrace and your attempt to appear superior to M. Richards had had the opposite effect.
At least Michael Richards has the decency to be ashamed! I wonder if he'll reply to my email. Or will he try to sue me for something?
2006-11-25 12:09:57 UTC
Zoning Confuses Me
One of the best things about Ecuador is how their cities actually look like cities. Let me explain: the streets of Ecuadorean cities are filled with a healthy mix of commercial and residential spaces. They're dense: each block seems to have at least a few tiny restaurants, a bakery or two, a pharmacy, a paper goods store, and any number of other small shops. Almost all of the shops are really tiny, meaning tons of people own businesses and lots of choices are available. I remember going to a super-cheap Colombian restaurant in Otavalo that had seating for six at the most. The only exception I can think of is a newish Walgreens-like chain called Tia. There is at least one in every city we went to and the only reason we ever went there was to break big bills. Also, there are almost no vacant spaces. Compared to this density, Madison is sprawled out all over the place and continuing to spread. (I'm looking at you far west side). This sprawl is guaranteed by our zoning regulations and it's intentional. For some reason people want to separate residential areas from commercial areas so badly that they've made it into law. You have to go to "commercial" parts of the city to find any businesses. I don't get it. Do people like driving so much that they want to have to drive everywhere? On the edges of Madison is where you'll find all of the big commercial choices: the discount stores, the multiplexes, the malls, the huge chain restaurants like Red Robin and Friday's, the giant hardware, book, and pet stores. This is common in many cities and all the chains are the same of course. The commercial oases on the outskirts seem to be popular destinations. You can't get a humidifier or a DVD player or a giant bag of dog food at the corner store. If you even have a corner store. It feels like we don't have much of a choice. I'm sure this change was driven by monopolistic economic forces but it also had something to do with consumer desire. We're not just victims. It seems that fewer and fewer people want to start local, small businesses that actually add to the culture of a neighborhood (as opposed to a Panera which has nothing to do with locality). So when somebody does, it should be encouraged.
Well, Arfan Mithu and Shariff Syed want to open up a Pakistani restaurant on Willy Street here in Madison. Willy Street is an exception to the rule of sprawl: it is a commercial 2 zone which means it can house a combination of shops and residences. This mix makes it one of the more vibrant streets in Madison. Though Mithu and Syed are legally allowed to open their restaurant, they wanted the "blessing" of the Marquette Neighborhood Association, an organization that usually supports progressive causes. But the Board doesn't want them to open their restaurant in the middle of a block. In a gesture of compromise, they agreed to cut their plans to stay open until bar time. But that's not enough for the Neighborhood Association. District Alderperson Judy Olson and the Neighborhood Association want to change the zoning regulations, presumably so that future entrepreneurs won't be able to open businesses in what they've deemed to be a "residential" area. Olson claims that "the future of Williamson Street" is at stake, as well as "the preservation of its unique character.†I find this statement slightly ironic considering Willy Street's character seems rooted in its mix of eclectic shops and lefty residents. By discouraging local, small development these supposed progressives are tacitly supporting sprawl, dependence on oil, and big corporations. What's the deal? Plus, what the hell are they thinking? That a Pakistani restaurant is gonna bring down the neighborhood? And why don't people want businesses in residential areas? Wouldn't it be nice to not have to drive to get a few groceries?
2006-11-23 20:35:08 UTC