"Fucked Up" Means ALL Of Us

This blog was founded, and has been inconsistently force-fed, by the work of konagod. It is overwhelmingly His vision, voice, energy, work, and determination that has set the tone and maintained the blog we enjoy -- a place on the internet which commenters say, again and again, they treasure as a hilarious, piece-of-shit minuscule blog. Or occasional spammers who say, The way you present your articles is exquisite. Would you mind if we exchange links? Without konagod, konagod would not exist. Full stop.

He wants to make clear that He is speaking as one konagod voice about what it means to waste personal time in maintaining this "exquisite" blog when He should be mowing the yard or scrubbing the bathroom tiles instead of taking cat pictures and throwing up post after post after post. His dedication to speaking up for Himself and occasionally others is represented by countless hours of sleeping, drinking coffee, a little writing, playing records at night, ill communication, and jerk-off fantasies within and without the community. The guidelines and policies that He has worked to create represent His very purple hazily-defined expectations.

What's konagod all about, anyway?

konagod was started in May, 2006 as a place to post cat pictures on Fridays. It quickly evolved into a pseudo-political blog, a brief attempt at running with the big dogs by trying to be the first to cover breaking news before discovering it was never going to happen because his grammar sucks and people don't care, and then a daily tracking of famous people's birthdays complete with YouTube videos, occasionally some serious posts about LGBTQ issues, but ultimately just a whatever/whenever blog covering whatever issues happened to yank His dick, like kids getting arrested for serving pot-spiked muffins at school, or retards being sent to prison in Texas for 100 years. WHO CARES!?

While konagod considers konagod a progressive blog, or at least considers himself progressive in a lazy hippie kind of way, this is also a chafe space. Visitors need not check their privilege at the door (we have no bouncers and somebody without privilege might make off with it) so best you keep it close at hand and just be aware of it. No one is expected to be perfect; everyone is expected to be willing to self-examine and if you want to touch yourself in strange places while here, far be it from konagod to interfere. Focus on the fun. It's a blog. He can't see you.

Cat scratches, masturbation, ISDs (injuries suffered while drunk), bowel movements, enemas, and other explosive bodily discharges, along with left-wing politics, right-wing nutjobs, music and culture, are all woven into the abominable fabric of konagod.

In fact, konagod's key objectives are equality, pervasiveness, perverseness, unlicensed use of AP photos, momentum, derision, growth, pleasure, anarchy, being in the company of butch lesbians for protection, community, blatant plagiarism, laughter, and diarrhea of both ass and mouth.

konagod blogs about domestic politics, presidents behaving like assholes, presidents who are liars, black presidents who lie about being a fierce advocate of gays, gays who think they have been healed straight by Jesus, people who think they find Jesus or the Virgin Mary in a cheesy poof, ugly-ass ridiculous outfits worn by models, ugly-ass ridiculous outfits worn by ordinary people, obituaries (especially people who deserve one; Kim Jong Il's is still saved as a draft ready to post), ethics, atom smashers, music, oppression, repression, depression, recession, religion, philosophy (but only konagod's, not those assholes who got famous from it), marriage (or legal lack thereof), cats, marijuana, alcohol, weed, doobies, joints, reefer, blunts, bongs, pipes, gas prices, ignorant white people, tyrants, Alabama, injustice, civil liberties, racism, bullshit, cat shit, the Brown Menace(TM) which lurks beneath our southern border, dicks, penises, fruits, vegetables, fruits and vegetables shaped like penises, HIS penis (specifically just how long, thick, and lovely it is to behold), why on earth any woman would wear high heels, why temperatures near 0F make the snow squeak and the boogers freeze in your nose, black holes, simpletons, Mississippi, assholes, shopping, cooking, home improvements, shit made in China, jobs exported, butt plugs, butt harps, butt wipes, asshats, Oklahoma, hairy pussy, wet pussy, fat pussy, skinny pussy, lazy pussy, haikus, Kansas, vomit, stinkfoot, yellow snow, Curtis Blow, and anything else that He feels like discussing. And why not? It's His fucking blog. He's the only contributor and He can do what He fucking wants. Whoooot!

All are invited. Whether you have the stomach for it is up to you.

He is speaking for Himself, and his sixteen other personalities, as contributors and moderators, because we He believes that we I He must impose some rules around here to live up to OUR ideals.

We I HE perceives that, over and over again, the choices of some folks in comment threads (or the complete lack of comments in threads) to be ridiculously nice and level-headed have created an environment in which konagod, (let Him remind you again, in case you forgot) the founder and creator of chafe space at konagod, clearly feels unworthy, spaced out, unchafed, unmotivated, and way too horny. In recent weeks, this pattern flared up again, and konagod chose to take a break from the blog and start walking 2 or 3 miles a day, vacuuming the house, tending to his day job, playing too many Facebook games, and removing trapped beetles from the attic ventilation.

This is not, by any means, the first time this has played out, but a summation (with links to specific examples) of the most recent cycle of this pattern can be found here. And here.

We are now calling on every person who identifies as a member of this community to step up and take direct responsibility to help change this pattern -- to take an equal share of the responsibility to maintain a chafe space for everyone in this community.

We call on you to do this in the following ways:

1. Commenting is now mandatory. Ramble on and on, saying whatever comes to mind, making reference to your private body parts, your sinus drainage, your cat's tapeworms, wev.

2. Spice up your own comments in terms of adherence to konagod's demand for a chafe space, and behaving in accordance with what konagod is all about.

3. Don't expect konagod, or his 16 other personalities, to constantly educate and re-educate you on the guidelines of the blog -- respect the time and energy that konagod has put into creating these guidelines by taking the time and energy to educate yourself. And if that's asking too much, well... go give yourself a hot water enema and come back with a fresh perspective, ready to embrace that which is konagod.

4. Be All Fucked Up. Bring your vocal, visible support to konagod (and his 16 other personalities) when you see others failing to chafe, or when they have expressed that they are triggered or distressed by something not happening at the blog. The persistent absence of vocal, visible support from the broad community serves as tacit acceptance of behaviors that we believe are incompatible with our chafe space. Speaking up ONLY when it directly involves you is completely counter to the notion of being "All Fucked Up" -- a primary thrust of konagod Kulture (TM) -- and as kona says: "Man, this shit is like trippin' in a void".

5. Respond immediately (oh, by the way, you are expected to maintain a presence here at all times! New rule!) and defensively to kona's (or his sixteen other personalities) requests that you cease participating in behavior that violates chafe space -- and actually take a moment to stir some shit up.

6. Treat konagod, in all interactions, with the respect that he deserves as the founder, acknowledged leader, only leader, unprofessional writer, and executive mis-director and fornicator of this blog.

7. Open your ears to truly hear, and join your voice in support of konagod, then open your ass and let one rip. Collectively, we should do this as a community.

8. Become an active agent in creating and maintaining chafe space for every konagodian -- including, and especially, konagod, the Almighty Kocktastic King Kona, Lord of The Gigantoid Penis.

9. Know that konagod has a low-threshold for violence, ultra violence, and hate speech. However, trolls and spammers are deposited into the virtual meat grinder as quickly as possible.

10. Beware of using triggering words. konagod even considers the word trigger triggering. You have been forewarned. He will pull the trigger on your ass.

These are the expectations. konagod acknowledges that He, (and His sixteen personalities) have sometimes failed to meet these expectations, even within the confines of this lengthy blatherpost. They re-commit, and invite you to re-commit, to living up to these expectations.

kona, with His occasional work, strong spirits, and cannabis, created this blog, constructed this chafe space, and founded this community within it. Everyone is responsible for maintaining this tripe space and making it chafer for all. That doesn't mean just konagod (and His 16 personalities) are responsible.

This means you.
Yes, you.
Yes, me.
Yes, each and every one of us.
Yes, even every INCH of us. Even if your he-man inches don't measure up to kona's. Give it your best shot.

We are all responsible for our words in this space.

We are all responsible for contributing to the roasting of this space for everyone -- or else the community is boring and frankly, sucks.

It does not work for konagod, or anyone else, to write a post in such a way as to make sure it upholds the ideals of this blog, and then have readers disregard those ideals by failing to comment, or writing nice shit, or worse, not even showing up to trip the goddamn SiteMeter.

A "chafe space" means chafe for everyone and that includes konagod (and His sixteen other personalities). Why people don't grasp this concept is incomprehensible and completely unacceptable to us. Everyone must be stupid or something.

This blog will not survive if people are unwilling themselves to uphold the ideals that konagod demands of konagod.

That is probably not a threat, it is simply a tool to whip you into submission. We must, as a group, allow nothing to derail our quest for chafe space. Or at the very least, chafe-ishness.

Now, everyone hold virtual hands and chant after Him: "I will be chafed! I WILL be chafed!"

Good children! It's the weekend, so go forth and Be All Fucked Up!



please print for your records
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chafe
  /tʃeɪf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [cheyf] Show IPA verb, chafed, chaf⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to wear or abrade by rubbing: He chafed his shoes on the rocks.
2. to make sore by rubbing: Her collar chafed her neck.
3. to irritate; annoy: The dripping of the faucet chafed her nerves.
4. to warm by rubbing: to chafe cold hands.
5. Obsolete. to heat; make warm.
–verb (used without object)
6. to become worn or sore from rubbing: His neck began to chafe from the starched collar.
7. to rub; press with friction: The horse chafed against his stall.
8. to be irritated or annoyed: He chafed at their constant interruptions.
–noun
9. irritation; annoyance.
10. heat, wear, or soreness caused by rubbing.
—Idiom
11. chafe at the bit, to become impatient at delay: The work was going very slowly, and he began to chafe at the bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just Say No to the Short Suit

There were many things in the New York Times which caught my attention this morning. So let's start with the United Nations turning up the thermostat to a sultry 77 degrees. Oh, the horror.

If my office was 77 I'd probably be having chills. Of course, I'm not wearing a stupid suit.

To help speed the transition, “there is going to a be a relaxing of the dress protocols,” said Mr. Adlerstein, which in nondiplomatic terms means he jettisoned his coat and tie for the news conference. There are serious doubts that will fly.

“People walking around without jackets on are not taken seriously” said one man from an organization that promotes renewable energy. “You have to follow protocol.”

What if Mr. Ban sets the example by removing his own tie, as his office said he would?

“Then the protocol will change,” the man said.

Screw "the man." And screw this insane "protocol." Who gives a rat's ass? Maybe they should actually get some work done instead of following protocol.

What's more important, superficial protocol or significantly reducing your carbon footprint and saving a hundred grand?

The building’s carbon dioxide emissions are expected to drop by an estimated 300 tons, and costs are expected to decrease by $100,000, according to Michael Adlerstein, who announced the experiment on Wednesday and who will oversee building renovations. He said savings could reach $1 million annually if the United Nations mandated temperature changes year round.

It's no secret that I despise dress codes, and business suits do not elevate a person's professional stature in my opinion. But I would never advocate a trend toward the "short suit." This is just bad on so many levels. This isn't even casual; it's like a casual Friday anxiety dream. What are they thinking and who is coming up with these ridiculous trends?

This outlandish pervsion gets worse...

NO NO NO!!!

Make it stop. NO black socks!!

Not (what? A typo in the New York Times??) a few designers are pushing men to expose more of the bodies that they have spent so much time perfecting at the gym. “We have all these self-imposed restrictions” about our dress, said Ben Clawson, the sales director for the designer Michael Bastian. “As men’s wear continues to evolve and becomes a little more casual without becoming grungy, it’s not impossible anymore to be dressed up in shorts.”

You, Mr. Clawson, need your head examined.

But if people want to look stupid and follow your lead, that's their business. But I will say this: there is no greater abomination on the planet than the contrast of a business suit from the waist up, and ugly shorts from the waist down.

Case closed.

I'm thinking I need to add a "bad taste" post label.

Obama's Nuclear Glitch

The NYT ran a lengthy piece in the Sunday edition titled, "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate," and there were some interesting tidbits worth noting which might shed some very recent light on how well Obama might be a strong arm for all this "change" we keep hearing about.

And no, this is not any attempt on my part to start bashing Obama after exposing my earlier positive thoughts about Hillary. I'm not convinced either of them will stand up to corporate interests. It's more of an addendum to my anxieties about expanding nuclear power.

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

Um, not so fast, you clever liberal agent of progressive change.

While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

In other words, he caved in, succumbing to the desires of the largest nuclear plant operator in the United States. And I'm certain this next bit is purely coincidental.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

My God, we're talking about a situation in which millions of gallons of contaminated water leaked out, and the nuclear industry is given the upper hand in how to control and/or spin the situation. The levels of tritium in the leaked water, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear power, reportedly did not exceed federal safety standards. Nevertheless, I, for one, don't believe it's too much to ask that any and all leaks be reported.

The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.

[...]

The revised bill was never taken up in the full Senate, where partisan parliamentary maneuvering resulted in a number of bills being shelved before the 2006 session ended.

Still, the legislation has come in handy on the campaign trail. Last May, in response to questions about his ties to Exelon, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to a Nevada newspaper citing the bill as evidence that he stands up to powerful interests.

I'm getting that queasy feeling again -- the same feeling I get during every election cycle when it becomes clear to me just how much change I can expect from a new administration.

Power to the people!


Crossposted at Big Brass Blog

Our Misguided Marijuana Laws

I can go to the liquor store and legally buy enough liquor to kill myself or at the very least make myself so sick I need two days to recover or end up hospitalized. I could legally buy a case of vodka and proceed to drink until I pass out, and the government has no problem with that, as long as I do it at home and not on the road.

On the other hand, if I smoke marijuana my body tells me when I've had enough and I honestly don't want more than enough. And unlike alcohol, when I have smoked marijuana I wake up the next morning feeling fine and dandy. (Notice my past-tense usage here, for the benefit of any Federales who might want to come bang in my door, I'm out of the stuff -- smoked it all up.) I've never in my life called in sick on a Monday from excessive consumption of pot on Sunday night. But I have definitely gone to work on a Monday with a horrendous hangover which has impaired my ability to work.

And that's apparently OK I suppose. We just don't want people going to work on Monday (or any other day) after having a toke on Saturday or Sunday night (or any other night), for whatever reason, even for health/medicinal reasons.

Employers can fire workers who use medical marijuana even if it was legally recommended by a doctor, the California Supreme Court ruled this week, dealing the state another setback in its standoff with federal law enforcement.

[...]

The high court [no pun intended, I'm sure] upheld a small Sacramento telecommunications company's firing of a man who flunked a company-ordered drug test. Gary Ross held a medical marijuana card authorizing him to use the drug to treat a back injury sustained while serving in the Air Force.

I really hope the next president of the United States will do something to remedy this absurdity. But I'm not (inhaling and) holding my breath.

Honestly, this pisses me off as much as any injustice.

Meanwhile...

The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is done.

Yeah, right. Because a plant which grows easily represents a HUGE threat to Big Pharma. Fuck the AMA. Plenty of research has been done.

Save the 'Shrooms!

I knew this was coming after I read about efforts underway to ban magic mushrooms in Holland.

"Boss of your own brain." I like that one!

Education and information can go a long way.

Meanwhile, on a far less humorous note, read this and ask yourself what the hell is wrong with our nation! This is how we treat our ill people... by harassing them to death.

She was a high-profile campaigner for the Montana Medical Marijuana Act, and like others, she was dismayed when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that drug agents could still arrest sick people using marijuana, even in states that legalized its use.

The ruling came to haunt Prosser in late March, when DEA agents seized less than a half ounce of marijuana sent to her by her registered caregiver in Flathead County.

At the time, the DEA special agent in charge of the Rocky Mountain Field Division said federal agents were “protecting people from their own state laws” by seizing such shipments.

Great! Just what we need in America: federal agents "protecting" us from ourselves.

Jesus H. I hear the unmistakable sound of the Nazi lock-step.

Well, Aren't We In a Foul Mood Tonight?

Why, yes we are.

txrad just deleted AmericaBlog from his favorites list. I told him I never go there. Haven't been there in 4 months at least. Don't even miss it.

As for me, I've had an unpleasant day dealing with corporate red tape. And if I get dealt much more piles of shit, I may delete my job.

I have bent over backwards and busted my ass for more than 8 months now. I never let anything drop through the cracks and I work long hours. I have no qualms whatsoever about working over the weekend. I'll do what it takes because I like what I do and I play for the team.

The only problem is my laptop is a piece of shit with a small screen and poor resolution. A few months ago I asked for and received a docking station with a pedestal for a nice monitor which is so much easier on my eyes than using the laptop alone. I've tried using the laptop by itself at home, and while I can do it, I can't be at the same level of productivity as I am when I have the monitor and a full-size keyboard. So I found a box in the mail room, and managed to fit all the components of the docking station into it perfectly.

I brought it home with me on the Thursday & Friday when I had to be here for the carpet installation, and I worked over the weekend. I brought it home on two other weekends. The most recent was last weekend, after we received instructions at the end of Friday which needed to be implemented as early as possible on Monday. I worked Sunday afternoon from 2:00 until 9:00 in the evening.

It's a bit of an inconvenience to box that stuff up and take it to and from work. I asked my boss today if I could get another docking station to just have here at home so I'd only need to bring the laptop, dock it, and do what I needed to do.

The reply was something along the lines of "we do not provide docking stations for when you opt to work at home."

That's the way things are at my place of employ. No explanation. No "I'm sorry but.."

They're just abrupt and to the point.

I replied, "OK, I'll just go on Ebay and see if I can find one cheap."

At least my boss had the courtesy to reply with a comical line: "Good idea. If it's any consolation, we have executive VPs who don't get docking stations at home."

I felt better. For awhile.

Later, I bumped into an IT person. I had emailed her earlier this week asking about getting a 2nd docking station, since there was obviously a glut of unused ones (supposedly over 100 people have given notice and left in the past month).

She started to apologize and I explained to her what my boss told me and I said I'm fine with it. I told her I'd just buy one off the internet.

Seriously, I never thought this was a big deal. I've researched them on Ebay and I can get the docking station & monitor pedestal for $99 plus shipping. We're not talking gold bricks here.

I continued my conversation with the IT person and she suggested I speak to someone else and maybe he'd approve it. Ahhhh, exceptions can be made. Imagine that.

But honestly, I'm all about convenience and getting my work done. I don't even need the $99 pedestal. I have found port replicators on Ebay that would work with my laptop for anywhere from $19 to $30-something. I have an extra monitor and I'd be all set.

I thought this was the end of my dilemma until I received an email from the IT supervisor late this afternoon. It went something like this:

I could not help but overhear a conversation in our IT department today about you and your docking station. Would you mind if I ask you how much equipment you have removed from [contrived new company name] on a regular basis?

OK, konagod, get a grip.

Knowing what I know about corporate culture, and it's been a long while since I have been in corporate culture, and I've NEVER been in one as big and corporate and bullshitty as this one, but I can see the writing on the wall. This guy was probably gathering data so he can load his guns. Shit is probably about to hit the fans.

If I am called into a meeting and presented with a piece of paper to sign which in any way casts doubts upon my intentions or my integrity, I am going to think long and hard about making their lives utterly miserable.

I am not a thief. What I do, I do because I am trying to manage an account as effectively as possible. I have huge responsibilities. I am solely responsible for about 30% of a major telecommunications giant's television ad campaign. And I'm getting shit over some plastic docking station and a cheap monitor?

My God. I can barely read this post without exploding.

If I were to walk out, they would need to hire 3 people to replace me. And that's no joke.

What is a joke is that they don't seem to know that simple fact.

Pull Up Your Pants Or Pay

Here we go again with more stupid and pointless laws. The Fashion Police now have their stingers out for saggers.

Starting in Louisiana, an intensifying push by lawmakers has determined pants worn low enough to expose underwear poses a threat to the public, and they have enacted indecency ordinances to stop it.

Since June 11, sagging pants have been against the law in Delcambre, La., a town of 2,231 that is 80 miles southwest of Baton Rouge. The style carries a fine of as much as $500 or up to a six-month sentence. “We used to wear long hair, but I don’t think our trends were ever as bad as sagging,” said Mayor Carol Broussard.

An ordinance in Mansfield, a town of 5,496 near Shreveport, subjects offenders to a fine (as much as $150 plus court costs) or jail time (up to 15 days). Police Chief Don English said the law, which takes effect Sept. 15, will set a good civic image.

Yeah, I'm sure these kids can part with that kind of money.

In the West Ward of Trenton, Councilwoman Annette Lartigue is drafting an ordinance to fine or enforce community service in response to what she sees as the problem of exposing private parts in public.

“It’s a fad like hot pants; however, I think it crosses the line when a person shows their backside,” Ms. Lartigue said. “You can’t legislate how people dress, but you can legislate when people begin to become indecent by exposing their body parts.”

What body parts? It's UNDERWEAR, and maybe you can detect an ass crack if the boxers are pulled up in there tight, but I gotta confess, I've seen more body parts and ass cracks from auto mechanics bending down to look under my car.

Does it look stupid? I don't know. Yeah, maybe. But since when is looking stupid or dressing stupid a crime? And why is the above considered obscene while the image below is considered attractive and fashionable?

It beats the shit out of me. Unless it's more about skin color and gender.

Not since the zoot suit has a style been greeted with such strong disapproval. The exaggerated boxy long coat and tight-cuffed pants, started in the 1930s, was the emblematic style of a subculture of young urban minorities. It was viewed as unpatriotic and flouted a fabric conservation order during World War II. The clothing was at the center of what were called Zoot Suit Riots in Los Angeles, racially motivated beatings of Hispanic youths by sailors. The youths were stripped of their garments, which were burned in the street.

Following a pattern of past fashion bans, the sagging prohibitions are seen by some as racially motivated because the wearers are young, predominantly African-American men.

Never mind that the bulk of these laws are being pushed by black officials. Perhaps it makes them more appealing to white voters.

Sag on, brothers!

Company Coffee Mugs

How many of you faithful readers work for a company that gives you a free coffee mug with the company logo on it?

I was telling my story today out on the smoking deck. (Yes, we have one of those.)

I am an indefinite "temp." Why? I don't have clue, but supposedly I have job security. Anyway, I didn't get a coffee mug OR a welcome package, so one day when there were no paper cups, I complained to one of my co-workers (a permanent) who volunteered to go get me a mug.

She delivered. She came back with a mug AND a story. The guys in the mugroom told her they don't give mugs to temps. They sell them for $5.00 on the company website.

Well, excuse me. I am booking half a million dollars a week in media for a major telecommunications giant client and you won't give me a friggin $5.00 mug?

How much do you expect me to do for you? Or to put it more succinctly, how well trained are you in customer service?

I think I smell a rat.

But as I was telling this story to a co-worker who is permanent, he said, "But you degrade it for the rest of us."

He's not an asshole, it was tongue-in-cheek. But it sounds and smells like asshole to me.

My perception problem, MY perception problem.

Flaws in the Laws

Meet Genarlow Wilson.

A judge on Monday ordered the release of a man who is serving a widely criticized 10-year prison sentence without parole for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.

And before the tears of joy could be wiped away, Georgia's attorney general immediately filed an appeal, despite the fact that the Georgia legislature has closed the loophole which allowed this to happen. And for some odd reason it was not retroactive when passed.

This is absurd injustice.

Under a “Romeo and Juliet” provision in the law, Mr. Wilson would have been guilty of only a misdemeanor had the act been intercourse. But no one had thought to include oral sex in that exception when the law was enacted, and after the trial, jurors said they had been unaware of the 10-year minimum for the felony.

[...]

And he has refused to take a standing plea deal, offered by the district attorney who prosecuted him, that would reduce his sentence but require him to register as a sex offender.

And rightly so. He's NOT a sex offender. Jesus Christ. Let the man go. Would this have happened if Mr. Wilson was white?

The Denim Demon

I have more thoughts to share regarding dress codes, so consider this part 2 in an unexpected series.

konagod's views on dress codes in the office date back to 1962.

I remember back when I was a preteen, and on into my teen years, when visiting New Orleans with my parents, we always went to a few restaurants which had one of those requirements for a jacket on men. I thought it was bullshit at an early age so imagine what I think about it now.

It's about a bunch of fucking well-to-do white men and women who don't want their dinner spoiled by someone wearing less than THEIR ideal attire. So, although I'm paying the same prices for SERVICE and the same food, I am required to rise to their "level" in order to preserve THEIR snobbishness. Even if I'm dining in a borrowed jacket. Yep, that's right folks. The restaurants maintained an extensive closet full of jackets of all sizes to make sure everyone conformed. Pardon my crude language, but fuck that shit. And fuck all those people who play the game, and fuck those restaurants. You want me to pay you to eat your food (Brennan’s) I'll wear what I fucking please.

----

Back when I used to work for another ad agency based in Iowa, I was fortunate in that I worked from home, but I still had to visit the Iowa office once a year or so. And of course I'd be in the email loop of all things going on internally.

The office was located in a small town in a building which could easily have been -- and probably was used as -- a warehouse at some point. The dress code was casual, except when a client would visit. An email would go out reminding employees to clean up their areas and to dress appropriately. "No denim of any color" was always part of the request.

Help me here. Since when did denim become demonized? I always wondered what would happen if the client had happened to be Levi Strauss. Don't you know some things would be worded differently?

Denim is 100% cotton. And it's comfortable. I guess Dockers are also 100% cotton, and of course there's various other pants available that are all cotton or some combination. Who are these fashion police and where do they get off dictating what's acceptable and what's not? Had I been in Iowa for those client visits, I could have chosen to defy orders and worn a nice new pair of denim jeans, or put on a faded and worn-out pair of Dockers. Which looks best?

I know I'm stirring up trouble here, and I do understand the point, however illogical and stupid I believe it to be. I'm a firm believer in being yourself -- and that includes how you choose to adorn yourself with cloth. If you enjoy wrapping a piece of cloth around your neck (which serves no purpose and the cost of which could probably feed a meal to a few families in poverty) and letting it dangle, and then topping it off with a dark jacket, even though it might be 106 degrees outside (41 for my friends in the rest of the world -- we're a little backwards here in the States), then go right ahead. Don't mind me if I laugh at you.

I simply don't like people who are happy about putting on a false facade with attire. Notice how I phrased that statement. I don't want anyone to get offended because you think I won't like you, or think less of you, because you wear dressy clothes. As one or two people made clear in comments, they may work in a place where they are required to dress a certain way. Most people probably need the job. That's fine. Do it and be unhappy with the attire. But challenge it when you have the opportunity. Just be aware that many of these employers can outsource your job to another country at the drop of a hat if they feel it will improve their profits and not jeopardize the company. Most of these corporate employers don't give a crap about YOU personally. You are there as a servant, presenting an image THEY want for THEIR company, and you are simply paid to comply. I often get the impression that job performance is an afterthought; your image is of paramount importance.

Similarly, if you truly enjoy wearing a suit and a tie, or you are more comfortable in "business casual" attire while on the job, more power to you. I won't think less of you if I know it's your choice. I may think you are nuts for wearing a suit in Austin in the summer, but I won't think less of you if you truly enjoy it, because that's you.

As for me, I just want to be who I am. I want to be recognized and judged by what I accomplish on the job. For someone to make an issue of my attire -- particularly in a wild & crazy creative environment such as the one I'm in, is rather insulting if I'm doing my job and achieving success for both the client and the agency.

Another of my all-time favorites is the church routine. Like Jesus cares whether you are wearing a suit and a tie and that's going to get you into heaven. Give me a break.

I hate to come across as crass, but civilization is fucked up.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Epilogue: txrad just told me to zip up my pants. I said "I don't zip them up because we're drinking so much beer and tequila I have to pee often. And I don't want to zip my pecker."

"Put on some underwear," he replied.

My retort was, "I don't want to wear underwear; I'm home, I should be able to relax."

He then went on to insinuate that I end up peeing on myself because I'm not wearing underpants.

"No I don't," I said. I use a piece of tissue to dry myself.

He thought that was strange. "Why is it more strange than allowing your underwear to act as a piss wick?" I replied. "Pissy underwear is OK, but pissy pants are not?"

All he could say was, "I'm telling your mother."

And I was thinking, "Go ahead; she knows I'm odd."




Crossposted at B3

No Dress Codes Please, We're Hippies

I have a long history with an aversion to dress codes. I simply have no use for them outside of uniform dress codes for officers of the law (although some of those are over-the-top), airline pilots (we need to identify them because we sure as hell don't want them dressing like ordinary Americans -- a terrorist could be flying the plane!) and trained chefs.

I do not understand the infatuation with cloth and the symbolic underpinnings. I still maintain it's an archaic idea rooted in class distinctions -- to determine who in society is acceptable vs. not acceptable. God forbid we place what's in a person's brain ahead of what garments they wear.

And I really go batshit over sexist dress codes such as earrings being OK on women but not on men. And pantyhose. Yuck. Who on earth thinks it's their business to dictate that a woman must wear a dress and hose!

I was once fired from a job because I wore an orange shirt. Or so the story goes. I worked in a health care environment, but in a back office with no public exposure. One day some higher-ups from the corporate office came by for a surprise visit (suits) and shortly after that I was let go, despite the fact that I enjoyed what I did, I did it well, and I got along great with my co-workers (who were also casual, but wore more earth tones and muted colors). It was bullshit and I knew it.

One of the reasons I love my job is because it's a creative environment and it's casual. I wear shorts to work most days. I don't wear Lycra® running shorts, or swimwear. So no need to quibble over gray areas about what's appropriate in a work environment. No one can determine the size of my penis from what I wear. And for those curious (you sick perverts!), I wear cargo shorts most of the time.

Yesterday an email went out to all employees from one of the head honchos about a client visit today and tomorrow. Obviously I'm not going to name the client but it's a name you'd all recognize, most likely. The person writing the email explained the importance of this client visit -- our agency has recently lost a couple of high-profile clients and we're really banking on a couple of replacement clients -- and how we need to impress their board of directors. The email finished with a request that everyone make an effort to wear "business casual" attire for the next two days, and to arrive at work earlier than the usual 9-10 routine.

txrad and I get there usually around 7:00am so that's never an issue for us. I put on a very nice unique shirt and a pair of dark charcoal jeans today and headed off to work.

Some of the employees with whom I have regular contact were definitely dressed up more today, while others were less obvious. Some made no change at all. We had our department meeting this morning and the issue came up in the meeting.

Our boss remarked about the email and proceeded to suggest that not only was it a good idea, but that our department in particular should be more dressed up because the nicest conference room, one which is utilized frequently for client visits, is located on our floor and therefore we're more visible to clients. Never mind that the clients must somehow get from the first floor to the third without encountering other employees who might be more casual.

Then he made some reference to the creative folks in our department who work in production and said something to the effect that creative people get a free pass when it comes to dressing, but the rest of us are held to a higher standard, with a reference to flip-flops thrown in.

Oh, please. Now I've seen some people around there wearing shorts and flip-flops but I actually do wear shoes. I have no problem with flip-flops, but they just don't work for me if I'm climbing two flights of stairs several times a day.

He insinuated that any of us might get called into a client meeting when clients are visiting and therefore, according to his logic, we need to dress prepared.

This is just great. I work my ass off. I'm personally handling about 25% of an entire media campaign for a huge telecommunications giant (no names here, but imagine a blue orb), and I'm being told what to wear. My mama could get by with that when I was 4-years-old (well, not really; I'd strip naked and go play in the yard, but that's another post), but I'm generating a huge amount of revenue and profit for this agency; I'd at least like a little respect as far as putting my professionalism ahead of something superficial such as what I choose to cover up my private parts. And don't give me any shit about respect being a two-way street. This is about a double-standard, among other things, and it's just absurd.

After tomorrow, I'm back to wearing shorts again. And if the boss doesn't like it, he can hire someone else, and probably won't find anyone as remotely capable as I am, they'll command the same salary, but I suppose he'll be happy because what they are wearing is more important than the work they actually do.

This is a creative environment. We should praise people for being themselves, for being creative, for being comfortable, and for doing a kick-ass job. It has obviously worked up until now or the agency wouldn't be there, and it sure as hell wouldn't be a major player in the world of ad agencies.

I am not going to allow fashion, and the ugly remnants of class distinctions, to shape me into the appearance of something I'm not. I'm me. You are getting your money's worth and plenty more. You don't like it? Then downgrade.

This position I fell into was plan B of a life-change scenario I was facing as of January 2, 2007. I'm quite happy with it. But I am not afraid to switch back to plan A if some asshole wants to give a swatch of fabric more credit than my 17 years of expertise and professionalism.


Crossposted at B3

Common Sense on the Road

Today while riding the bus home from work I glanced over at a vehicle next to the bus. The woman driving had a parakeet on her shoulder and was chatting to it. I wonder if that would qualify as illegal under some of these proposed new laws regarding driver distractions.

Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, "interacting with pets or cargo," talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.

I occasionally will take along my drink after having a quick sandwich at lunch but I tend to only sip when I'm at a traffic light or when the traffic is light enough that I feel safe with such a distraction. I've never been fond of eating a sandwich or anything else while driving, and personally I just don't understand people who apply makeup or do other personal grooming activities while driving. I find it embarrassing that we even need to have such laws under consideration. Apparently we do.

"What finally pushed me over the edge was when I was at a stop sign and somebody opposite me was trying to navigate around the corner with a cell phone to the ear in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and she wasn't doing very well," said Republican state Rep. Thomas F. Koch.

He said his wife recently saw a driver playing the flute, which led him to include the instrument ban in his bill.

[...]

Distracted drivers were involved in nearly eight out of 10 collisions or near-crashes in a study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute that was released last year by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Young drivers are some of the worst offenders. A study of more than 5,600 students released last month by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance Co. reported that nearly 90 percent had seen friends drive while talking on cell phones and that half saw drivers playing hand-held games, using listening devices or sending text messages.

I don't even have the patience to send a text message on my phone if I'm sitting at my desk!

Question of the day: What's the most absurd thing you have ever seen someone do while driving?

Nigeria Set to Pass Harsh Laws Against Associating with Gays

If the House of Representatives in Nigeria votes as expected, a citizen there could serve 5 years in prison for the crime of reading my blog.

The legislation adds to the growing isolation of gays and lesbians in the African nation where sodomy is illegal. In northern Nigeria, which is under Islamic law, homosexuality can be punishable by death and in the rest of the country by long prison terms.

Earlier this year Nigeria made it illegal for same-sex couples to go abroad to marry. When they return they could be imprisoned for five years. Even attending a gay wedding could result in imprisonment.

And according to the AP report in the NY Times the law would include sharing a meal in a restaurant.

Just to remind you, in case you believe this has nothing to do with us over here (a common mentality these days), Nigeria, an OPEC member, is the 5th largest source of U.S. oil imports.

Every mile we drive helps support these atrocities. Feeling good about the world yet?

Many conservative blogs, unhappy with the anti-Bush rhetoric of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, have urged a boycott of Citgo, which is owned by the government of Venezuela. Seems to me there is a far greater evil at play on the African continent. I will continue to support Citgo under the circumstances.

Iran Blocks YouTube Access

I guess Iranians won't get to enjoy my Margaret Cho post.

Internet users who tried to call up the YouTube site on Tuesday were met with the message, "On the basis of the Islamic Republic of Iran laws, access to this website is not authorized" — which appears on the numerous opposition and pornographic Web sites that the government blocks.

Yep, that probably answers my question about DudeTube and XTube access as well.
Iran will not be on my short list of retirement locales.

Give Me Some of that Santa's Butt

The puritanical Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement is being rather ridiculous in banning the sale of this brew.

In a complaint filed in federal court, Shelton Brothers accuses the Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement of censorship for denying applications for labels for Santa's Butt Winter Porter and two other beers it wants to sell in Maine.

[...]

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, contends the state's action violates the First Amendment by censoring artistic expression.

But the state says it's within its rights. The label with Santa might appeal to children, said Maine State Police Lt. Patrick Fleming. The other two labels are considered inappropriate because they show bare-breasted women.

Ah, excuse me. Who gives a shit if it "appeals" to children? I'm sure there are plenty of books, both fictional and non-fictional, with cover illustrations that might appeal to children, but that's as far as it goes... unless of course it's a children's book. There are all kinds of things out there that appeal to children but children can't have them. Children can't buy beer!. However, beer is probably better for children than all the crap most parents allow them to have, not to mention the prescribed drugs such a Ritalin, but I digress.

The label for the English-made Santa's Butt Winter Porter features a rear view of a beer-drinking Santa Claus sitting atop a barrel. The beer's name refers not only to Santa's ample backside, but also to the barrel. In England, brewers once used a large barrel called a "butt" to store beer.

Maine also denied label applications for Les Sans Culottes, a French ale, and Rose de Gambrinus, a Belgian fruit beer.

Les Sans Culottes' label is illustrated with detail from Eugene Delacroix's 1830 painting "Liberty Leading the People," which hangs in the Louvre and once appeared on the 100-franc bill. Rose de Gambrinus shows a bare-breasted woman in a watercolor painting commissioned by the brewery.

Here is "Liberty Leading the People" for those of you unfamiliar with it. Shocking, isn't it?

Good grief. This is absurd. It's highly doubtful this seasonal brew would be advertised, much less in media aimed at children a la Joe Cool Camel. Come on, Maine. Don't tread on the rights of adults to enjoy the season.

Defining My Blog Space

I'm a pretty easy going guy. While I'll freely admit my political and social viewpoints tend to be on the far left fringe of the spectrum, I do have a few that some would call "conservative" in the traditional (non-neocon) sense of the word, as well as some moderate views on other issues.

I started this blog with no specific purpose in mind. On November 23 I marked the 6-month blogging anniversary by saying--with tongue in cheek--that my primary intent in starting this blog was to do Friday cat blogging. All kidding aside, it has become a personal outlet for me to vent my frustrations, to offer my suggestions for making our nation and the world a better place, to foster compassion for others less fortunate, to inspire some rational debates, to educate myself more based on what I might learn from commenters with more experience with any given issue, and lastly, to simply entertain my readers. More importantly, I make no attempt to hide the fact that I am gay and have been in a relationship with my partner for more than 16 years. Furthermore, I focus a lot of my attention in this blog to minority issues and injustices of all sorts.

I have never had any specific rules and regulations on this blog regarding comments because, until now, it hasn't been necessary. One commenter who has frequented my blog from my earliest days has clearly disagreed with almost everything I've posted. My "troll alarm" sounded on several occasions but I let it slide. I have no problem with readers who disagree with what I say as long as they are willing to discuss it, offer up some of their own suggestions or alternatives, or simply tell me logically why they feel I'm wrong on any particular issue.

Lately, it has become increasingly obvious that I can expect no such dialogue from my dedicated visitor. His comments are consistently adversarial, malicious and clearly intended to provoke a hostile reaction in order to stoke some inner need to prove to himself that us lefties are scatterbrained illogical hypocritical bigots. One of the very few times he has posted a comment in agreement with me was when I posted a Woody Allen quote about being "a bigot, but a bigot for the left."

The shit hit the fan last night, in the post below this one, after the exposure of his identity and blog history. Here's one comment:

What have I done? Well. I thought that I was posting my opinions to an open blog that is published on the internet and free for all to view and comment. There was no disclaimer about any such restrictions. The owner of the site, Konagod, has not ever voiced his concern that I leave here. In fact he has been very free in allowing people to say whatever they want.

I admit that I do still receive the profanity and name calling here that I received at her blog, although not as vile here as there. You can verify this by reading some transcripts of the older commentary from there. All this for posting my opinion. I have never used profanity, called names, made threats or voiced specific hatred of individual people by name. All of which I have seen on most of the blogs in question.

Yes, Jeff does post his opinion. And again, and again, and again. In one recent thread, the banter went on repetitively for days with absolutely no productive outcome.

This is an open blog. And it is free for all to view and comment. There is no disclaimer about any such restrictions because I expect visitors to have the common sense and decency to contribute something--agreeable or not--besides provocative statements clearly intended to irritate rather than enlighten. Most importantly, I expect honesty and integrity. It's what I give, I have every right to expect no less in return.

I've only banned one other person from commenting on this blog -- a true whackjob in every sense of the word. The person took the photo which I have in my sidebar, posted it on his psychotic "blog" and asked his readers to pray for my salvation. And I got off easy compared to what he had posted about others.

This blog is not a business nor is it an advertiser supported magazine or newspaper; it's not comparable to a public park or library. It is an extension of me, my home, and my beliefs. I think of it as a commune...a safe place for people of similar beliefs to come and have a rational discussion about important issues. Dissent is inevitable from time to time. However, repetitive dissent for the sake of dramatic conflict is unproductive and unwelcomed here. Anyone with that intent may take their psychoses elsewhere. In fact, I insist.

(konagod:) Have you ever altered an opinion based on anything you have ever heard or read?

(Jeff:) Yes, if there is a compelling argument. I have yet to see that here.

Well, after 6 months or so, it's unlikely you'll ever see that here, and the time has come for you to move along. I wish you the best as you journey through life.



We now resume regular programming...

The Death of Broadcasting

From John Eggerton of
BROADCASTING & CABLE.

"By an overwhelming margin, 379 to 35, the House Wednesday passed a bill (S. 193) upping the FCC's maximum indecency fine to $325,000 per violation, a tenfold increase over the current top fine.

Republicans were almost unanimously in favor, with 219 voting for the bill and only a single Republican voting no. That was Ron Paul of Texas, the former Libertarian party candidate for president who ran on among other issues, personal liberty.

The Democrats were only slightly more split, with 160 voting for the bill and 33 against. At least one of those, Diane Watson of California, opposed the bill because it was too weak."

The bill was sponsored by Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Big surprise there.

Brownback said: “This is a victory for children and families..."

And a major defeat for broadcasting freedom. It is truly mind-boggling that our Congress apparently has no other urgent business to deal with except gay marriage, flag-burning, and obsessing over a woman's breast being exposed for half a second during the Super Bowl halftime show.

And you gotta wonder what Diane Watson of California had in mind when she opposed the bill because it was "too weak."

American radio and television broadcasting has now been muzzled. Obscenity and indecency cannot be defined. What this accomplished was to reduce programming to its lowest common denominator because these families are either too lazy or too busy to control the televisions in their own homes. Programming is already rated. I guess that wasn't enough. Enjoy the programming! Sexual innuendo will still be present, and will probably increase. It remains to be seen whether these folks will have the intellect to detect it. Violence will continue as well.

But praise God, we won't have to catch a glimpse of another woman's breast without the Almighty FCC clamping down hard.