The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Exactly six months after the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, I released the book, LOL at the GOP - Volume 3: Guns Don't Kill, Cars Don't Drive, and Ovens Don't Bake . This was to poke fun of the common right-wing talking point, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!" So, a couple of days ago, a self-described Tea Partier sent me the following tweet: "People Kill, People Drive, and People Bake. Your title is a fallaciously implied argument." Based on that statement, it seems pretty obvious to me that this man believes the before-mentioned talking point - "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!" - and that humans are fully in control of everything that takes place in our everyday lives. The problem with his argument is he's alleging an "implied argument" of a sarcastic title poking fun at a talking point, and assuming to be fully cognizant of the tone of said title, my beliefs on the matter...

Like with the term "love," of which there are 27 definitions in the dictionary, there doesn't appear to be a universal definition of the word "sex." The dictionary defines the term as follows: "Sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse." Yet regardless of the definition, sex means different things to different people. According to the law, two people are said to have had sex if any penetration occurred. However, if this is to be taken literally, then women have sex with themselves all the time. For some, sex is any and everything that occurs below the belt for two people. But, while it's understandable to refer to as oral sex as a kind of sex, when a person asks another if he or she has had sex with another, they're solely inquiring about intercourse. Perhaps one's definition of sex comes down to two main factors: 1) Whether they're a black-and-white or shades-of-grey thinker on the subject and 2) How they def...

Just recently, I read a blog written by the most boring voice in man's history - Ben Stein, entitled, "The Trayvon Martin case is worrying me." This blog bounced around like a lightning-speed pinball, but mainly focused on the Trayvon Martin case - how George Zimmerman was a "poor soul" in this whole ordeal (even though he's still living), that the liberal media made him out to be a "Klansman," and he basically insinuated that African-Americans are lazy and violent people, whom need our prayers - because closing our eyes and thinking about someone's problems will make them magically disappear (from our minds). After reading this racist and lazily written blog, I felt the need to respond to it with a blog of my own, entitled, "Ben Stein is really worrying me..." This morning, I received a response from an anonymous individual (George Zimmerman, Ben Stein, Sean Hannity, someone by the name of Tony, or Bozo the Clown perhaps), whic...

After seeing the new movie 42 this past week, I decided to read what people had to say about it via IMDb.com, and was often disappointed with what I read. The longest threads started with a claim that the film was nothing but "liberal propaganda," that it was another "Hollywood, anti-white person" movie which was overloaded with exaggerations and short on facts. Now, while I'll be the first to admit that films based on true stories can often times be "Hollywoodized" - meaning some facts are substituted with box office-boosting material, these films also contain an element of history. It seems that many people on the far-right of the political spectrum have an almost dismissive attitude toward racism. They either feel it's no longer a problem today or that it was never as big of a problem as many on the left (you know, historians) have made it out to be. They also tend to feel that minorities in this country often times use racism as an excuse f...

Following the Vice Presidential debate last night, many members of the Republican Party lambasted Joe Biden for being "rude," "disrespectful" and "a bully." Many Democrats have since scoffed at the notion. Some  people have responded to all this by saying, "Wasn't it the Democrats whom were saying Romney was being rude, disrespectful and a bully after last week's debate? Weren't they saying the same things then?" If we want to look at this from a black and white perspective, then yes, the Democratic Party largely reacted to the presidential debate in a very similar manner - in referring to Romney as rude, disrespectful, etc. However, if we want to look beyond that, I don't think the matter is quite so clear cut.  In the presidential debate, moderator Jim Lehrer had absolutely no control of the situation and while President Obama did run over on his allotted two minutes a few times, what stood out most to me was Romney's in...

I'm as much a lover of the arts as just about anybody. I enjoy anything from music to cinema to theatre to literature to painting to comedy (yes, I'd consider this an art, unless you're Dane Cook and then I'd consider it a migraine-in-the-making) and beyond. Like anybody, I have my likes and dislikes in the arts. I'm a big fan of Salvador Dali's painting, of Alfred Hitchcock's film-directing, of Kurt Vonnegut's writing, of George Carlin's comedy, while I'm not so fond of Adam Sandler's acting (and humor), Limp Bizkit and Nickelback's music, Larry the Cable Guy's comedy and Nicholas Sparks' writing. These aren't so much facts as they are my opinions. I may be able to make valid arguments in certain cases to better prove my opinions and more so than the opposing side of the debate. However, grading the arts isn't as black and white as is mathematics. While most critics believe Casablanca to be one of the best films in the ...

In light of the recent Chic-Fil-A controversy, I've read comments from many far-right evangelical conservatives that while liberals like to preach for others to be tolerant, they themselves don't practice this, which the Chic-Fil-A incident has showcased. Where does one draw the line? Is it hypocritical for liberals to preach that others should be accepting or at least tolerant of homosexuals, but to not be accepting of those who aren't accepting of homosexuals?  If one were to look at things from a black-and-white perspective, then I think it'd be safe to say that these conservatives would have a legitimate point. They could say, "Well, you say to accept people regardless of their beliefs, but you don't accept me of mine! ...so there!"  If one doesn't look at things from such a perspective, then I think liberals have a point, as they could say, "I understand what you're saying, but what you and some others are spouting is prejudic...

I had an interesting on Friday. I thought I was feeling better (I was wrong), so I headed out for a bit.  This REALLY drunk guy, Dick, asked this woman and I if we believed in God. I was thinking, "Ohhhh crap... Let's not do this."  The lady, Melissa, immediately said, "No." He asked her why and she said because there's no physical proof.  He asked me and I said, "I don't know. I don't believe anyone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is or isn't a higher power."  I could tell he was bothered by what Melissa and I said, so I just said, "Alright. We have three different perspectives here - an atheist (Melissa), an agnostic (me) and a deist (Dick). Hooray for differences of opinion. Let's drink! Cheers!"  Nope, that didn't work. So Dick started preaching. He was so wasted. He was slurring, repeating himself, etc. He was talking about, "It's all about good and evil. There's good an...

In light of my poem (and myself) being attacked mostly due to a misinterpretation of it and a friend of mine being told that her poem wasn't actually a poem, I wrote a blog and posted it on that site, which reads as follows:  It seems that some people like to believe they have the answers to all of life's questions, that the grey matter in others' eyes is black and white to them. There is no uncertainty in their minds. If another disagrees with their opinion (fact according to them), it's inevitable that the other individual is mistaken. There are certain scenarios where this is understandable, I suppose. If Person A contends that 4 + 4 = 7, Person B can speak matter-of-factly that Person A is incorrect. However, I don't understand how that black-and-white form of thinking can be directly applied to the world of art, which I (and others I know) have run into recently. In recent days, I have been witness to two people (there are many others, I'm su...