Wikipedia it, because reading a book takes too long

This has become my new theory on education. Granted, I've been on a hiatus from the University of Pennsylvania for almost a year now and soon I will be packing up my shit (again) and heading back to the Intellectual Bubble that lies in West Philadelphia. I've also decided to actually do my work and attend class. What I haven't decided on is whether I'm going to spend hundreds of bucks on books that my professors probably wrote or the time waiting in line at the crowded Penn Bookstore. Instead I'm going to find the text online and read it online while I'm IMing friends that are probably at the library toiling through their text books in search of the perfect quotes that will make their senior thesis zing. Me, I like to multi-task. On the computer I can just highlight and hit CTRL+C and paste it right into my paper. For the record, don't forget to reference your illegitimate internet source.

Ergo: Wikipedia is my solution. Yes, this isn't new news. Nor is it old news. But, it makes me wonder what my aversion towards books is. It's always been like this unless it's the latest Nick Hornby book. (High Fidelity and About a Boy are great). If the book doesn't have to do with the inner male-psyche, I want nothing to do with it.

In the past two days, I've figured out how ancient Hillary Clinton and John McCain really are. I've learned more about Human Rights than I may ever need to. I've also increased my knowledge of the legend-to-be, John Legend. (Ordinary People is a must have). You can also learn how to quit smoking or how to make the perfect Mixed-CD on WikiHow.com (although High Fidelity really taught me how to make the best CD).

It's faster. Period. (That was redundant). I don't have time to learn stuff while I should be on facebook, blogspot, youtube, and Gmail all at the same time. I just don't. Now, if all my lectures were conducted via PodCast, my life would be perfecto. Everyday, no make that every second, of my life, I'm getting older. Sigh. Do I want to waste it in a dusty aisle of the library that is too huge for anyone's sanity? Then I find a book, right, how do I know that it's actually got what I'm looking for? Yet, I still go to and wait at the checkout line. There's no line on the internet. I don't have to read the entire thing to find a quote. Actually, if there's a quote I have in mind I just google it and hopefully a quote pops up. And if it didn't? Well while I was waiting for google to search I just poked three friends on facebook. So, no time lost.

The same theory goes towards movies based on books. A book costs around (let's just say) $20. The price of paper has severely sky rocketed due to Bush's war in the desert. Afterall, we blame him for everything, don't we? A movie ticket at The Bridge on Walnut Street costs $5-9. You can even buy nachos for like $4 and don't have to worry about smearing Cheese-Wiz all over the pages of your brand new book. If you do spill, some cheap labor is going to clean it up anyway. An hour and a half later, I'm left with a decent interpretation of a book that would have taken about one day to finish (depending). For the multi-tasker in me, the movie is the better deal. Not only did I get to eat and not clean up afterwards, I also took a girl out on a cheap date. Taking a date to read my book is less appealing and sexy.

Exaggeration of Separation of Church and State

The state of Florida is being criticized for advocating the design of a certain license plate. It would have "I Believe" on it with a cross and a stained glass, and of course your license plate number.

Now, I ask you: Is this a big deal?
Guess who thinks so. No, seriously guess who thinks that this is a big deal. The ACLU. Duh.

An Indiana plate with the "In God We Trust" phrase has been challenged by the ACLU, but the courts so far have deemed it legal, arguing that it is comparable with other specialty plates, such as "Fight Terrorism" in Virginia or plates displaying a support of a particular sports team or your alma mater.

What the bleepin' F is the big deal? Sure, the government is making the plates, but you have to pay $25 to get the plate. I would think it was a big deal if I was forced to put this on my car to show support of this "Christian" nation. Some critics say that "what's next?"

"It's not a road I want to go down. I don't want to see the Star of David next. I don't want to see a Torah next. None of that stuff is appropriate to me," said Skidmore, a Democrat who voted against the plate in committee. "I just believe that."

If it's not "appropro" for you, sir, don't buy the plate. I'm sure if no one wants to buy the plate, the government will stop making them. However, we have to realize this is a very religious nation, of ALL sorts of religions even pedophilic polygamy sects.

Am I ignorant? Am I an uber-religious member of the Roman Catholic Church? No and No. I feel ignorant because that's the world we live in right now. Religion is bad. On the contrary, religion gives people faith and yes this world is going to pots with shootings in Chicago and Philadelphia this past weekend, war in dozens of countries, and politicians who sleep with "elite" prostitutes. Why can't people have a freakin' cross or Star of David on their car? People can put all sorts of vulgarities on the back of their car.

Now don't, by all means, get me wrong. I love what this license plate advocates. However, would I want my kid seeing that? I would rather have a child see a cross or a Star of David.

Yes, this license plate is funny. Ha ha. But, this issue is funny as well. As in...it's bleeping F-ing ridiculous. And, this matter pretty much illustrates another reason why I hate the ACLU.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But, I can't keep my mouth shut.

Back from a hiatus of blogging about the nothingness of the world. What was I doing? Good question. Aside from spending my weekends in a couch-coma watching reruns of General Hospital and One Life to Live on Soap Net (Channel 120) and toggling back and forth to old cycles of America's Next Top Model, I was basically doing nothing. Sure, I was attempting to mow the lawn. For the record, that's the actual lawn outside my house. Not the, well...yeah.

Alrighty, so what do I talk about? I have so much to say especially since I've been in a virtual TV-Food-Work coma for the past month and a half.

So, the Pennsylvania Primary happened. Watching the results on CNN (but really FoxNews) was basically the only worthwhile thing I watched. I'll admit that I started the campaign season, if you will, stomping for McCain. Yes, I am a log-cabin republicano. If the economy sucks, why get married? What should be the first thing on your mind is: how you gonna pay for your food, bitch? That's not the only reason. I want to own a gun.

As the weeks grew and I researched, I've become (yes) an Obama supporter. My friends who say I'm a closet Nazi may find that funny. Again, for the record, I'm not a closet Nazi. Nor, am I an out-of-the-closet Nazi. I'm not a Nazi. Nor is Obama. Do I have proof of this? No. Do you? Can you prove you're not a Nazi? "Oh, but I have several Jewish friends..." Yea, yea.

Of the two democratic nominees, he doesn't have the convoluted idea that you can just take thousands and thousands of troops out of a war that we started and say "Oops, sorry, our bad." The predecessor screwed up and that's what 's for lunch. So eat it.

A similar note on the war is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Wikipedia can explain it for you ignoramuses.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the common term for the U.S. military policy which implements Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the numerous exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexualbisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality. The net effect of this policy is that the military does not take an official stance against gay or bisexual desire; one must engage in open homosexual acts to commit a punishable offense.

My favorite part of this: "demonstrating a propenite to engage in homosexual acts..."

Do I agree with this? Of course not. I have my own reason and that's because I thought of joining the Air Force in High School, but then decided to go to college. Now I'm seriously considering it. But look at me. Can I even remotely pass for a straight person? Gay men even think I'm a gay man.

Also, according to the Government Accountability Office enforcing this rule costs $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.

Wait. Hold on. Rewind for a slight segway. Our government has an accountability office? Meaning...there is an office holding our government accountable for something? That's what it sounds like. I'll wiki it later.

For a couple of years I've been reading up on this homophobic policy and it's mostly (through the grapevine, I am by no means a reliable military source) the upper echelon that supports the policy. The troops going out on the front line don't care who you bone or lick. They care about whether you're going to have their back. I guess this is what Bill Clinton had in mind: No one should care. But, now, the policy has turned into a "If you're not straight, you have no sexuality."
To retire from the armed forces you must serve 20 years. You must be government property for 20 years. Then, you get health benefits for yourself, your HETEROSEXUAL spouse, your heterosexually conceived children and their maybe heterosexually conceived children. If you're a (shhh) homosexual, your non-legal spouse (or domestic life partner, sorry) isn't recognized. Your artificial children don't benefit. Plus, gay people aren't allowed to reproduce because then we pass on our (shhh) gay blood onto our most likely gay children. Being an army wife is hard enough. Being the secret army (shhh) lover-who-you-cant-marry would be even harder.

Also, what bugs me...is that the government relaxes this policy during times of warfare. Damn, we're running out of straight people, bring in people who have convictions. Ok, damn, felons can't be trusted on the front line. FINE. Enlist the homosexuals.

I don't get it. If I was Iraq, I would be mad frightened of Rosie O'Donnell coming at me with an M16. She would be running at you. She can't fit in a tank.

What does this have to do with Obama? He (shhh) promises or pledges to reinstate those who have received a Dishonorable Discharge because they choose to be exactly and only who they truly are. He (shhhh) promises or pledges to get rid of this rule.

Does he want the gay vote? Probably. Should we give it to him? I am.

Hey dude, your cute baby face needs some hair

So as I do every Saturday night, I reminisce about Penn's drag show in 2007 and how I wish I could have put on fake facial hair. I yearn to have another chance at those couple of hours of letting my alter-ego loose.

If you think it's strange that I think of this once a week, you may be amazed at the fact that in Japan there is a new trend. Shocked? You shouldn't be. Japan has always been on of the risk-takers in new fashion trends. This time it's for the Japanese men. If you're an Asian man or pre-pubescent lad, you'd understand.

Across the Pacific Ocean, men are going to work cleanly shaved or just naturally hairless (as most Asian men). After work and as their female counterparts "put on their face," these dudes apply fake facial hair.


It's all the rage. I would show you a link to a site that sells the products, Propia, Inc., but it's all in Japanese. Click here if you know Japanese.

For about 2,600 Yen ($26), not including shipping from Japan, you too can sport a nice dirt-stache.

TV of the second millenium

Ok, so I haven't bought the iPod yet. I refuse to pay $500 for an iPod Touch especially since I'm in debt like most irresponsible 20-somethings are.

So, it's Monday and it's my day off. Aside from solely lying on the couch and watching The Riches and the latest episode of The Tudors, I got rid of a lot of emotional baggage. This is a blog, yes, but it's not a Bitch-log so that's left for my open diary.com. Just kidding. I haven't had one of those since high school. It was so 2K4.

Anyway, on my day of watching excessive amounts of "new millennium" television (quality tv, let me tell ya), I saw an ad on MTV. Yes, I was watching Parental Control and the sad part was that I had already seen that episode.

I saw a preview for Tila Tequila's A Shot of Love 2. Seriously? I will take that chick-a-dee, pick her up by her small bones and squash her with my thumb (or pinky).

Aside from that the fact that she's come to annoy me and mostly because she didn't pick Dani in the first season, SHE IS NOT GAY, she isn't even bisexual. She's what is known as closet straight (there's a new term for you). The only thing that I enjoy about her is that her music video is hot. I watch it on mute because her voice is a mixture of nails screeching on a black board and Styrofoam cacophony.

In other news, if you want to watch something worthwhile and fictional because the news is always worth your time, you should check out the second season of The Tudors and if you're cheap and don't have Showtime you could catch the second season of The Riches.

The Tudors airs Sundays on Showtime at 10pm. It stars Jonathan Rhys Myers (gorgeous Irish boy) as Henry the Eighth and Natalie Dormer as Ann Boleyn, the mistress King Henry left Queen Katherine for and led to numerous beheadings and the creation of the Church of England. Besides its appeal to massive history buffs like myself, if you're looking for sex appeal, this is the show to watch. One of the best things in this season though is Peter O'Toole playing Pope Paul III, Henry's enemy who refuses to give Henry a divorce to Katherine and also wouldn't mind if someone assassinated Lady Ann.

The Riches airs Tuesdays on FX at 10pm and stars one of my new favorite actors, Eddie Izzard and Minnie Driver. It's about a family of American gypsies called "Travelers" that belong to an incestuous tribe of thieves and con-men. Need more reason to watch it? So in season 1 they are accidental accessories to a car accident slash murder of Doug and Shereen Rich, a wealthy lawyer and Dental hygienist in Louisiana. They were on their way to their new house in a gated community called Eden Falls. Who buys a house on the internet? Rich people and people that don't know people in Eden Falls. So the Travelers, Wayne and Dahlia Malloy take the place of the Riches. Oh my God, I just got the title of the show. Someone is bound to figure out who they are and what they did, right? Basically they just kill whoever finds out or questions them. Not really, that's only sometimes the case. This family slowly becomes caught in their own web of lies and starts to wonder what is fiction and what is real. I know that that's happened to me on many occasions.

I need to go now because I'm watching cycle 6 of America's Next Top Model for the 9823674283 time. For some reason I still hope for Jade to win.