raving and drooling

Cook the food you wish

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:33:45 -0700

Cook the food you wish to see in the world

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Peeing outside is one of

Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:01:53 -0700

Peeing outside is one of the most freeing and natural things a man can do.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Just signed one of my

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:05:00 -0700

Just signed one of my books..."Dear reader, make my words clearerer -crystal- coat my cover, glisten, clean. gleemingly." ~marino

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Now i'll never see lucinda

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:48:07 -0700

Now i'll never see lucinda again

Permalink | Leave a comment »

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Mon, 02 May 2011 21:03:00 -0700

I want to make this clear:
I am not saying Osama Bin Laden is not dead.

I am simply saying, that you have no idea whether or not he is truly alive or not.
You don't even have a very good reason to believe, he's dead.
Nor a very good reason to believe he's not.
You have, nothing.
No proof, no clue.
You have the word of your gov't, notorious twisters of the truth,
and your president, notorious liar.

For all you know, Osama Bin Laden is dead,
and has been
for the last five years.

Who knows? I don't. You don't. Hell, Barak Obama might not even know.

Either way, i don't imagine it's very important. Osama has been a powerless figurehead mostly since nine eleven. Al Qeida exists as a call to action for Islamist militants, not an organization that poses any real threat to US soil.

So what am i getting at? Someone ask me, (please)
"Is Osama Bin Laden dead?"
Don't know, don't care.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Whose to blame in the media game?

Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:25:00 -0700

I saw an article in the local paper,
apparently a school teacher in paterson posted something on his facebook about teaching a bunch of "future criminals."

Yes, this is pretty offensive, and yes, it is largely true.
But what does it matter? People post dumb shit on their facbeook all the time.
The difference here is that some parents noticed it, and took offense.
Then they made a big stink about it.

Why is that bad?
Because the only negative effect that the teacher's comments could have, is his students seeing it, and feeling like they have no hope in life, and even their teachers expect nothing of them, and since they're only going to be criminals when they grow up, they might as well get a head start.
And the only reason his students will see it is because the parents made a big stink of it, and it ended up in the newspaper.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Don't criticize what you can't understand: You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:02:00 -0700

Newspapers have got to find a way to survive in the new market of the internet age. People want information, they want it for free, and they don't want to look too hard.
Bob Woodward doesn't like facebook, and thinks google killed the newspaper. He may be right about that last part.
If you remember Hilary Clinton's comments about the state of our media, you may remember her saying that Al Jazeera appears to be a better than american news.
Hilary points out that it covers a wider variety of relevant news topics for a broader audience without "feeling like you're listening to a bunch of talking heads."
May i point out that it even has a live stream available for free, online, in ENGLISH!

Score one for Al Jazeera.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

It's always political

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:48:00 -0700

I don't care for cable news. Its always seemed silly to me to watch a bunch of people talk about what just happened, basically repeating themselves, waiting for some new developement, so they can talk about something new, and then repeat themselves some more.

But if you're into that, why is it surprising that news channels focused on a practical armegedon rather than a horrific murder.
And for all the complaints i've heard about the coverage being politically motivated, and news channels choosing to ignore the tragedy in Itamar, I haven't heard many people point out that news channels who covered the masacre were doing so for the SAME political reasons. (Actually the opposite, and probably to claim a higher ground and make a big stink about how the other side is biased and ignoring certain stories etc.)

It's always political.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

No fly zone

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:33:00 -0700

So the Arab world imposes a no fly zone over libya before the western world....

As per my earlier post, i seriously question what the white house is trying to accomplish by keeping relatively quiet about the situation in Libya.

If you wanted to say that they are trying to seperate themselves from the previous administration by not being quick to stick their noses where it don't belong,
then how do you explain egypt?

In other news, Japan was hit by godzilla, and nuclear meltdown is a strong possibility.

A good strong argument for the corner store prophet.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Obama has a funny media game

Mon, 07 Mar 2011 01:27:00 -0800

Just a quick question, here, since i'm on a publishing spree, finally posting all the blogs i've written in the last week.

Now, I'm all for freedom everywhere. And i love to see a dictator toppled.

But why is it that when unrest started in egypt, Obama took no time at all to demand Mubarak, an ally of the united states, and a comparatively sane guy (compared to say, any other middle eastern dictator, his murder rates are more akin to the Weathermen) to step down. Now, i don't like the idea of allying ourselves with dictators, because that tends to make us look bad thirty years later, in a highly unstable region, when the next regime is in power, and not too happy about our previous allis.

But, he was our ally, and yet, Obama made statements in the media that he step down, within a day, while he outed Gaddafi (a psychopathic, murderous lunatic who is a sworn enemy of the US) only a few days ago.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Let's impeach the president

Mon, 07 Mar 2011 01:16:00 -0800

For the above link, i want you to do what, apparently, americans aren't capable of doing: Ignore the video, and listen to the words.

All of them are golden, but pay special attention to the end there:

Let's impeach the president for hijacking

Our religion and using it to get elected

Dividing our country into colors

And still leaving black people neglected

Neil Young, in his old age, got a little senile, and forgot that he's a prophet. And prophets talk about the future, never the present.

But seriously, there is allot of call for an impeachment here. After muscle-ing the health care bill thru, (correct me if i'm wrong here, anyone, unconstitutionally) now he refuses to uphold the defense of marriage act. Now don't get me wrong, that law is absolute bullshit, but the president is not the head of the judicial branch, and it is not his right to decide to over rule the legislative branch.

Perhaps, the good thing that comes out of all this will be a new american party. One that understands the social libertarianism that is the basis of the democratic party's popularity, but also follows the constitution, and understands that the gov't is not my mommy, or my older brother.
Kind of like, the tea party, without the racists and paranoid Mccarthyists.
Or, maybe the USA is a christian country at heart, and is simply doomed.

This country is so polarized. The best place to find anti-obama reporting is a news channel with little integrity, that most of the country thinks is in the pocket of big oil/big business and evangelical christians.

And on the other side, we have threats of race riots if obama is impeached.

Your guess is as good as mine, but the way i see it is that it's clear the world as we know it is coming to an end.
Luckily I've got Rambam's thirteen principles of faith, so i believe something better is coming.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

What's his angle?

Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:59:00 -0800

It was a fairly big scandal on fox news when they reported that President Obama has not met with any of his cabinet members one on one, or had any communications with more than half of them.

Now, I'm not sure how much i believe fox news (and i KNOW exactly how much i trust them) but i think i can say with certainty that he DEFINITELY meets with his actual cabinet members less than he meets with the head of the AFL, Richard Trumka.

Now, I've always hated Obama's politics, and i've always hated the Obama conspiracy theorists/haters because i felt that by being racist, islamaphobes, and McCarthyists, you subtract from the legitimate complaints about this man's despicable politics.

But, i don't know, this is getting SKETCHY!

I mean, if he's taking advice from a man who heads a private organization with separate goals than the federal gov't, and ignoring his own cabinet, whose interest is he protecting?

Not mine, that's for sure.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

War! (What is it good for?)

Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:50:00 -0800

War is a hot topic.
Doubtless, emotions rise, with so much blood on both sides. The british news report we watched in class was more reserved, compared to american news.
The question i have is thus:
Is it more accurate reporting to capture the blood and heated emotions,
or the facts?

Is it possible to accurately capture both?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Unpopular Opinion

Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:51:00 -0800

With all the talk about the war on terrorism, some key facts seem to forgotten.
Is it possible that the only serious threat al qaeda poses is to the soldiers that we bring to their doorstep.
Maybe it's because news papers are afraid of losing popularity; being seen as delegitimizing the deaths of all those who lost their lives in 9/11, or maybe printing stories about how al qeada really isn't that scary simply doesn't sell newspapers.
Either way, the press seems to be ignoring a view that i personally have held for many years of war now.

What's with the zeitgeist for ignoring non-sensationalist news.
Is the american populace so stupid that we prefer to be shocked than informed?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Doctor Paul cured my apathy

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:47:00 -0800

The patriot act was not renewed by house, thanks, in part to a great american hero, Ron Paul.

Now the question is: can youtube fuel a revolution?

Ron Paul 2012.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Does it bother you that people hate you?

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 01:04:00 -0800

In a pre-super bowl interview, Bill O'Reilly asked president obama if it bother's him that so many people hate him. (Link is from local NJ news source, everyone reported it.)

Clearly, O'Reilly owes his popularity to his ability to ask these kinds of pointed, tough questions.

Seriously, though, what did O'Reilly hope to accomplish here?

Ironically, for all the president said about the people who hate him not knowing him, his main tactic in dealing with the press seems to be being personable. He wants you to think you know him, he wants you to like him.

Also, the last line in the NorthJersey.com article is hilarious.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Allman Brothers Article

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:56:00 -0800

I had to write an essay on an american band from the twentieth century for history of jazz class.

Viola

The Allman Brothers Band consisted of Gregg Allman on organ, Duane Allman on lead guitar, Dickey Betts on guitar, Berry Oakley on bass guitar, with percussionists Butch Trucks and “Jaimoe” Johanson. They came together as a band in Jacksonville florida, in 1969.

They gained a reputation for their live shows, as well as for their studio albums and compositions, with their live album “At Fillmore East” being their most highly regarded album, as it captured the band at their best.

The roots of the Allman Brothers’ music can be found in all the music of the south, both from the African and African American traditions, and from the White-European tradition. They were primarily a blues band. Gregg Allman’s slide guitar always had a blues intunation, as well as blues sensibilities in melody, relying heavily on blue notes. The band hand a gritty, “dirty” sound in general, with Gregg Allman’s throaty-growling vocals being reminiscent of barroom blues, and twin overdriven guitars providing the bite to accompany Gregg’s bark. The band frequently used call and response; between different vocalists, between different instruments, and even between the band members and the audience. One of the signature sounds of the band is Duane’s call and response slide playing. In songs like statesborough blues, Duane responds to Gregg’s “A” lines (“Woke up this morning, had them statesborough blues”), while songs like you don’t love me often feature extended call and response slide guitar jams between Duane and Dickey Betts, with the rest of the group providing an interesting and evolving background.

Group improvisation is a huge part of the Allman Brother’s sound; they were one of the first groups to be considered a “Jam Band,” a subgenre of music still popular today. They were able to create a wall of sound, each member responsible for a portion of the soundscape, their ranges often overlapping and dancing around each other. With the inclusion of two drummers, they were able to create complex rhythms without losing the simple, swing heavy, straight ahead groove that made their music so exciting. Butch Trucks and Jaimoe were known to riff off of each other, creating polyrhythms harking back to African drum ensemble music. Bassist Berry Oakley was known to be both solid and melodic. He could hold down the rhythm section with his driving blues bass as well as play a more melodic style often referred to as a “third guitar,” following the momentum of the lead instrument, or playing lead himself. Gregg Allman’s organ playing was spacey at times, and frantic and pulsing other times. He coloured each composition with his chordal textures, often adding in a “splash” on the keys in a similar way to bop players dropping bombs. Dickey Betts and Duane Allman did not play in the standard lead/rhythm roles. Rather, they would play dual leads, often playing melody and counterpoint, or call and response. Dickey Betts had a more melodic ear, and his playing is often sweeter and softer than Duane’s who was primarily a blues guitarist. Songs like Mountain Jam feature the two guitarists playing the same melody, either in unison or different harmonic intervals, and improvising off the melody in a melody and counterpoint manner.

The Allman Brother’s had two fantastic writers in Gregg Allman and Dickey Betts. Gregg writes primarily vocal tunes in the vein of folk, blues, R&B and soul songs. His melodies are often lonesome, dealing with topics such as heartbreak, hard times, and life on the road, the bread and butter of blues singers. His songs are sometimes positive, hopeful, and loving, but always pay homage to his southern roots. Dickey Betts writes primarily instrumental songs. His ear for melody in unquestionable, and many songs such as “In Memory of Elizabeth Reed” and “Jessica” have been played on FM radio and covered so frequently that many people recognize the melody even if they do not know who wrote the song, or even the rest of the song itself.

Duane Allman and Berry Oakley both met an untimely end shortly after the release and success of the live album “At Fillmore East.” The Allman Brothers were at their peak, in terms of composing, and performing, and were starting to see real success. No one can say what would have happened if the band didn’t lose two of the founding members within such a short span (Oakley died about two weeks after Duane). However, the band decided to continue work, adding a keyboardist, Chuck Leavell, rather than trying to do the impossible-replace Duane on guitar, and finding a new bassist, Lamar Williams. Even with these losses, the band continued to record hits and play shows. The band played on and off throughout the decades. They are currently active, and play a legendary march run of shows at the beacon theatre in Manhattan, and summer shows around the country.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

There is nothing new about hume

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:10:00 -0800

Someone in philosophy class decided that there is nothing new about Hume.

Could it be because hume is essentially the foundation of all mainstream western philosophy. If you were born in america, hume should be pretty familiar to you by now.

Why does everyone think Einstein is so smart, anyway?

Everyone knows that E equals MC squared.

Anyway, we had to write a stream of consciousness bable. So, here it is, fresh off the press.

Never apologize run backwards thru the time of the endless falldown the absolute question about uncontroversial explosions. You can't limit the endless buddha nature being rejected by heathens,

you can't get me in or out of the jail, my leaders set precedents

the season is spring, and it's snowing?!

You lost yourself too late, it seems

Murder

Arson

Arse

Arsony.

I think you need to calm down,

Listen,

maybe it's best if you go one way

and i go nowhere.

Fine, I'll go up, you go to hell.

Smoke a blunt.

Break the door down, bass, boom! endless, infinite,

phrasing, reed, pipe, flute, brass, glass

paper

Fall quickly, now, you don't want to get left behind.

Free fall quickly, it's sick how you tricked me,

picked me, kicked me, and threw me a frisbee

disc is turning, catch it with my hands, my fingers are sticky

breathing is wispy, I'm blissed, b,

did'ja miss me? green trees are pretty,

laughing gets giddy, and silly,

For whatever that's worse.

Two minutes left in class, time to shut down.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

English One Oh One

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:15:00 -0800

Apparently my school doesn't allow anyone to place out of level one english comp, regardless on what they got on their AP tests.

Fuck that.
So how do i respond to assignments geared toward a class of high school graduates writing at a level which i surpassed by ninth grade?
Sarcasm, and arrogance, apparently.

To the editor,
I get frustrated easily. The reason I generally do not read the paper is because I tire of the ceaseless back and forth banter, arguing over problems whose solutions are painfully obvious to me. Yes, I am aware that I’m an arrogant asshole, but if a man does not think himself above the mindless drivel which pours out of our presses in this day in age, I do not think he has very much at all. In David Blankenhorn’s “Protecting Marriage to Protect Children” he makes the case that a ban on gay marriage is necessary to protect the future generations of Americans. I am completely dumbfounded that it could be unlawful, criminal even, for two people to wed. The Supreme Court long ago ruled in favor of equality in freedom and opportunity, (something called the civil rights movement, you may have heard of it.) Yet somehow it is still not clear to all Americans that there is no legal basis for granting rights to a certain group of people and not others.
I shall outline a few basic arguments against gay marriage in David Blankenhorn’s piece, and attempt to demonstrate why they are completely absurd.
Marriage is a license to have children (Blankenhorn 1).
Oops. You don’t need this “license” to have kids; as of 2006 there are twelve point nine million households being led by a single parent, according to the US census bureau (Families and living arrangements 2006). Clearly, there is no such thing as a license to have children. How can you say that a one night stand which results in a child being raised by a single mother is more legitimate than a child being raised a married gay couple, yet how can you deny these people the right to reproduce and raise the children of their loins? Furthermore, gay couples could provide shelter and raise the children whose biological parents either can’t, or won’t, take proper care of them.
“Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one (Blankenhorn 2).”
I must admit, I’m perplexed by that one. Will “legalizing” gay marriage suddenly give LGBT couples the right to whisk children away from their biological parents in the night? Will otherwise eager and willing parents throw up their arms, drop their babies, and declare “What’s the use anymore!? It’s all meaningless now, why don’t we just let our children be raised by some fucking queers or something!?” I think not. Few people would argue that the best way for a child to be raised is by their biological parents who love each other and the child very much. Blankenhorn sets up the conflict of one of good versus good (Blankenhorn 2). On one hand the goodness of giving proper dignity to LGBT couples, and on the other, the goodness of children being raised in an ideal atmosphere. This is not the case. As I’ve already stated, “Legalizing” gay marriage will not take any children away from their biological parents and place them instead in the care of homosexuals. Rather, concerning the children, it is a conflict of good versus bad. The good of giving loving couples the same rights, the same opportunity, and the same dignity to marry, create a home, and raise children regardless of their sexual orientation. Versus the bad of children either being told that their parents aren’t accepted and respected by the state, or even worse, growing up in an orphanage.
Opponents to gay marriage argue that marriage is a sacred and ancient institution. They will say it is not a question of rights, but a question of definition. Marriage is between man and woman, and has been an integral part of our society for centuries. Gay couples can be given equal rights thru civil unions, without undermining the foundation of traditional marriage. The doctrine of separate but equal does not work. It is impossible to segregate between two institutions; granting a certain group entrance into one of them, and another group to the other. There has to be a way to grant complete equality to all citizens without offending people’s religious sensibilities.

We have this concept in America of separating the church and state. It’s about time we use it. Here’s what I propose: We protect the sanctity of marriage and the rights of LGBT by separating the two. We have no need for a legal institution of marriage; all of the social and monetary benefits should be made available under the umbrella term “civil union.” This would no longer refer only to gay couples, but to any two people who live together and are mutually dependent on each other. Take for example two elderly siblings, whose spouses have both passed away, who are both retired, and who decide to move into a single apartment and support each other. Should they not be given the same benefits as a young couple with the same living arrangement? Let the Church define marriage, and let the government concern itself with what is relevant to it, without encroaching upon an institution which people hold to be sacred.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Long overdue

Mon, 08 Nov 2010 02:20:00 -0800

It is probably very clear to anyone reading this that i am a terrible blogger.

I really do not update this thing very often at all, which i guess not only makes me a terrible blogger, but a terrible author and PR man. Ahhh well.

Anyway, upon insistence from my publishers, I'm going to try to update and post (slightly) more often.

Here is an exercise called a "mini saga."

I think, it needs to have exactly fifty words, a character, and a twist. Or something.

At Thirty, I still live in my parents basement. It’s not that

I’m such a big loser, or can’t afford to move

Out or anything like that. It’s just that this way

I don’t have to sell my place when they die.

Besides, it’s only for a couple of months

Permalink | Leave a comment »