Archive for the Irritating Category

Raising awareness of how stupid you are:

Posted in Infuriating, Irritating on October 3, 2010 by easilyangered

I’m really sick of raising awareness.  Breast cancer awareness, Autism awareness, diabetes awareness.  What good is being aware of these things doing anyone?  I’m  aware that these conditions exist, but I don’t care, all you’re doing is making me more aware of how pissed off I am and how dumb I think you are.  The wort part is, women, being the biggest consumers of products, and also the demographic most likely to get breast cancer, are seemingly too stupid to realize they are being marketed to, not saved.  Here, buy this food processor, it’s pink!  It doesn’t match anything you own, but it will sure make the one person in your life who may happen across is at your house realize HOW MUCH YOU CARE!   Do you assholes even realize that the amount of money given to a research firm for that product you bought is miniscule?  Do you realize we are also no closer to finding a cure than we were 25 years ago?  More women die of lung cancer than do breast cancer every year, but there isn’t a nice little ribbon and branded products being sold for that is there?  I wonder why that is….  Could it be because it’s a non offensive way to link your products to titties?  Sex sells after all.

Another type of awareness that just pisses me off is all these history months we have.  I mean, who gives a shit if the 35th person to accomplish something happened to be a minority?   Are you saying that their race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or creed is a handicap?  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for celebrating people who were actually trail blazing, like Madame Curie, Mr. George Washington Carver, etc…  But here’s the typical thing that gets mentioned in women’s history month as an example: Junko Tabei was the first woman to scale Mt. Everest in 1975.  Well who gives a shit?  How many people climbed it before her?  Does being a woman make it a harder climb?  Why doesn’t the second guy to set foot there get any recognition?  I’m tired of making a big deal every time a minority farts in public, it takes away from true trailblazers and cheapens accomplishments.  By all means if the first person to do something is a minority, let’s give them their due, but copying what another did is not an accomplishment no matter what color you are, or what is between your legs.


Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses… but legally

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on September 14, 2010 by easilyangered

The 14th Amendment needs to be amended to at very least, require that one parent also be a legal citizen in addition to birth on native soil, this is the requirement for many other countries around the world, and is neither hurting anyone deserving of citizenship, nor helping those who seek to obtain it by less than honorable means. Those who believe the Constitutional protections only extend to US citizens however need to rethink their position. The Constitution assumes that ALL men have inherent rights and does not enumerate them for the people, but rather limits the powers of the government to infringe upon them. To deny Constitutional protections to a person on US soil is to deny their humanity, since their very existence entitles them to the rights of man

Let’s not allow bigotry and xenophobia to lower ourselves by denying people rights based on the location and circumstance of their birth.

I have a perfect plan for the “immigration crisis”:

1.  Seal the borders:  People seem to think this is impossible, but I have a solution.  Why not  redeploy the troops from ending the “combat mission” in Iraq to the US border instead of sending them to Afghanistan to kill more people?  This would be a temporary measure until the remaining provisions of my plan are put into place.

2.  Repeal or alter the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, requiring that in addition to being born in the US, citizenship is conferred only when one or more parents is also a natural or naturalized citizen.

3.  Provide all those who are here illegally an amnesty period where  a temporary citizenship including a legal Social Security Number will be granted, provided they show proof of employment and can demonstrate a basic understanding of the English language, as well as pass a criminal background check.  The temporary citizenship will be for sufficient time required to complete the additional steps necessary for naturalization.

4.   Those that are willing to serve a minimum of 4 years in the US Military supporting our nation, upon honorable discharge will receive citizenship for themselves, their spouse and any children they are claiming as dependants.

5.  Those who cannot meet the employment and English requirements for a citizenship pass will be offered the chance at their own expense to enroll in a program that will teach them the skills to find employment and learn English.  If they are unable to pass the course and become a productive member of society, they will be deported to the country of their birth.

6.  If you are a citizen or an accepted person under provision 2 or 3, you may sponsor residence for any member of your family by blood or marriage, provided you can show proof that you can full support them financially, and medically, provided they pass a criminal background check.

7.  OSHA will be given additional personnel, and the scope of their purpose will be widened to ensure that companies are employing legal people as well as fostering a safe work environment.  Any company or individual found to be employing an illegal resident will be fined so heavily as to nullify any payroll savings that snubbing the law would allow.

8.  Anyone found after the amnesty period violating the immigration laws or any other law while in this country illegally will be stripped of everything they own and escorted to the border and dumped, that’s how they came here, they can get back the same way.

Once the employment opportunities that are enticing people to come here dry up, the military will no longer be needed to patrol the border.

They’re so FIERCE!

Posted in Irritating on August 18, 2010 by easilyangered

I love Werewolves. They are my favorite movie monsters of all time. I remember the first time I saw a Werewolf show. Well, it wasn’t really ABOUT Werewolves, it was more about a guy living with 2 girls and pretending to be a Werewolf to not look improper. Used to be a day that you couldn’t come right out and say a character was a Werewolf, they had to use mannerisms and styles of dress and whatnot to imply lycanthropy without actually showing the transformation. You’d often be guessing, “Is that guy a Werewolf or just a really snappy dresser?” Then sometime around the late 80’s it was more OK to be in touch with your lupine side so we started getting more shows featuring Werewolves who weren’t afraid to be out in the open, they’d prance around and talk about how they were going to go to the theater, or to a musical. Then along came the show about the Werewolf and his live in roommate who was a totally hot redheaded Jewish chick (no boobs tho) and their incredible friend “just Jack” who was wolfed out all the time!  It was an awesome show!  Then they had the one where 5 Werewolves would show a regular guy how to act, dress, and generally clean up into a modern guy.  And who could forget the movie about the 2 Werewolf cowboys….

Oh, wait, I’m sorry…

I seem to have mistaken homosexuals and Werewolves.

well, at least now maybe now you’ll understand why I have to punch you in the mouth if you say you like vampires and start talking about Twilight.

YOU’RE an asshole if you can’t properly use YOUR Apostrophes.

Posted in Infuriating, Irksome, Irritating on August 2, 2010 by easilyangered

I hate third grade grammar mistakes. I can’t take you seriously if you can’t write your opinion in proper English. I’m willing to overlook dumb ones like using “I” before the verb and “me” after, and always putting your own personal pronoun at the end (ex: “Bill and I went to the store.” No one’s here but Josie and me”), because the vernacular changes over time, and honestly, who cares whether you think you deserve top billing in your own sentence?

Where I really get angry is the abuse the poor apostrophe () gets. That’s the first thing that irritates me. I mean, did you people not attend thrid grade? How hard is this:

It’s: A contraction of IT IS
Its: belonging to IT

Your: belonging to you
You’re: A contraction of YOU ARE

See how the simple rule there is that the apostrophe denotes a contraction? I can understand the confusion, I mean, after all when talking about a specific person the apostrophe denotes ownership: Bill’s truck. But then when using a pronoun, the apostrophe means a contraction again: He’s going = HE IS going. However, just because I understand where confusion can arise, doesn’t mean I will forgive it, since this is stuff covered in elementary school.

A real big one that burns my balls is when a company fucks it up in advertising. I have a subscription to a computer magazine that had an ad in it for Custom Built PC’s for about 5 months. After the 5th month I guess someone in their ad department realized that an apostrophe is unneccessary when describing multiples of an item that is abbreviated, in this case the proper use is PCs. You see there? the lowercase “s” denoted that it is not part of the abbreviation PC. I vowed I will never buy anything from a company that abuses so thoroughly the English language on an advertisement. It seems if they can’t follow that simply elementary grammar rule, what others will they forget about?

Another thing, THERE are too many people idiots out THERE misusing the word I’ve capitalized in THEIR writing. Now I can understand again the whole I before E rule, because this is one of those fucked up exceptions, but THERE is no reason THEY’RE using it wrong in every one of THEIR sentences. Have I been clear enough?

They’re: Contraction; THEY ARE
Their: ownership; belonging to them
There: a place; over THERE

In conclusion, I have to say it truly makes me so angry I want to kick a baby into a brick wall when I have to decipher your rant on the evils of Capitalism like I’m Indiana Jones trying to figure out from hieroglyphs where the lost fucking ark is because you can’t remember these simple rules. The thing that makes me even madder is that to point out you write like an inbred 4-year-old Mongoloid somehow makes ME the one losing the argument, as if because I insist on legible coherent counterpoints, I am now grasping at straws to defend my position. All in all, I hope that if you write like this you get run over by a bookmobile.

My cold, dead hands

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on July 30, 2010 by easilyangered

I like guns. I think they’re neat. I think everyone should be able to own whatever kind they want. I think gun control means keeping positive control of your weapon, and making sure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands or get misused. I believe every person should be free to carry a gun if they choose to, wherever they go. I also believe that person should be %100 liable for any mishaps or troubles caused by said carrying.

People are free to use a lot of tools that will cause grievous bodily harm, why should a gun be treated any different? After all, if you murder someone with a hammer, are they less dead than if shot? Are you less of a criminal?

Philosophy aside, look at the practical reasons for concealed carry: A gun is the most effective wat to multiply force in an escalating situation. Most times a gun is used in a confrontation, it is not even fired, just the sight of it is often times enough to cause the aggressor to back down. A gun will allow even the weak to effectively defend against the strong. An armed population is safer, criminals are less likely to attack “hard targets”, this is a basis of every anti-terrorism training ever shown, why would it be different for regular crime? The training states that by being a hard target, you will discourage attacks, well, if criminals are unaware of exactly WHO is armed, they are less likely to prey upon the citizenry. Look at the stories you see in the news, old ladies, women, homes thought to be empty, weak people living at home alone, these are the targets picked by criminals, they never seem to attack gun shops or anywhere they might meet armed resistance. In this way, a person who is carrying concealed makes it safer for the one who chooses not to, just by making the criminal unable to tell if he will meet armed resistance.

A favorite argument of the gun control crowd is that you can always take a self-defense course. My rebuttal of that is this: How long does it take to become proficient in fighting? I know people who take years of martial arts, do you want to tell the woman living in a dangerous neighborhood that in just a few short years she’ll be safe? I can teach her how to safely and effectively use a firearm in an afternoon. Here’s another interesting point to consider, why do boxers and practically all fighting sports have weight classes? It’s because a 125 pound martial artist is no match for a 225 pound one. Just consider how hard your average 9-year-old can punch, do you think you can’t beat up a 9-year-old? A firearm is an effective way for the weak to equalize the playing field whan faced by the strong. Here’s an interesting link. Now, these same panty waist douches will say something like “well the thug will just take the gun away from her and use it against her”. Really? you honestly think it takes more time to pull the trigger than a thug can close with you, grab your arm and wrest the gun out of your hand? A trigger pull takes a couple of pounds of force, it is less than it takes to carry a bag of groceries, you think that wresting a gun from someone’s control is less effort than that? You must be retarded. The most infuriating part of this argument is that it usually made by the same crowd that will go on for hours about women’s empowerment and how a woman can do the same work as a man, yada yada yada. So which is it? Strong independent women, or delicate flowers incapable of defending themselves? My vote goes for strong women.

Another favorite cry of the ever-present liberal ass, is that “We’ll be like the wild west with gun fights in the street!!! BOOOHOOO”. Well, let me share a little insight about the “wild” west: The most famous shootout in the wild west was the OK Corral, it left 3 people dead. Do you know how many murders the average old west town saw in a year? a hundred? a thousand? Try five, the most murders any town saw in a single year .

No one is going to force you to carry if you are afraid of guns, but those around you that will be carrying are the same people you meet on the street, on the bus, your neighbors, or the guy at the deli, none of whom have killed you before, so why would they do so with a gun strapped to their side? They might even intervene when you are in danger.

The most important argument for gun ownership is this (from wikipedia):

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that “all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.” Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, “Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law.”

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Do you see where I am going with this? If not, educate yourself here and here and here.

Here’s an interesting site for more info.

You don’t have a disease, you’re just an asshole…

Posted in Irritating on July 29, 2010 by easilyangered

dis·ease   /[dih-zeez]; noun, verb,-eased, -eas·ing.
1.a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
2.any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
3.any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
4.decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

Alcoholism is a behavior, a choice, a lack of willpower. It is not a disease, you will not contract it, nor will you transmit it. Labeling it a disease simply enables weak-willed losers to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Unlike a real disease, alcoholism goes away simply by deciding not to drink. You can’t just decide to not have herpes anymore. You know who the most ardent defenders of this phony disease theory are? The people who provide “treatment” for it. I have an idea, you want a treatment program for your disease? I’ll kick you in the crotch every time you reach for a drink for 6 months, I’ll guarantee a minimum success rate of 3 – 5%, or the exact same success rate of AA.

People need to get off this “I’m not responsible for my actions” mindset, it lowers you as a person and makes you seem a weak and insignificant piece of garbage. Time to cowboy up, throw down the glass and take control of your life. I’m not going to make excuses for you, nor am I going to feel sorry for your lack of direction in life. Alcoholics are often times unable to take responsibility for many of the other aspects of life as well, are we going to invent diseases like “don’tpayrentism”, “Can’tshowupontimeism”, or “I’manassholetomyfamilyism”? Well this is a fantastic development! I’m going to just claim stupid fucking diseases every time I get into an awkward social situation and claim protected status as the handicapped!

I’m sick and tired of society not making people take responsibility for their actions, it’s time people are forced to face the music. Do you know what a drunk driver that kills someone, a serial killer who was molested as a child, a thief who had a hard childhood, and Bernie Madoff all have in common? They’re fucking criminals, let’s treat them as such.

– but then what do I know, I suffer from assholism.

The environment

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on July 22, 2010 by easilyangered

I don’t buy the environmentalist movement. I don’t believe humans are causing global warming, or even that climate change if it is happening is that big of a deal. I do however have some thoughts.

First, don’t try to convince me you can predict that climate change is going to result in more hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters if I can’t get an accurate 5 day forecast on the news. Scientists can’t even predict whether it’s going to rain tomorrow with any more accuracy than a magic 8 ball; so sorry, I don’t believe you can predict increased disasters for the next 100s of years.

Second, I’ll assume for this point that you are correct about man-made climate change: If it is true, you are going after the wrong people. If I drive an SUV, the amount of energy I am wasting and pollution I am causing is insignificant compared to what the Government wastes. I’m in the Navy, I can’t even count the number of times a ship I’m on has dumped hundreds or thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean, or improperly thrown garbage overboard. Here’s an issue that is a problem with the way the Navy conducts business altogether: A ship has to get fuel in certain amounts, which is in the thousands of gallons, they can’t just pull into the gas station to top off. So, what this means is the Captain will end up running the ship at full speed in circles in the ocean, just to burn enough fuel that he can go to the tanker. Yeah, you read that right, they purposely waste tens of thousands of gallons of fuel just so they can load more fuel on. The reason for this: it’s faster and less of a hassle to fuel at sea than in port.
Another problem is the amount of unnecessary deployments we do. Why does the Navy need to sail all over the world all the time? Is it for some outdated show of force? The Cold War is over, who are we showing force to? Why do we need 11 carrier battle groups when the rest of the world has one? How about the amount of ordinance and ammo that is wasted in training? that releases gasses and CO2 into the atmosphere, why do we do that so much? I would think a smaller military that doesn’t deploy in times of peace, and isn’t occupying foreign land would be a better use of legislation than restricting the types of cars free citizens can buy.
Another way the government wastes energy is by never shutting off their computers at the end of the day. How many hundreds of thousands of computers are on, wasting electricity, when there is no one there to use them? They claim this needs to be done in order to push out updates overnight as to not interrupt daily use, but how hard would it be to schedule the updates on one day every week, and only leave the computers on that evening? Or, how about just pushing the updates out at lunch time, allowing users to delay them if they are in the middle of a project?

Third, Biofuels. Let’s get serious about them. A diesel engine can run on used cooking oil, did you know that? Know why more people don’t do it? Because diesel fuel has a color additive in it to determine what taxes have been applied to it. If you are inspected and found to be running blue (home heating) fuel in your vehicle, you get fined for not paying vehicle fuel (which is red) taxes. How much used cooking oil do you think the restaurant industry gets rid of every year? It’s a waste product, it has to be disposed of a special way due to its being hazardous. Why aren’t we trying to refine it into fuel?
Another thing on biofuels, we need to lift the embargo on Cuba. Why? They produce a LOT of sugar. Sugar is used in the making of biofuels, also it is better for you than the High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) that is used in almost everything the US eats. We use HFCS because of our surplus of corn. We subsidize farmers to not produce too much corn, and a lot of what we do produce we send overseas in foreign aid. Here’s my thought: Let’s make biofuels from all of our corn, we allow our farmers to produce their full potential, thus providing a better market for them, and freeing up the subsidy money for other things. Also, we can cut our foreign aid and become the largest biofuel producer in the world.

My point is this: It is harder to convince people to give up things they like or to change their lifestyle, than it is to get them behind changing government. Why not turn your efforts to the Government, and allow private citizens to live their own lives as they see fit and can afford? After all, if the Government refuses to make changes to support your cause, how much of their support are you really getting?