February 22, 2010

mayor of roubaix, france wages war on mayor mcCheese. declares, "you promised we would eat cheap crap... you lied!"

and who pays the price?

the mayor of flavor country (that's you, stupid!)

the mayor of roubaix, france has filed a lawsuit against quick, a belgian fast food burger chain that came to being when a quizno's franchise raw dogged a mcdonalds out back behind the long john silver's, and offers such delectable comestibles as the long bacon, the long chicken, the long fish, and the long painful shit.

i say, pick your battles, and don't pick on the little guy!

france is the king of fine cuisine, america is the king of fast food. you wanna fight the fast food industry, you pick on someone your own size, france.

the good ol' US of A is good at two things, eating insane amounts of nasty crap in one sitting (sidebar, we are also pretty good at sitting), and repeatedly penetrating more respectable cultures with our giant figurative ameripenis.

quick is a feeble showing in the fast food market when compared to america's more overtly sexual long john silver's, in-n-out burger, and wahoo's fish taco. sadly, quick missed the obvious sexual reference when they opted against the marketing slogan, "stop in for a quickie", whereas bold american fast food offerings such as, "finger lickin' good" and "if it doesn't get all over the place, it doesn't belong in your face" seem one step away from declaring "pop in for a nooner, we'll get all up in them guts" or "stick it in your mouth, then we'll go to the bathroom where it really gets rough". and while the big mac has become so synonymous with large cock, that customers have been known to find condoms under their crinkle cut pickles, quick's softy banana hardly smacks of raw passion and greasy meat between your buns. hell, quick ads have some cheesy soccer player happily autographing a hamburger bun, we got kim kardashian licking ranch dressing off her nipple in the bathtub! when it comes (cums?) to fast food, you can't outsex a country that has secret menu items called the mcGangbang, and "animal style". why we haven't invented a strap on dildo made of pulverized hamburger and fried potato is beyond me at this point (i call it the double bacon penetrator, and it's patent pending, as is the spicy chicken penetrator, capt'n tasty's wee willy fish fingers of passion, and the deli select artisan paninitrator. these are the jokes, people. if you ain't laughing, i got nothing else for ya)

but the veritable vacuum of sexual prowess exhibited by quick has nothing to do with why the mayor of sexe de bout, france is suing them. no no, it's the impending void of disease ridden, knuckle, bowel, and beak meat in their sandwiches.

oh, france, you complain about american cuisine, but when it all comes down, you are the namesake of our fast food staple, the julienne fried potato (or freedom fry, if you will). though you may mock a country where arby's roast beef sandwich offers fully 9 variations of it's basic roast beef before vegetables enter the condiment spectrum (is horsey sauce a vegetable?), lettuce and tomatoes trumped a whopping 4 times over by hot nacho cheese, when quick burger decides that they will switch from the traditional fast food offering of ground lips and assholes on a bun to halal meet only, well, we certainly see your true colors, don't we? oh, when it's time to insult the americans, you bleed blue white and red, but when your greasy meat pucks are at stake, it's the good ol' red white and... blue. uh, anyway.

in case you don't know what halal meat is, it's a lot like kosher. basically, you have to know where the meat came from, it can't be nasty parts of the animal, or something that you had to rinse feces off of, or come from an animal that lived or died inhumanely or unnaturally. so what we might consider free range, grade A, organic beef in the states would fall short of halal only because it hasn't been blessed in the name of allah.

quick has decided to switch to all halal meat in france because france has a large muslim population, but this apparently doesn't fly with mayor mcFromage. he thinks that a restaurant that wants to serve a certain kind of food is discriminating against people who don't want to eat that food.

huh?

so an oyster bar is discriminating against people who are allergic to shellfish? and pubs are discriminating against recovering alcoholics? (actually those two would be more like how a burger joint in a muslim neighborhood in france that refuses to serve halal meat is discriminating against muslims, if one were so inclined to cry discrimination, mr mayor). are mexican restaurants discriminating against people who feel like mediterranean tonight (anyone else feeling like mediterranean tonight?)? is best buy discriminating against the amish? are george clinton and the parliament funkadelic discriminating against yodeling fans?

what are you, simple?

this restaurant can serve whatever kind of food it wants, and if you don't like it, don't eat there.

that's how a free market works.

if i want to stand on the corner and offer to step on your testicles for a dollar, that's my prerogative. nobody's forcing you to pay for my services, though, so quit bitching. and don't sue me because you'd rather have some angry dominatrix in stilettos step on your testicles (anyone else feel like having an angry... ah, i'll just check craigslist), and certainly don't sue me because i'm a muslim, and you hate my people and want us to live miserably until we all die off.

but this story shouldn't come as much of a surprise from france where there has been a growing anti-muslim attitude in the cheese and menthol scented air.

so let's bring 'er on home, shall we?

france loves nasty, questionable fast food, and don't want to healthy up for nobody, nohow.

france hates muslims for seemingly no reason at all.

france is law suit happy.

france prefers food with names that sound like novelty dildoes.

france is america?

tiger woods made the oldest mistake in the book: he got married.

but he ain't a sex addict.

tiger woods has grown up a lot since he recently took a break from knocking his balls around.

he has negotiated a reconciliation with his trophy wife, he has converted back to buddhism, he is seeking therapy, his eyes have become chronically red and teary, and he has admitted to being a "sex addict".

mosteligiblemarriedmanontheplanet, say what?!

sex addict, he says.

i disagree.

first of all, sex addiction is not a psychological disorder as defined by the american psychiatric association's diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (it's a page turner). some "doctors" hope that the impending revision of the manual will include hypersexuality as a mental disorder, but full disclosure requires me to mention that i don't put much stock in a book that once listed homosexuality as a mental disorder, and calls obnoxious spoiled brat syndrome ADHD so they can sell prescription drugs to toddlers.

so, definitional parameters of the APA'sDASMOMD aside, let's consider what sexual addiction has meant in recent years...

a married man cheats on his wife.

were you waiting for more?

because there isn't.

hypersexuality is what people claim they have when they get caught fucking around on the side.

i couldn't help it, i have a disease.

spare me.

hell, wilt chamberlain fucked just about everything with a hole in it (prolly even some bitches from cleveland), and he's a legend, considered one of the best (little known fact, he also played basketball quite well). what's the difference between legendary beaver hunter wilt the stilt, and depraved sex junkie "swingin'" tiger woods?

chamberlain wasn't married.

nobody had to chase him down like the terminator and bust through the back window of his car because he told some cocktail waitress (no, really, she was going to be an actress...) that he wanted to beat that stuffin' up.

now i'm not saying it's wrong to get married, and i'm not saying it's okay to cheat.

what i am saying is that

a) wanting to have sex with multiple partners is not a mental dysfunction. it can't be. a mental dysfunction must be something that goes haywire with our natural programing. as living creatures on this planet, our greatest natural instinct is to create and preserve optimum conditions for breeding and expansion of the population of our species (don't believe me? then tell me: why is suicide illegal?). having sex with multiple partners is step one in creating optimum conditions for breeding, but do we really need to have the birds and the bees talk right now? it may not be kosher, or moral in a modern civil society to fool around on your wife, and it's never cool to be disrespectful to people with regards to sex (unless i, um... they like it... call me a bitch! say it!!), but the desire to have many partners is perfectly natural.

b) stay out of tiger woods' business, dick.

the only reason tiger is claiming to be a sex addict is because he is now forced to explain to the world why he would do such a thing, and frankly it's nobody's business but tiger and elin, and their two genetically perfect super babies.

and let me tell you one more thing...

if any of us was in tiger's position... if you or i was some hunky mulatto, stanford educated, bazillionaire athlete, with a flawless smile, our own classy but casual clothing line, and a fully loaded buick lacrosse that runs on pure charisma, i'd be willing to bet that more than most of us would either have done the same thing tiger did, or we would have gone the wilt chamberlain route, but very few would be doting mr mom types, who slog around our 7,000 sq foot mansion in ratty house slippers and tell the waitress at applebee's, "thank you for writing your phone number on your cleavage so i could see it when you bent over to refill my beer, but as you can see by my wedding band, i am a happily married gentleman, and after i inform the manager of your lascivious behavior, i will need to be calling my wife to apologize for engaging in conversation with a woman who attempted to lure me with her tender, impure flesh". hell no. you're tiger damn woods.

but that's just the problem.

he's tiger damn woods.

even if he did tell the waitress he was happily married, etc, some TMZ douche is still there to take a picture of a waitress with her tits in his face, while he talks to her, and when photos of tiger damn woods show up on TMZ, harvey levin is gonna be there suckling out of his over sized novelty 80's water bottle like some emaciated hairless rat, throwing out asinine "too cool" comments like, "tiger should have taken a mulligan on that one. or whatever. is that what they call it? a mulligan? i don't know anything about golf. i mean who watches golf anyway? like, old people?" guffaw guffaw guffaw from the painfully unironically unhip "journalists" in the room, "yeah, uh, like richard nixon," guffaw guffaw, "richards nixon's like, old and stuff," guffaw guffaw, "so what did john mayer have to say about it?" "hey i'm john mayer, and that nigga fucked up... it's cool i got a hood pass, but i don't fuck with no black bitches, cause my body is a wonderlaaaaa-a-ah-and."

sorry, i just sort of spun off into my own little TMZ skit right there.

back to the point.

here's how we make this tiger woods thing all better,

1) as a society, we shouldn't have this bizarre unnatural expectation that everyone is going to get married and have 2.5 kids and a dog, and a big house with an SUV in the garage, and that they will be happy with that. if people want to be swingin' singles, let them be swingin' singles, everybody finds happiness in a different way.

2) people who know they like them some sexual healin' don't get married, but especially don't have kids. that creates an ethical and moral quagmire.

3) as a society, don't accept things that go against a social norm as dysfunctional outright, and as someone who gets called out for going against a social norm, don't play victim and hide behind some "mental disorder" that you can't control. it's time to take some responsibility for our own lives. your kids are obnoxious brats? sack up and be a parent, damn it! don't just dose them and say it's a disease. you like fuckin'? marry someone you like to fuck, or don't fuckin' get married.

4) stay out of people's business, and don't be hypocritical. it's none of your concern what tiger woods does with his personal life. he's a public figure when he's at work, not any other time. chiding him for his sex life makes no more sense than scolding him for sleeping in too long, or skipping breakfast, or lifting with his back, or worrying if he's having regular solid bowel movements. and even if his personal life does leak out into the public eye, as is bound to happen, don't hassle the man. how would you like it if you got caught running a red light because you were talking on your cell phone (dialing and driving is illegal here in california, for you non-CA readers), and suddenly you were rushed into some press conference where people were pulling out all kinds of pictures of you talking and driving, and one time you were even eating a burrito with one hand, while you steered with the other, and people were calling you reckless, and telling you about how their sweet baby daughter was hit by someone who was talking on the phone while they were driving, and throngs of disappointed friends and family were shouting their disdain, and your legal advisor whispers in your ear, "tell them you're addicted to multitasking, and the danger of driving with one hand really gets you off."

well, now we're just getting ridiculous...

aren't we?

February 1, 2010

where's your god now? a peek into the wonderful world of missionary work.

today, 10 american baptists faced a haitian judge to find out if they would be held to trial in country, or shipped back to the US to face charges of child trafficking.

real nice.

go down to the crumbling third world country under the guise of salvation (whatever that meant at the time), and then try to smuggle a bunch of children into the dominicanRepublic to sell on the black market.

i discovered this story on news hour, where the slant was partially biased toward neutrality (if that's possible), in that key details were left aside to make it sound like things were more up in the air. sort of like, "this is what we know, and this is all we know. we won't say anything else that might incriminate." but world focus had a lot more details, and it doesn't look that great for these bible beaters.

what the baptists referred to as "spiriting away" the "orphans" to a better life comes across more like kidnapping when you look at the details...

exhibit A: many of the children had families (some even still had living parents) to take care of them. one of the girls even says she was telling her captors that she was not an orphan and she wanted to go back to her parents, and was told in response that they were only taking her to the DR for a vacation. another child was wearing a sweater clearly marked with symbols used by the rescue workers to indicate that he was not an orphan.

exhibit B: these children were being kept in a shelter that could be called squalid even in comparison to what they were living in in the immediate wake of the earthquake. this is your salvation?

exhibit C: the children were not fed (not even a baby so young that she was not yet weaned from milk) while in the "care" of these particular good samaritans.

exhibit D: let's forget that the border patrol stated for the record that these children were being taken to the DR to be sold at 10 grand a head. we'll forget that because this statement was not qualified, and might simply be an assumption based on past incidents. let's talk about first world entitlement.

even if these children were being "adopted" and taken to a "better" life in the states, you can't just assume that children in poor or developing countries are public domain like so many soiled couches on college town curbs.

you can't just go down there and pick out one you think is real cute and take him home.

they're not just growing on trees down there, or falling off an assembly line. they have parents and families, too.

and you have to check these details out before you just stuff them in your carry-on and head home.

beyond this idiotic notion that undernourished brown babies are fashion accessories to prove that you were really there like a henna tattoo, or a puka shell necklace, who the fuck told us that our life is so much better?

scant days after the earthquake hit, some family in washington state had "adopted" some haitian siblings, and brought them back to the states. at this point in time people were still digging screaming victims from rubble with their bare hands. most rescue workers hadn't even hit the shore yet, and these kids were being "rescued" to a life where suddenly, rather than a mat on the floor and bare feet, they had boxsprings and mattresses and down comforters, and nikes in every color.

is this a better life?

a better chance at a good education, sure. a better chance at growing up healthy, maybe (we'll see how this healthcare thing pans out).

but there are serious faults in our lifestyle that we overlook. namely down comforters and nikes in every color.

a child in haiti would be beside herself if you gave her $100, but when she comes here and learns that $100 is just a pair of designer jeans for this year's back to school wardrobe, what have we done to her?

parents could put their children through the best schools in haiti with what the average american parent spent on one child's xmas haul last year.

the american hero is a farce, the american lifestyle is deeply flawed in its own right, and these so called pious good samaritans we've sent down there are nothing but selfish, entitled a-holes with no common sense, whether you think they are criminals or misguided do gooders...

if they thought they were doing the right thing, they have to live with the fact that all that religious dedication and they still have no idea what "the right thing" means. if they had criminal intent, they have to live with that the rest of their lives, in or out of prison.

at this point, i only have one question for these idiots:

where is your god now?

...chocolate rain!

how can i actively support the internet after nearly 7 hours (and counting...) of internet sensation tay zonday's "chocolate rain" on repeat?

i'm glad you asked...

the answer?

it's my new years resolution.

well, not supporting an institution that could spawn the fame (however brief) of something as horrific as tay zonday.

what it is is pushing my limits, one week at a time.

you see, instead of one, or one small handful of resolutions that will most certainly fail, or anyway, fail to impress, i've chosen to take on at least one resolution a week, for one entire week at a time.

this way, my year is wide open for numerous resolutions and adventures that i may have never pursued had i been so absorbed by one monumental resolution like quit smoking, or lose weight, or be more spontaneous (i don't need to work on any of those things anyway), or had i made a few silly resolutions that i foolishly attempted to adhere to for a full year.

here's a quick little por ejemplo, just to clear things up: as a declared and tested vegetarian, for one week i required myself to eat meat at every meal. what was great about the timing of this week was that i spent it in newOrleans, and so had access to such unique meatables as catfish, crawfish, alligator, jerk chicken, and andouille in their natural habitat.

and as part of my dichotomous personality, of course my meat week was planned on this week on purpose, because i also refuse to go through life missing key experiences, and to not gorge myself on real newOrlean cuisine would have big a terrible error.

on the other hand, there are action items like this particular week. this week i am subjecting every waking hour of my life to one particularly aurally offensive song (per day) on repeat. this doesn't necessarily push me to grow as a person, or experience life to the fullest, it's just a thing. a thing that someone thought up, and i couldn't think of a good reason not to.

look, despite a relative lack of necessity, mp3 software has this function (single item infinite repeat). i intend to abuse it.

i compiled a song menu from many suggestions, and as the need arises, i select the song of the day based on life's random cues.

day one found me pumping big yellow taxi, by the counting crows, and by the time it just became background music, my entire life felt like an episode of dawson's creek. later in the evening i started having a psychosomatic reaction to this noxious audio fart. i began to feel more and more nauseous each time the song started anew.

day two began with a lack of sleep (to bed by 1230, up at 5AM), and rise and shine to kenny loggins' footloose. why footloose? because i had narrowed it down to footloose and bills, bills, bills, and a coworker suggested without my input, that the song be either footloose or wannabe. so from 5AM to 1130PM that evening, no matter how awkward the situation, i had myself plugged into the rocking sounds of uncle kenny loggins (my own nickname).

and today: tay zonday's chocolate rain. perhaps the worlds most repetitive song (yes, even more so than juvenile's back that ass up).

today's random hints from the universe: i woke to a text message informing me that today, the first day of black history month, is also national dark chocolate appreciation day.

sounds like as good a case as any to subject myself to a projected 200 listenings of, chocolate rain, some stay dry and others feel the pain... chocolate rain, raise your neighborhood insurance rates... chocolate rain...

i would like to point out at this point that one play of this song yields 48 instances of the phrase "chocolate rain", which means that as i write this sentence i have heard those words 5,520 times...

5,521... flipping cars in france the other night... 5,522... cleans the sewers out beneath mumbai... 5,523...

now, as i feel my writing skills failing, and each intelligent word i intend, is being replaced by chocolate rain... angels cry and shake their heads in shame, i think it best to sum up here and close out.

the other weeks that are already in the bag this year included a muslim fast (sunup to sundown), only eating foods based on white ingredients while simultaneously only wearing black clothes, and facing my irrational fear of alien abduction (turns out i was just scared shitless as a child by movies that, as an adult seem corny, and harmless).

weeks to come include only eating blue foods (each color from the standard crayola 8 pack will get a dedicated week of foods, as well as clothing), and taking myself out on a date every day.

but as a tribute to the liquid nature of these weeks, february was to get my blue food week, until i realized that it's black history month, so i've swapped blue foods with black foods (hello beans, licorice, and guinness! unless you're fuzzy zoeller, then black foods means fried chicken and watermelon)

as you can see, as better ideas, or more apropos assignments come my way, i will work them in.

this may warrant it's own blog (though i can clearly barely keep up one), but it will be well linked with this blog, to ease the stress on followers, and those with input.

so calling all suggestions. for one week, use me as a guinea pig, use me for your amusement, use me as inspiration, use me as a human shield...

January 25, 2010

consider cellular biology: a short discourse on why haiti shouldn't have to wait for shakira to return george clooney's call.

not long ago, i had someone ask me, "are you really into freeing tibet, or do you just like that shirt?"

which is like asking, "are you really against cancer, or do you just like wearing that bracelet?"

a question to which i usually respond, "actually, i'm pretty pro-cancer, i just have a thing for strapping uncomfortable bright pink rubber bands to my wrist."

now normally i don't strap those things to my wrist, but i know someone who is dying (though she won't admit it) of breast cancer, and solidarity is golden.

but back to tibet.

how could anyone be against a free tibet?

tibet has no natural resources to exploit. tibet has but one human resource: humans. but china isn't using them for anything... not at the moment, anyway.

tibet has one economic resource: tourism. but china isn't exploiting that one either, and by the time they change their mind and start letting people into tibet (if they ever do) it won't look much like the old world tibet that people actually want to visit.

tibet has never once taken an aggressive stance on international relations, or made any sort of threatening gestures to any other country or culture (fuck, man, the dalai lama chose to exile himself, rather than fight).

so why should china give a shit about tibet?

ironically, that very rhetorical question is why the rest of the world should give a shit about tibet.

because china has no clear reason for it's insane strangle hold on tibet, yet it won't loosen it's grip, not one iota.

the unfortunate thing is, between cheap chinese toys, and international federal loans, we will never lift one collective american finger to help tibet, until the himalayas topple down on top of them, and oprah asks us to donate money.

likewise, probably nobody is planning on helping zimbabwe out, until we find oil there (which begs the question, might tibet have a cache of rare earth? all those hybrid auto makers, windmill farms, and extended life laptop companies might pay a pretty penny when tibet is the last foreign source...). and probably nothing is going to progress, cuba-wise, unless a hurricane actually uproots havana and lands it directly on top of miami, and we most likely won't get serious about helping out with the mexican drug war until a wildfire burns the whole place down and salma hayek and her huge boobs start a relief fund.

now let's talk haiti.

george clooney's hopes for haiti are modest, but let's face it, they ain't coming true.

george clooney's hopes for haiti, are that haiti's recovery won't stagnate once the incident has passed from the collective conscious of the conscious collective.

as i said, it ain't gonna happen.

let's face it, this country loves to rally around things. hell, the whole western world does.

it's why we went from a stance of absolute uninvolvement in international relations, to the first ones into every potential possible future yes/no/maybe so war zone since dubbya dubbya two.

we discovered that having a bad guy is so much easier than having a good idea.

we've made uniting for the good of humanity synonymous with fighting a common enemy.

but when it does come to rallying around a good cause, we love us some telethons, some charity concerts, some "i gave to such and such relief effort and all i got was this stupid" t-shirts. we love things like "text to give", and telling our friends that we donated to help starving kids in war-torn where's it, and when we called in, alec baldwin answered the phone.

but if we actually cared about helping the world, it wouldn't be so necessary to garnish up our charity efforts like this.

you know how you (well maybe not you, and definitely not me, but "grown ups" mostly) keep folding chairs in the garage just in case you want to have people over and they need a place to sit?

well, it strikes me that if we really thought that at some point we might want to help out another country in need (or even ourselves. cough COUGH... katrina COUGH!), we would have wearhouses full of heavy duty tents (like the military uses to live in when they are down in it), and heavy blankets, and towels, and cots or at least light mattresses or hammocks, and how about syringes and bandages and splints, how about eye glasses and shoes and clothing, how about water tanks with filters, power generators, and flashlights, and kerosine lamps, batteries, shovels, picks, axes, hoses, tractors and backhoes.

just a huge airplane hangar size building with nothing but this stuff from floor to ceiling, and next door? another airplane hangar, with a big ass cargo plane that's got nothing better to do than wait there until haiti gets swallowed up by the bowels of hell. and at the front of this wearhouse, there's a desk, with a real comfy chair, and a phone, a phone that only rings when new orleans sinks into the sea, or when thailand gets washed away by a tsunami, and that phone rings real loud because in that comfy chair, at that desk, sits a guy, and he might not be the most spry guy around, but he doesn't need to be, he's just the foreman, and maybe he dozes off now and again, but that's ok, cause that phone rings real loud. and in the top drawer of that guy's desk, there's a check book. there's a check book so that when shit does hit the fan, we can just say, hey, kraft, coca-cola, yum! foods, monsanto, we're taking all this food, and sending it to haiti, and we'll be paying you cost for it. here's a check, and no, there is nothing you can do about it. now get your guys to load it onto that there big ass plane, and shut your face.

the purpose of this wearhouse, and this plane, and this guy, and this check book is so that, when it all goes down, somebody calls that phone, and that old guy, he tells his weahousemen to load up the planes, we're going to port au prince. when it all goes down, haiti doesn't have to wait for george clooney to jump through the necessary hoops to create an entirely new charitable organization, then hire a graphic design team to make t-shirts and tote bags and a snappy website, then hire a PR firm to advertise it, then get all his celebrity friends to get together for a sing-along, then wait for people to send in money, then send the money to the red cross, then wait for the red cross to hash out a deal with REI to buy 10,000 tents at cost, then reassure REI that they will be able to write this off, then wait for REI to ship those flimsy 4 person camp tents to a country that was living in used camp tents even before the ground collapsed beneath them. meanwhile, the first shovel gets offloaded just about the time that a weeping mother is dragging her mangled child from the wreckage after 50 hours of clawing a tunnel with her bare hands. and while this has all happened relatively quickly considering how much bureaucratic red tape is involved and how slow international shipping actually is, and how bad celebrities are at promptly returning phone calls, by the time those shiny new tents hit the ground and anderson cooper is there to be all old-guy-sexy and coddle a small foreign child while he pretends to speak creole french and the child is just a little shy is all, by that time, we the people have practically already forgotten again that haiti existed at all, and those tents on the ground and anderson cooper's strong but gentle eyes seal the deal. yes, haiti has been saved, we can all throw out those tote bags now and wait for matt lauer to do a today show human interest piece on renewed interest in haitian culture in 10 years or so (there won't actually be renewed interest in haitian culture in 10 years, but nobody watching TV at that hour is registering anything, anyway. they'll mostly confuse haiti with jamaica, or south africa. anyway it was some place with a lot of black people who talked kinda funny).

meanwhile the people of haiti are standing on the shore while the relief workers shove off, and the cruise ships pull in right behind them. and they'll turn around and shuffle back to real life.

real life in an impoverished, corrupt, violent country, where everyday looks exactly like those horrible horrible scenes of devastation that we just assumed we unique to the aftermath of this most recent tragedy.

they'll return to a half baked "salvation" by western world, and they are no better off then when they started. in fact, we have most likely left them worse off.

we have left them with high hopes, fallen short. we have left them with a bunch of giveaway extreme makeover: home edition t-shirts, and some used water filters, and truckfulls of dirty syringes and bloody bandages that they have no way of discarding safely because they were just burning their trash in the streets anyway, even before their homes got destroyed.

we'll have left them with a hundred thousand plastic water bottles that they won't know what to do with, because relief workers need filtered glacial mineral spring water.

a hundred thousand plastic water bottles, and as many infected wounds, because dr sanjay gupta insists that the notion of infection spreading after a disaster like this is just an old wives tale.

a hundred thousand festering infected wounds because if you cut yourself and walked around in haiti 6 months ago, you would get a nasty infection, too.

a hundred thousand sick children, because once we see water flowing through those pipes, we will assume that they are all systems go, once more, even though the water to which we have restored flow is now, and has always been filthy and infested with diseases and chemicals.

a hundred thousand feverish babies, sweating through night terrors because surfAid won't send doctors to places that don't have a wicked shore break.

a hundred thousand people sleeping in tents made of sticks and old bed sheets, because habitat for humanity is one of the most pompous ass backward charities on the planet, and they will rebuild those houses in haiti, not concerning themselves with the fact that the needy people in haiti never had houses. and HFH will rebuild the houses of the well off, and they will leave. patting themselves on the back. congratulations team, job done! and those 30 or 40 people will move back into their nice new clean environmentally friendly homes from which they will continue to abuse the working class, and that very working class will be left out in the streets before they can even raise their hands, and clear the dust from their throats.

a hundred thousand poor starving undereducated homeless jobless sick people in haiti, maybe more.

because there were a hundred thousand poor starving undereducated homeless jobless sick people in haiti before the earthquake hit...

maybe more (well, not maybe).

but you wouldn't know that to ask anyone who's taken a caribbean cruise that stops in port au prince.

you might not know that to ask most people who live in the developed world.

as for the western world, what of all those poor, starving, undereducated, homeless, jobless, and sick people in the US?

i thank my mom for this idea. the analysis is all mine, though.

we take those cruise ships that have the massive testicles to actually use a country like haiti as their playground, and cancel all trips for a couple of years.

then we load them up with all our unemployed skilled laborers, and send them down to haiti, and for a couple of years they have a room on the ship, and they head landward each morning and work at rebuilding the entire country. they live, free, on the boat, their expenses paid for, and when it's all said and done, each one gets a check for services rendered. sort of like a GI bill, only they didn't have to kill anybody to get it.

in fact, they got it for saving lives.

at this point you might be asking what cellular biology has anything to do with this.

it's about community and cause.

in cellular biology, we can see everything we need to see, in order to live a good life. in order to recapture that thing that we keep going to war to find again. that certain special something that, for example, the US felt post WWII.

that thing that feels like a life lived, friends loved, diems carpe'ed, dances danced, songs sung, experiences had, opportunities seized, regrets? we had a few, but then again, too few to mention.

that elemental thing that feels like life maybe does have some greater meaning, even if that greater meaning is simply to live a good life.

whatever that might mean.

consider the human body.

it is made up of a massive amount of genetic material.

and each bit of genetic material in the human body carries the exact same genetic code.

each bit is exactly the same.

so how does a cell know that it should look and behave like an eye?

or a heart?

or a lung?

or a brain?

each strand of DNA has certain genes turned on or off, or turned down or turned up, and that gives it a purpose.

just to make this easy let's say, a hundred thousand little strands of DNA in the human body.

and this group here, they have been trained to be eyeballs, and that group there, they have been trained to be a heart.

now certainly there are cells that are told, "you are an anti-body, you handle hostile agents" but they are simply a line of defense. they don't jump out of your body and attack viruses and allergens in the world around you. they are passive until needed, and then they simply contain and dispose of the threat, and when the time comes, they shut down operations, and let the body die... and eventually the body must die, otherwise it can't give back to the natural equilibrium, and future bodies cannot find life.

but no matter what a cell is "trained" to do, one cell alone is nothing more than a cell that looks exactly like any other cell, full of DNA that looks exactly like all the other DNA.

together, the eye cells make an eye, and the heart cells make a heart.

what's even more amazing is that you can't just have a bunch of cells that think, "i am lungs" and expect them to start breathing when you clump them together like a meatball.

you need cells to act like capillaries, and cells to absorb oxygen, and cells that behave like muscular tissue, and cells that filter out toxins, and you need all those cells to know where and how to perform those roles, and you need them all to accept each other, or the whole system fails.

like a rejected transplant, or a cancer (which for the record, i am against).

now, sociobiology (which is a whole different -ology) will tell you that a cell, left alone, will do nothing but reproduce and/or die. consequently, the human life has no greater task than to reproduce and/or die, and everything else we do is simply a factor of one or the other.

it may or may not be that bleak, but one thing is easy to grasp, here: if all we are made of is genetic material, then aren't we just a big clumped up meatball of genetic material?

genetic material doesn't talk, it doesn't pontificate, it doesn't love, it doesn't prefer its steak medium well, or care which team wins the super bowl, or laugh at the stupid commercials that run during the TV time outs.

so what makes the whole so different from the sum of it's parts?

you could say that at the base level, the parts are first given knowledge.

this is how you become brain matter.

then it is given purpose.

you are part of the brain, this is your function in the brain.

then it's given companionship.

these are your fellow brain cells.

then it finds acceptance and cooperation. if it fails to do this, it dies, or it poisons the system.

the brain only works if you work together.

but this is where it gets hazy.

fortunately, this is the part we don't really need clarification on.

because somewhere between all these identical cells coming together to form eyes, to form a brain, to form a heart. somewhere between reproduction, mass assembly, and death, this meat ball of a hundred thousand little strands of identical DNA starts to see, starts to think, starts to live.

so if we are all slave to the laws of cellular biology, then doesn't it hold true that if a hundred thousand (or even 6.5 billion) identical little human beings (and we are) started working together, we might stop poisoning the system? if we all lived with knowledge, and purpose, and companionship, and acceptance, and cooperation, doesn't it hold true that somewhere along the line, without us even knowing what happened, we will begin to breathe free, to think, to live...

to live a good life?

and when that happens, we won't even need to know what a good life is, because when you're living a good life, you don't have time to worry about that kind of shit.