ladies and gentlemen, i present to you a segment that i hold near and dear to my heart, for it has been a part of my life since before the circus, and even before dave's raves.

while this segment is called question of the day, it may not be done everyday, but never fear, the threat level hot sheet changes daily for those who need their fix of my cheesy punnery.

as with all questions of the day, please take a moment to file your response in the comments section, whether or not you took a moment to actually ponder said response (the unedited answers are often best). also, as with all of questions of the day, it is spawned from my own bizarre brain, or that of one of my bizarre brained friends, and may in fact bear no foundation in current events, or even reality, or it might be quite apropos to the times, therefore they will come with a short explanation of why this thing is on my mind in the first place, as well as many other related questions that don't necessarily require an answer. so, doing away with all further disclaimers and formalities, today's question:

do you think the amish are pissed off at the rest of us for fucking it up for them?

i ask because it occurs to me that, in these desperate times of attempting to green everything up, and shrink our carbon footprints, and eat organically, and live cooperatively, and all these things, the amish have been doing this for years, yet they are basically prone to the same pitfalls of modern society as the rest of us, because the rest of us are destroying the whole world. i mean, do you think that if we all suffocate in a carbon cloud, or some country or group declares war on the US, that the amish will just continue to live happy and free in their little communities? hell no. they'll choke to death on smog, or have to kowtow to our new foreign overlords just like the rest of us.

so i ask, do you think they are pissed off, because they have been, and are living the way we can't seem to figure out how to, and consequently we are destroying the planet we all live on? do you think they will eventually snap, and be, themselves, the ones who declare war on the US? if so, how long do you think it will take for the US military to slaughter the entire amish population? a month? a week? if they declared war right now as you read this, would the war be over by this time tomorrow? would it be over before you finished reading this post? would we also accidentally attack the chasidic jews, simply because we never respected either religion enough to figure out the visual difference between the two?

so, today, i ask you, dear readers, do you think the amish are pissed off at the rest of us for fucking it up for them?

fun fact: the notion of going to war with the amish was first pondered, in great detail, by myself and a hare krishna friend, while smoking hash on the roof of a tea shop, overlooking the ganges river during india's festival of colors. i hope this piece helps you assemble the puzzle that is me.

on the heels of the success of "doctors without borders", africa experiments with "unstable war torn dictatorships without borders"

i smell another "journalists without borders".

ahhh, i love the smell of empire building in the morning. i think that we have a skewed view on the subject. for one thing, our history classes frame the ancient empire builders (the persians, the greeks, the romans, the egyptians...) as though they were hollywood movies, and who are we to know the difference? we take our teachers to be vendors of the objective truth, and how many of our hollywood movies are based on the stories we hear in social studies and history class?

as for the modern empire builders, well, we sort of gloss over the british and the dutch. i'm not sure why. at one point the entire indian subcontinent was owned by a british import-export company. not to mention the disasterfuck that was made of the african continent by the brits, the francs, and the dutch. then there's the pathetic attempt at an arian empire by the germans, which often gets overshadowed by the holocaust that ensued. then of course, there's the USSR, which will always live on in american history books as a faulty, illogical, and oppressive regime of maniacal james bond villains.

but what of the existing empires?

what about the good ol' US of A-holes? who, of course, are never even whispered about as an empire, for fear of being strung up on charges of treason, or domestic terrorism. but given the facts, who could deny that we are the classic empire builders in the vein of the romans, or the east india trading company? and are we not failing? i find it hard to swallow an opinion to the contrary.

then there's the EU. which is so trendy nowadays, as to never be referred to as an empire, but essentially pushes around smaller european economies by denying them entry into the union until their economies are of a certain standard, or face the fate of being crushed under the weight of a booming economy based in seemingly fabricated monetary values (if the euro is worth 1.5x the dollar, and a candy bar costs $1 why would it cost €2.50? secondly, i don't care if the entire continent has the same pictures on their valueless paper and metallic baubles, each country is still an independent economy, and thus the euro should be far more volatile).

there is a lesson to be learned in all this: empires fail on the grounds of a basic human lack of empathy for the population as a whole. the building of an empire in and of itself breeds a lack of empathy in those lucky enough to be on the builders team, and not one of the populations being bowled over. meanwhile, the people being absorbed (to put it lightly) by the empire, are prone to a bitter resentment for the culture that annexes them like so much consumer inventory, if they even survive the ordeal.

so who will africa look to, when workshopping their new borderless empire?

granted, they've already got a few groups of cooperative nations. take ECOWAS (Economic Community Of West African States), for example, a place i recently visited, a place that it's citizens hardly know exists.

upon arrival in accra, ghana, i found that the immigration checkpoint was broken into three lines, "foreigners", "citizens of ghana", and "citizens of ECOWAS". as it was very early in the morning, only the "foreigners" and "ECOWAS" lines were open, yet there was much confusion among those of us offloading from the flight. there were people i knew to be nigerian, togoan, and côte d'ivoire(ians?) waiting in the foreigners line, when, in reality, only myself, and perhaps two others actually needed to be in that particular line (ECOWAS includes those countries, as well as ghana, and 11 additional countries in the "armpit" of the african continent). in addition, there was some confusion among the ghanaians as to how they would get back into the country, there being no line open for them. if the citizens of ECOWAS don't even know that they are citizens of ECOWAS, how can we consider it a successful union of nations? perhaps on the grounds of the philosophy, "a job well done, is a job you didn't know was done". but that hardly seems appropriate when dealing with overt international political and economic relationships.

during my stay in ghana i discovered that there were many people who had a particular kind of tattoo. the lucky ones had them on their arms, but i was told of some unfortunate enough to have them on their faces or necks. the tattoo was of the individual's name and village, and it wasn't so much tattooed on them as westerners would think of a tat, but stitched through their skin with ink soaked needle and thread. why would they do this? well, one of the reasons we might be more comfortable with is that children are often expected to be independent much younger there, and given that people will make mistakes, or forget things, and that children often simply don't have the life experience to work through a problem caused by a mistake they've made (a wrong turn on the way home, a missed curfew, etc), the tattoo would hopefully help the child find help getting back to a family member. the more disturbing reason for the tattoo is the human trade industry. in the bitter irony of a group of nations once victim to european and american slave trade, the international human trafficking business is still booming in africa, especially amongst neighboring nations (ghana and togo and nigeria, for example). the tattoo could be seen by a border official checking a car for contraband, who could then arrest the smuggler, and return the child to his or her home. as disheartening as this is to think about, i think it is absolutely something that needs to be considered when discussing the dissolution of international african borders.

what about the civil rights issues? not just among countries that have known human trafficking issues, but toward countries that still enslave their own for diamond, coal, and gold mining? for those that kill their own over tribal and cultural schisms? what about the sanctuary of refugees? what about countries that are "functioning" democracies, and those that are functioning democracies, and those that are still essentially under dictatorships? what about the arab nations, who exist on the african continent, but are light years apart from the majority of african tribal cultures? what about countries that are considered international threats? do those hoping to affect a change in a particular african region through military action risk going to war with every nation on the african continent? if so, do those african nations who wish to remain neutral, or who agree with the foreign opposition to a region's actions risk forced enlistment? civil war? internment camps? holocaust? how does such a large population of people reconcile the differences between tribal and urban life? what sort of representation would they receive in the UN? what would come of the representation that already exists within each of the existing nations? could bono kiss that many babies?

what of the war? how many would have to be fought before any sort of settlement could be reached?

what about the economy of a nation like zimbabwe? who's dollar is trading today (8/7/09) at 0.00000003 US dollars. meaning that if you went to the forEx in zimbabwe and handed them one US dollar, they would hand you 37,410,030 zimbabwean dollars. so for anyone that still has an unfulfilled fantasy of rolling around naked in a million dollar bills, you could make that happen for 2.6 cents american, if you don't mind those dollars having robert mugabe's face on them (just kidding, they don't have a $1 bill, how pointless would that be? they do however, have a $100billion bill, awesome!)

this is not even to speak of the horrible schizophrenia that has festered in a group of cultures rocked by western religious missionaries for so long that they give their children names like prosper, godson, godwin, verdict, and virtue because they read them in the bible. this group of people has arguably the most adherent populations of any in the world to both christian religions, muslim religions, and tribal religions. how does this play out in one united africa? religions are notorious for killing each other for no good reason (religion, itself, is not a good reason). nor does this post speak to the language barrier in a place where within on small country like ghana there are 13 completely different languages (let alone dialects). how does that play out in one african parliament (or council, or congress, or what have you)? nor does this post speak of the great number of nations on the continent, and the individual governments' international relationships within and without the continent with things like ECOWAS, SADC, EAC, the League of Arab States, OPEC, WTO, the UN, the EU, UNICEF, FIFA, and various other international organizations, as well as specific, individual non-african countries.

i will say it again: disasterfuck.

you know, it might seem quite to the contrary, but i hate to bring this downer stuff about an idea like continent-wide african prosperity. and what would be better than one world population living together as one? imagine all the people...

but humans have faulty wiring. it takes far too much resistance to inborn tendencies simply to get a family of 3 or 4 to live together in harmony for the standard 18 years or so until the kids move out, or the parents just say, fuck it, i want a divorce. we've had great ideas before, democracy, communism, socialism, moral barometers through ridiculous religious stories that are accessible to children, free market capitalism, free education. but what happens? money gets in the way, power gets in the way, fear gets in the way, people start touching kids, greed breeds deceit, law breeds lawlessness, desire breeds immorality. we just don't have what it takes right now, as a species, to pull off something with this kind of scope.

it would take not only an organized, pure, functional, prosperous, and peaceful society in each and every last african country. it would take an age of enlightenment so massive, and sweeping, that there was an absolute and impenetrable wall of virtue surrounding each and every african individual's life. what's more, it would take an age of enlightenment so massive and sweeping, that every last one of the world's nations outside of the african continent would be able to just leave africa the fuck alone, if they succeeded in doing this. for non-african nations too not cower in fear, encroach upon them, or threaten to cripple them or shut them off from the rest of the world because we felt that their way of life was a threat to our way of life, because an entire continent of once disparate nations, now prosperous and at peace, somehow posed a threat to all-you-can-eat salad bars, 15 minute oil changers, and designer jeans, or to wine appellations, organized soccer, and men wearing scarves, or to smog choked industrial districts, seizure inducing commercials for happy good time shrimp flavored soda drink, and the eternal oppression of tibetans.

yes, i think that one world at peace is a fantastic idea, but i leave you now with the words of a great poem (translated to modern english), words that have inspired one of my favorite books (you'll figure it out), words that have inspired this post, and my life in general:

In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes of mice and men
Go often askew,
And leaves us nothing but grief and pain,
For promised joy!

Still you are blest, compared with me!
The present only touches you:
But oh! I backward cast my eye,
On prospects dreary!
And forward, though I cannot see,
I guess and fear!

-from to a mouse, on turning her up in her nest, with the plough by robert burns

local man ain't no fancy, big-city queer. he simply demands 16 ounces of juicy sausage in his mouth.

as i was playing around on the google thing there, i discovered just how perfect a fit this new segment is for me. lo and behold, i discovered one of the funniest bits of audio i've heard in a long time, and one that so perfectly fits with the surviving darwinism theme.

it may be old news to you, but please do enjoy this hillbilly filing a complaint with jimmy dean:

and in case you're wondering, i believe he did in fact say, "your products of very delicious".

new segment inspired by bleak outlook of human intelligence. inability to blow up 80 year old building quells fear of nuclear holocaust.

so there were a couple of things i wanted to post about today, and perhaps i still will, but when i saw this video, i was inspired to create another feature.

i shall call this feature surviving darwinism.

now, many media sources have segments along the lines of "signs of the apocalypse", or what have you. but as much as i would love to witness the apocalypse, i don't believe in all that biblical mumbo jumbo. what i do believe in is this: i don't care if you believe in religion, or darwinism, we are too stupid to fail. the apocalypse isn't ever coming, no matter how hard we try. our best bet is that we will eventually extinct ourselves. but somehow, against all odds, we don't die. our population continues to grow, and flourish, and live longer.

i guess you could say this segment is somewhere between a darwin award, and signs of the apocalypse. so without further ado, the first sign that humans will never go away, no matter how unfit for survival we are, is a BBC news segment titled turkey demolition goes wrong (unfortunately i had to link it, since those wankers down at the BBC won't share video with blogger). when i first read that title, i thought, "if there is a god in heaven, this will be a bunch of turkeys getting blown up".

it's not, but it still cracked me up.

enjoy.

p.s. - for exploding turkeys, just google "exploding turkeys" it's out there, and plenty of it.

the incredible mr O doesn't care what you think (until we actually tell him what we think. like that one time, when we all thought he would be a good president), and i like that about the guy.

sometimes it takes a person with the pelotas to implement an unpopular or controversial idea to grease the wheels of progress.

he's not about to kowtow to a bunch of rubes who pick apart every little thing he says and place it under an electron microscope. i mean, how ballsy was it for him to promise to bring us the one axiom of existence that we cannot anyway avoid?

i'm talking about change people.

and who among us can say with 100% certainty that we have never, nor would ever, declare one of our athletic deficiencies worthy of the special olympics?

my concern is not that mr O is uncomfortable being himself when it comes to public relations.

my concern is that mr O is not uncomfortable being himself when it comes to public relations.

look, the guy's under serious scrutiny, here. he can't afford to let gaffin' joe rub off on him now. sure, it's funny when you or i say, "hey, i bowl like a retard". but there's an awful lot of people out there, who are going to blow this out of proportion when the president says it.

so some moron cop arrests a guy for being black in his own house, and suddenly we have to have a beer bash at the moon tower? this doesn't seem like the smartest move.

first of all, it sets a dangerous precedent. now every time somebody has a problem with the way their lives are going, they are going to expect the president to respond to the issue, and he has much more important things to do than help you find your car keys. hey, simpletons, just because you were late to work because road maintenance backed up traffic on the interstate, don't expect mr O to hold a press conference reprimanding the DOT for not staying the fuck out of your way. and i don't care if the safeway didn't have any decent bananas, i don't want to hear that obama called an emergency produce summit between the FDA, NAFTA, and the farm workers of america. there's real problems going on in the world, and i'm not saying race relations in america isn't one of them, but treating two pouting idiots like bickering toddlers, and forcing them to kiss and make up is not going to solve the problem, in fact, it might cause more problems than it even addresses. meanwhile, people are starving, dying, fighting, and suffering for real, all over the world, and bono can't hug all of them himself. mr O has more pressing items on his agenda than putting a band-aid on your ouchie.

to stay on the subject of dangerous precedents, my second concern is that this will fan the flames of america's arrested development. we are already a nation of pathetic midlife crises. we are such an immature, self important group of a-holes to begin with, that i don' think we need the president offering to play daddy to our mundane disputes. hey, i think it's a great idea to resolve issues by sitting down like sensible people, and discussing them in a friendly manner, but this is something grown ass people should already know how to do. i don't care who the president is, he or she is not here to teach us how to shake hands and apologize. we're adults now, and it's time for us to take responsibility for our own lives. don't go crying to mommy every time life isn't going your way, when the way to resolve the problem is obviously just to be a big boy and figure it the fuck out yourself, or, here's a thought, get over it. shit happens. we're not going to get an apology from the universe every time something goes wrong, and we don't need reparations for every little thing.

my third and final concern is this: they say you never talk about religion or politics at a party. well, for a guy who has already proven that he can't get away with insinuating that he is a retarded bowler, or using any form of the modifier "stupid", or showing any sort of respect to the leaders of other countries without the whole country jumping down his throat, maybe it's not the best idea to invite the media to film you getting drunk and talking about race relations...

...and for the love of god, don't invite biden to the party.