WireService Breaking News…

California fell into the ocean today.  The joke about California falling into the ocean from a massive earthquake has been told so many times that nobody paid attention because they figured it was one of those fake internet things.

Reactions to the event have ranged from “Good Riddance” to “Gnarly Waves, Dude!”

The Republican Party released a statement saying, “Thank God that thorn in our side is gone.  With those perpetually-blue 172 delegates out of our way, we can finally stay in the White House indefinitely.”  A high-profile party source who preferred to remain anonymous said that sinking California was God’s way of supporting the Republican party.

In a related story, the California flag bear is being held for questioning due to suspicious circumstances of how California disconnected from the main continent and sank in the first place. The bear’s only comment was, “I’ve been on that flag for over 100 years and I haven’t seen one goddam residual check!  Fuck you!!”

It fascinates me how celebrities and people in the public arena can make completely prejudiced statements, insulting another groups of people, without even realizing it. The best example comes into play when it comes to being gay. When a big celebrity is reported in the media to be “gay” they suddenly threaten to sue the media outlet that reported the story, and everyone else who posted the story. Based on their reactions, all it does is show that they’re actually prejudiced against gay people. In the case of a slander lawsuit, they’re doing it because they believe the reported information has somehow defamed their character in some way (like if they had raped some children or something). So by threatening or actually filing a lawsuit because someone called you “gay” or “homosexual,” you’re basically saying that there’s something wrong with being gay (which there isn’t – it’s just a choice). So, to put it in a short sentence… celebrities and public figures who sue or threaten to sue news organizations for saying they’re gay are people who are anti-gay. Is that oversimplifying it? Maybe it is… but it’s still accurate. If someone called you a homosexual and you weren’t, the natural reaction of a normal person would be “sorry, you’re wrong” and leave it at that. But if someone hates gay people, is prejudiced against them or because of some stupid ass religious belief thinks it’s “wrong,” then they would be disturbed by someone saying that they were that, and would want some kind of monetary compensation just because someone made an inaccurate comment about their personal sex life. A side note, in conclusion… humans are mostly idiots.

So, I was watching the Grammy Awards tonight and they announced the new category of BEST URBAN CONTEMPORARY ALBUM (BTW… congratulations Frank Ocean). And that got me thinking… Is “Urban” just the new PC term for “Black”? Can I be “Urban” even though I’m a white-ass honky? I was born in the Bronx in NYC, and have lived in both Brooklyn and Manhattan for several years, so that seems pretty damn urban, but I’m feeling like I could never qualify for this category if I ever wrote a song. What the hell does “Urban” mean? What the hell does “Urban” sound like? I lived in NYC for many years, and have spent even more time in Los Angeles – two of the largest cities in the United States – and I have no fucking idea what “Urban” sounds like. As far as I can tell, both of these cities encompass every type of music I can possibly think of, which is what makes each of them so incredibly cool. So to say something is an “Urban” album, what the hell does that mean? Are we talking about “Urban” Kansas City? “Urban” Birmingham, Alabama? So somebody help me out here… what the fuck does “Urban Contemporary Album” mean? And more importantly… Can I, as a pasty white Irish/Italian be included in this “Urban” category? Because honestly, whatever that category means, it was some of the best music of the evening. Maybe I am “Urban” and I just don’t know it. Or maybe I am “Black” and I just don’t know it. I’ve always been told I was a “black Irish” – things may all be making sense now.

So, I was randomly watching one of the Lord of the Rings movies where at the end there are all these guys riding down a big hill on horses to attack their enemies in some big very important battle. And it struck me at that point, while I was watching this… those poor damn horses!  Horses are generally very peaceful animals.  I know they’ve got their issues, but generally speaking you don’t see horses starting wars with other horses and planning ways to take over the land from where other horses are hanging out.  Yet those horses are used by humans for this purpose, thrown into some battle that they, personally, don’t really even care about, just to get a spear plunged into their eye or heart.  That sucks!  The horses have nothing against those other people, or even against the other horses that the “enemy” are riding on – mostly, they would just like to run around in a field and eat grass and have some naked lady with long hair ride on top of them (who wouldn’t on this last one).  This whole war thing is something that horses just don’t give a shit about.  So, I was feeling very bad for the horses when I was watching this move – this is not their way.  They are being seriously manipulated by humans, and they so graciously ride into death because some fucked up human (or other creature of middle earth) asked them to.

At the corner, near my house, the guy in the SUV angrily honks at the Prius in front of him because the lady isn’t making the right turn fast enough for him. At the grocery store, the woman who is 102 pounds too heavy for her height grumbles and complains because the checkout line isn’t moving fast enough. Somewhere in Beverly Hills, a woman is complaining to her hairdresser because the color of her hair is more of a hazelnut, instead of the burnt bronze she had requested. Somewhere else, a group of people have gathered to discuss how they’re going to stop gay people from marrying each other. And in another untouchable land, someone who earns $100 million dollars a year is bitching and complaining because they may have to pay a couple of hundred thousand dollars more in taxes each year in the near future and not be able to afford that third Mercedes they were planning on. And in a small northeast town 26 people, 20 of them children, lay dead.

Something struck me today… there is no such thing as art. There is only subjective opinion. Now, you might immediately start formulating an argument in your head saying, “Of course there’s art! The Mona Lisa! The Sistine Chapel! Van Gogh! Gauguin! Jay-Z!” But this is all just opinion. And all completely subjective, meaning that it’s all only in the mind of the observer. There are people who think that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is a piece of guady crap. And there are people who think Jay-Z is a genius. The point here is that they are both right… and they’re both wrong. It all depends on which brain your viewing it all from. The art itself has no intrinsic meaning – it only has whatever we assign to it. That’s why there is no piece of “art” on the entire planet that is beautiful to every person on the planet – that just doesn’t happen. Frequently large groups of people have similar opinions about something and then if enough people have the same opinion we call it “art” and put it in galleries, and on TV, and file lawsuits if people copy it. But those things are inherently no different than the things we see every day, the things we ignore, the things we walk over and throw away. So, going by basic logic, “art” doesn’t actually exist. Because unless it is viewed and the viewing mind develops an opinion about it, then it’s just stuff, no different than a pile of dirt in the desert (which, by the way, can also be art if viewed by the right person). So, the next time you look at a painting, a sculpture, a photograph, listen to a composition of music, or are in the audience at a live event, know that all you are looking at is a pile of dirt in the desert. And the “art” is actually what is being created in your mind.

“Enough butter to choke a cow.” This phrase popped into my head this morning, even though I had no idea what it meant or how exactly it would be accomplished. I mean, would this require something like taking the paper wrappers from countless sticks of butter and somehow weaving them into some kind of strong rope that could then be used to strangulate a cow or hang him or her from a nearby tree? Cows are pretty burly animals, so this would require a hell of a lot of wrappers. Or would this be shoving enough butter down the cows throat to make them literally gag and choke on it. That would be a lot of butter too, given the size of cows and their throats – and four stomachs can keep up with a lot of down-throat shoving. Although I think this second method might require less butter than the first method. Either way, even though I don’t completely understand the exact logistics of the statement, I think as a statement in general it works since it’s pretty clear about the level of difficulty. So, I feel pretty comfortable sticking with this statement. So, the next time I’m sitting at a restaurant, my baked potato is served and I’m asked, “would you like butter with that?” I will know how to answer.