teh Mexigogue

March 31, 2005

Everything You Need to Know About Me You Can Learn From Monkeys

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 9:11 am

I was reading an article on ABC news regarding primate behavior that has some application to human relationships and celebrity status. While the amount of attention bestowed on celebrities might seem natural to us mere mortals, those in the spotlight often find it uncomfortable and regard it as undecidedly unnatural. Take this quote from the article:

Actress Angelina Jolie criticized the public’s fascination with the famous and influential on ABC News’ “Nightline” earlier this month. “Why is anybody giving any attention?” she said. “Because I made a film? Because I wore a dress to something? It’s silly, and it feels very shallow.”

Hey Angelina, you might want to just shut up while you’re ahead. What do you want people to judge you on? Your intellect?

That aside, the methodology of the study was described as such:

Platt conducted the experiment by offering thirsty monkeys a choice: their favorite drink, in this case Juicy Juice cherry juice, or the opportunity to look at computer images of the dominant, “celebrity” monkey of their pack.
Despite their thirst, they chose to look at the pictures.
“What is celebrity for a monkey but their status?” said Platt.
Monkeys with status have food, power and sexual magnetism — everything the others crave. The impulse to look at these “celebrity” monkeys was so strong, it superceded thirst.

I have observed this phenomenon at Leroys. Two chicks came in about a week ago and kind of hung out near the pool table. Nobody is paying them too much attention until one of them got up to sing. She took the mic and belted out a rendition of “If I Ain’t Got You” by Alicia Keys that had people going DAMN! I put my hands together (and I had hitherto clapped for no one yet that night) and the rest of the crowd gave her her props as well. You could see at that point she had attained status and was becoming the celebrity monkey. But we had seen nothing yet.

The other chick who had a pretty face but absolutely NO body started playing pool. At first it looked like she was getting some lucky shots and leaves but after a while it became apparent that this chick knew what she was doing. None of the regulars were playing but she took on and destroyed anyone who put their quarters up. She was making tough cuts shots, getting perfect cue control, and making her opponents pay for every mistake. More and more attention began to get drawn to the pool table, especially after she started taking motherfuckers’ money, until suddenly she had even more celebrity status than her friend who had knocked out the song.

No one even saw any other chicks in the house after that and one girl in particular let it show. This girl was sitting next to the two celebrity monkeys and she screwed up her face at every comment the other girls got and acted like an ass but to no avail. All attention was riveted on the singer and the pool player. In fact about four guys got the pool player’s phone number and the non-celebrity chick had to just sit there and take it. At that point every man in the house would have traded his juicy-juice to look at these girls.

More elucidation from the news story is as follows:

Interestingly, the “celebrity” monkeys, says Platt, were just as interested in their fellow celebrities.
“A male can be at the top of his game and suddenly plummet,” he said, sounding like he were describing any workplace situation. “Either if there’s a new guy in town who enters the group who’s high-ranking, or if his alliances fall apart, right?”

How often have we witnessed this in human relations at the bar or even on the blog? A new monkey shows up, the old monkeys attention is then disrupted from the previous routine until events play out to where the new status is solidified.

Office politics and bar hierarchy are simply the manifestation of monkey power. No matter how advanced we might think we are, deep down we’re still responding to monkey ethics. And if you don’t agree you can just swing on a vine. Eep eep!

March 30, 2005

I’m a Killing Machine

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 8:42 am

razor.jpg

I play America’s Army using the ventrillo with my headphones like this. Don’t I look fearsome? Arrr! Ok TB, rate my brain!

March 29, 2005

Context

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 6:50 am

A CNN news story describes a death sentence being tossed out by the Colorado Supreme Court because Bible verses were referenced by jurors during the deliberations, specifically “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” The court apparently bought the arguments of the defense attorney Kathleen Lord who said that the jurors had gone outside the law. “They went to the Bible to find out God’s position on capital punishment.” The sentence was changed to life in prison.

In my expert opinion as a data entry guy the court erred in this ruling. If the Mosaic law and state law were in conflict and the jurors applied the Biblical law instead, that would be wrong. But this is clearly a case where both Colorado and Old Testament law agree. The death penalty is allowed by both and therefore a Bible reference to that effect does not hinder justice. In fact, the fact that four jurors looked up the relevant scripture might actually be a case of one juror citing the Bible to another who was unwilling to apply the death penalty based on the New Testament mercy stuff. I imagine it may have gone like this:

Juror #5: I would like to apply the death penalty in this case but being that I’m a God-shmooker I mustn’t be the first to cast stones and in any case I must practice mercy and therefore I don’t want to apply the death penalty because it’s secular law.

Juror #9: You suck because you know this guy deserves to die, you’re a noob, and at any rate the Bible also says “a life for a life” . The death penalty which is clearly allowed by Colorado law is in no wise conflicted with your holy balderdash.

Juror#5: No way! Does it really say that? I never actually read the Old Testament stuff. Lemme see! (flip flip flip!) Heyyyyyy. . . I’ll be damned. Thanks juror #9!

Juror #9: Not a problem! Go AoD!

See? Referring to ones own value system is clearly acceptable when those premises don’t conflict with secular law. The court got this one wrong.

Let the Bodies Hit the Flo’”

March 28, 2005

Does Prayer Work?

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 7:09 am

I have already set out my views on whether or not prayer works in a previous post entitled “Carol and God vs Mike”. Now it seems that God (of all people) decided to put the question to practical application in that Injun school shooting (yeah I know I’ve mentioned it before but it has so many good angles.) A new story I was reading on it says that one of the teachers actually began praying aloud after the shooting started. Let’s see or not whether prayer worked in this instance:

“God be with us. God help us,” 15-year-old Ashley Lajeunesse heard Rogers say after she told students to hide as gunman Jeff Weise fired through a window and marched into the room. 

“He walked up to that teacher with the shotgun, and he pulled the trigger, but it didn’t fire,” said Chongai’la Morris, 14.

Hallelujah! Praise God, prayer works! The story continues with

“Then he pulled out his pistol, and he shot her three times in the side and once in the face.” 

DOH!

My point here is not to make fun of the fact that this lady got shot. . . . Well ok, kind of it is. But my other point is that people sometimes read too much into these things. If the kid would have had only one shotgun and it didn’t go off after the woman prayed people would have said it was Divine Intervention and you know what? They would have been wrong. Sometimes guns just jam. Else why would God stop the shotgun but not the pistol? Hmmmm. Just to give me something to blog about?

March 27, 2005

Better Headline

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 9:48 am

pope.jpg

March 25, 2005

New Info

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 8:49 am

More news on that Native American Injun kid who shot up the school. Another student comes forth saying he tried to reach out to the kid because it appeared he didn’t have any friends. The student had this to say:

“He looked like a cool guy, and then I talked to him a few times,” 15-year-old Cody Thunder said Thursday. “He talked about guns and shooting people.”

Hey, way to give everybody the heads up.

Question

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 8:17 am

I’ve been meaning to blog about this for some time but I haven’t gotten around to it. It’s killing me now so I finally have got to ask: why is it that cats only know one word? Meow. What the %$@* kind of vocabulary is that??? Look up the English-to-cat dictionary and you will see these listings:

I’m hungry: meow
go outside: meow
come back inside: meow
pet me: meow
where are you?: meow
hey: meow
fuck me: meow

How limiting is that? The only other two things they say are GRRRR and HISSSS but those are more gutteral noises rather than actual words. And they’re not any better at body language either. I point at the cat and it just sniffs my finger. Real good. That right there pretty much shoots down the idea that they’re smarter than dogs, or anyone at all.

That is all.

March 24, 2005

R’s questions

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 3:51 pm

“R” asked me to answer the following questions on my blog so here goes:

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
Grushenka from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov.” The bitch was beautiful, curvy (not too skinny), and just plain evil in a way although she messed up and started getting altruistic toward the end of the book. She’s my type.

The last book you bought is:
“Demons”, by the same author. It sucked.

The last book you read was:
Crime and Punishment (for the 2nd time), same author. What can I say? I overdo stuff.

What are you currently Reading?
This blog as I type it.

Five books you would take to a deserted island:
“How to Cook Bullshit You Find on a Desert Island”
“How to Build a Boat Made from Shit You Find on a Desert Island”
“How to Make Beer from Pineapples”
“Where the Wild Things Are”
“The Watchtower” (in case I had a wobbly table and I needed to stick something under the table leg)

There. Art thou satisfied?

Homosexual Pig-Fucking Spammers

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 9:04 am

I don’t want trackbacks for Texas Holdem on the blog. I don’t want links to bestiality sites. You spammers need to quit because you suck and when you die and meet Jesus he’s going to stab you in the eye with a stick and rip your nuts off! Spammers are the bastard love children of Jehovah’s Witnesses getting double penetrated by Amway representatives and long distance service telemarketers.

How could you look yourself in the mirror if that were your profession? How could you in good conscience cash your check and feed your kids with that money knowing where it came from? Better to make your money on your knees in the bathroom at the Greyhound bus station. At least then you’re getting paid for giving people something they want.

Somebody needs to come up with a web site where you can suggest web sites that should be hacked because they engage in spamming. Then all the web site hackers in the world can read the page and proceed to hacking the fucking spammers. They couldn’t pin you down for soliciting a crime if you just called the site “web sites we hate” and let people just post away. There is an idea whose time has come.

March 23, 2005

Guns Don’t Kill People, Chubby Injun Kids Do

Filed under: Uncategorized — mexi @ 8:16 am

Here it comes again. Native American nazi kid shoots up school. The ‘gun are bad’ crowd loves stuff like this so they can rail about how evil guns are and once again clamor for a ban (as if legislation will cancel out the law of supply and demand, we see how that works with the war on drugs.) Aside from that, in the case at hand I see some more arguments against the anti-gun lobby. From the article:

As Weise entered the school through a doorway with a metal detector, he was confronted by 28-year-old Derrick Brun, an unarmed guard.

Anybody else see the problem with the last two words of that sentence? Let’s see, guns are bad so we’ll have a metal detector to detect them and we’ll have a guard to run it. But the guard won’t be armed because guns are bad. SO HOW IN THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO DISARM THE GUY WITH A GUN??????

The real problem is not that guns are bad but it’s that this nation is so gun-phobic that we’re sending security guards to protect schools with only their own two hands. Nice. What’s the point of having a metal detector if your guard doesn’t have the means to disarm the kid? Hey, sweet! We detected a gun! Now what?

Number two, even the most diehard anti gun people will agree that if nothing else police officers must have guns. Where did this kid get the weapon he used? He stole his grandfather’s police guns. So a ban on guns for regular civilians would not have helped in this instance.

Outlawing guns for regular citizens would not help but would actually embolden the criminals who could then commit more B&Es, rapes, and robberies as they would know the general populace is not strapped. Plus that cab driver I blogged about last week might have gotten popped by the bad guy rather than the other way around. When you think about the effect of guns don’t forget to factor in how many more future crimes were prevented when that cab driver killed that bad guy.

Here is the part where I would normally have a concluding paragraph to wrap things up. In summation I will say that guns are not bad, some people are bad and when they get out of hand we need something to shoot them with. Harsh language only goes so far. Freakin’ chubby injun Nazi!

Newer Posts »

Powered by WordPress