The Shocker Journal
2006 is here, and that means I'm kicking it off with a whole new batch of mind-bending, self-indulgent, and otherwise extraneous journal entries for you to read. I'll be sure to keep the Journal updated more often this year. As I continue to be forced into mind-numbingly boring core curriculum classes, and as I continue to experience "social WTFs" in the world around me (a phrase coined by Family Guy creator and genius Seth MacFarlane), I will continue to post my thoughts and experiences for the world to see.
Read the Shocker Journal as something of a diary. That way, you can see the world as I see it: beneath me.
March 1st, 2006
A Day in the Life of Brian's Ethics Notebook
The following is a direct excerpt from my Ethics notebook. I started out just writing to occupy my mind because I literally cannot pay attention in this class. But after a while, I found that my ramblings, though somewhat disjointed, were fun to write and kept my mind busy. I know that a lot of you have the same problem I do with paying attention in classes that make you wish you could drop out of school and join a team of pirates that sails the Mediterranean Sea in search of Greek oil-shipping heirs so that you can find and kill each and every one of them and hope to never hear of them dating Paris Hilton or an Olsen twin ever again because frankly you're sick and tired of hearing about both and you know as well as I do that the only reason they're even in the public eye is because they're going out with some formerly famous TV personality and you hate the fact that apparently that's all it takes to become famous in the world today...well, that and a billion dollar inheritance. See? Looking back, that exact tangent is the type of thing that I think about to get my mind off of Ethics and to maintain my staunch focus on nothing. So, if you're in class right now reading this to occupy your mind, I think you'll find that time goes by quickly when you think about nothing in particular.
- I haven't taken notes in 16 days, so I figured I may as well write something here to occupy my mind.
- This class is so insanely boring and non-engaging; I seriously can't believe that I sit through this nonsense every other day of my life.
- Wow...I kind of went out on a limb on an answer on this paper and it turned out I was right...that's amazing.
- Wow, I Actually had the opportunity to write down a REAL note instead of just the stuff that's going on inside my head. Look here [arrow pointing to a bull's eye that contains three different methods of moral evaluation...very boring and not worth even talking about]
- Sheesh, writing the words inside the little bull's eye over and over and over is really a truly horrible experience. [words were "utilitarianism", "consequentialism", and "value maximization"]
- I totally slept through the last ethics class. It was President's Day, and other schools were off, so I just figured that we would be off too. But no. We still had class.
- Go SLU...thanks a lot.
- This desk I'm sitting in totally sucks. Every desk in this classroom is either a tiny scrapboard desk from the Puritan days or the "special desk" given to the "special kid" in the class. I'm in the special desk.
- These tiny desks are seriously BARELY wide enough to even balance a single notebook. What's the fucking purpose?? I seriously may as well just sit on the tile floor.
- While I'm on the topic, I might mention that the tile in this classroom is a nice jungle green nostalgic throwback to the days of Nixon and 'Nam. I might mention that.
- Also contributing to this nice Vietnam atmosphere are the old-school green chalkboards here. No dry erase markers for us. We use the green chalkboards. So now we have jungle green walls complemented nicely by jungle green chalkboards. There's jungle green everywhere.
- Maybe this classroom was a surreptitious training device used for people who were going to be drafted into the army during the Vietnam War. Think about the logic: the person to be drafted, a young student, the perfect age for drafting, is taken from one hot, humid, green environment that smells like unbathed indigenous jungle people to the other. It's basically the same thing! Add some Agent Orange to this classroom and I wouldn't know the difference between here and Vietnam!
- Speaking of the jungle, that reminds me of my 5th grade music class with Mr. Wes Kassulke. In a classroom full of orange chairs that dated back to 1970, there was one single green chair in the corner. Mr. Kassulke called this green chair "the jungle". It was where the bad kids sat. The bad kids were always the black kids. How horribly inappropriate that the black kids always ended up in the jungle.
- Happy black history month!
And that is my Ethics notebook. That's what I think about to pass the time in class. Nothing at all. I hope it worked for you too.
February 23, 2006
I hate the term "identity theft". What wannabe techno-savvy 50 year old coined the phrase "identity theft"? I think it's time for me to let the world know that THIS TERM MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE!
Ok, so think about it. Someone steals your credit card number and your social security number. That's generally what identity theft means. How in the FUCK is that theft of your actual IDENTITY? Think about it for a second. Think of it this way:
You're walking down a busy street, almost shoulder to shoulder with a million other pedestrians making their way along their pitiful lives to miserable jobs that they don't want to work, but they know they have to because if they don't their parents will realize what a dismal failure their upbringing has been, and you'll be poor. One or the other of those two scenarios is ok, but not both. Anyway, so you're walking along and you barely feel a swift pinch against your right ass cheek. You think nothing of it. You're a sensible, modest man. Some desperate chick just copped a feel of your flabby ass. You're full of confidence as you strut into the office. You go to take your wallet out of your pocket and put it in your desk drawer and realize to your horror that it isn't there. "I SHOULD'VE KNOWN!" you bellow from your office. You fall to your knees, fists clenched and held skyward, "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!" Your immediate response is to call the police. Here's that phone call:
Operator: 911 operator, what's your emergency?
You: Help! My identity has been stolen from my pocket! A pockpicket...wait...PICKPOCKET has stolen my identity!
No. That's not the way it goes. You report your stolen wallet and explain that your credit card and social security card were stolen as well. That's how that works. So, why then when someone steals a digital copy of these things is the term changed from "theft" to "identity theft"? There's just no substantiation. It's just called "theft" any way that you look at it.
Furthermore, the act of STEALING implies that someone has taken something from you, and you no longer possess it. Think of it this way:
Dawn breaks. The rooster alarm clock on your headboard that your ex-girlfriend got you because she thought it was cute screeches in your ear. You throw it across the room, and it shatters into dozens of pieces. You realize that you've just broken perhaps the last thing you have left from your relationship with said ex-girflriend (who dumped you with, the "It's not me...it's you. I hate you," rationale), and you shed a tear. Or sixty. After a good 30 minutes of feeling sorry for yourself, you get yourself ready for your Assistant Manager of Blenders and Assorted Household Appliances Center at Best Buy. You grab the keys to your faded-red Geo Prizm and head out the door, only to find that it's not sitting in your usual parking spot next to that handicapped spot that the guy in the next apartment always illegally uses. You see a note on the ground where your car should be: "I stole your car. And I ran away to Mexico." You fall to your knees inside your parking spot and thrust your arms high into the air above your head. "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!"
So how does this scenario end? The guy who stole your Geo Prizm is now in possession of it, and you are not. This is how theft works. Someone takes something from you, and you are probably sad it's gone because you are now without your stolen good. Now apply this universal truth about theft to identity theft and think about that earlier phone call to the police from scenario one:
You: Please help! My identity was in my wallet and a pockpick...DAMMIT!...PICKPOCKET stole my wallet!
Operator: Ok, sir, what is your name?
You: Aren't you listening?? I don't have one! I just told you it was stolen in my wallet!
No. That isn't what happened. The thief stole your wallet. Inside that wallet was your driver's license, credit card, social security card, and maybe that card from the Crystal Palace the cheap stripper gave you when, behind a toothless grin, she invited you to "come on back sometime". That's it. Your identity was NOT inside the wallet. You are still you, and you are still the unique amalgam of a lifetime's experiences, so no one made off with your IDENTITY. So don't refer to the theft of your fucking credit card as theft of your identity.
The definition of "identity theft is henceforth changed: identity theft occurs when someone kills you, assumes your name, takes all your stuff, and then resumes living HIS life as you.
Or if someone steals your DVD copy of the movie "Identity". That too is Identity theft.
So from now on, when your credit card number gets stolen, just say "my credit card got stoled upon," and that'll suffice.
February 6, 2006
For my first journal entry this year, I'd like to start off by wishing my other staff member here at The Lone Shocker a happy birthday. Happy 21st, Cootie. Get out there and drink it up. 21 only happens once, so make it a good'un.
Now that we have that business covered, I'd like to kick off the new journal-entry year with a ego-smashing, pride-bruising, completely deprecating reaction to a Letter to the Editor that I read in The University News, which is the official newspaper of SLU. Out of fear of actually dumbing myself down to this idiot's mental-level, I don't want to type out the letter in its entirety. So I'll sum up in a brief synopsis this self-righteous bastard's opinion about on-campus lunch-hour television.
Ridiculous, Self-Righteous Assertion #1: If you eat on campus in Griesedieck or Fusz Halls, you are "subjected" to what is shown on TV.
Ridiculous, Self-Righteous Assertion #2: The content of dining-hall television shows is "offensive sexual material involving women."
Ridiculous, Self-Righteous Assertion #3: This television content is a problem for Catholics because it prohibits them from "grow[ing] in love for women as persons who deserve respect," instead of viewing them as objects.
Ridiculous, Self-Righteous Assertion #4: This kid "knows" that there are "many" Protestants, Muslims, and Jews that are also offended by the content.
Ridicuous, Self-Righteous Assertion #5: The channel should be changed to show respect to SLU students and to women.
Now instead of writing a 10 page article about why this kid is being a self-righteous asshole, I'm just going to respond to his ridiculous, gay, self-righteous opinions one by one. Then maybe I'll put it in letter form and write a letter to the editor, but let's be honest with each other here...anything that defies a liberal ideology or disagrees with the seemingly Catholic side of a petty argument won't get published in this newspaper. And that's why I run this website. I want to make my case without being completely ostracized by the student body...I can do that much without having to be heard in the newspaper.
My Argument Against this Douche #1: When you sit down at a table in Gries or Fusz, does someone sit next to you and hold a gun to your head demanding that you watch TV? Are you really, truly SUBJECTED to watching what's on TV? Let me fill you in on some true subjections that have occurred throughout history: the Jews were SUBJECTED to misery and torture (a few times), the blacks were SUBJECTED to the agony of slavery, and I am SUBJECTED to the torment of attending this university. To be SUBJECTED to something implies that something is FORCIBLY imposed on to you. And unless someone really did sit down next to you and FORCE you to turn your face in the direction of the television and stare at it for an extended, uncomfortable amount of time, you weren't subjected to SHIT, jack.
My Argument Against this Douche #2: More often than not, the content of television shows is news-worthy content. That is to say, that unless you consider something like a woman sitting behind a newsdesk reading some irrelevant bullshit off of a TelePrompTer like "Hilary Clinton is considering running for president in 2008," offensive sexual material, you're really fucking wrong. Sure, hearing that the world's most infamous husband-vindicator is going to try to be my president is a bit offensive, but not SEXUALLY offensive. Her mere EXISTENCE is what I consider sexually offensive. And sure, there are occasional music videos shows on this same channel, but we've got the FCC to thank for prohibiting exorbitant sexual content on TV...or maybe they're more to BLAME for something like that...
My Argument Against this Douche #3: Are you really going to place the ENTIRE prohibition of your "growing in love for women" on the what you see on TV? And if what you see on TV is what you construe as demoralizing for women, you can't ever grow to love them? Are you serious? Do you watch TV outside of fucking DINING HALLS? Let me tell you something, pal...what you're watching on those TVs isn't by any stretch of the imagination demoralizing to women. Watch some unwilling participant in a brutal gangbang or a Discovery Channel documentary about female circumcision in Africa...THAT'S demoralizing to women. THAT is women being subjected (to use that word again...and to, unlike you, use it correctly) to something they don't want. These women were WILLINGLY placed in front a camera and WILLINGLY did everything you see them do on TV. And they got some fat checks in return. If they WANT to be perceived as sex objects, then by all means, please proceed. I have an idea of how I want to "grow" in my love for women, too.
My Argument Against this Douche #4: So, you KNOW that many Protestants, Muslims, and Jews are offended by this same TV content? You KNOW this? You went around and ASKED these people what their opinions are? How did you find them? Did you look for people with scrappy Arab beards and turbans and ask about what they see on TV? Did you find the overly-frugal, hook-nosed people of the SLU populous and ask THEM what they thought of the television content? Because if you did, you used a commonly disproved stereotype of two cultures, and that is a bit more wrong than a girl's cleavage on TV. But let's say you didn't do that. Let's say you actually DO know some Muslims that are offended by what they see on dining hall televisions. Guess what. They're offended if they see below a woman's nostril or catch a glimpse of a female ankle. So, I think it's fair to say that we don't use the same discretionary policies when it comes to what is offensive. So stick to your OWN argument instead of applying irrelevant ones...because if you do that, all SLU woman will be walking around wearing their bedspreads as clothing.
My Argrument Against this Douche #5: Do you REALLY believe that changing the channel will be respectful of SLU women and SLU students? Let's look at this from both perspectives: ON the TV, and WATCHING the TV. If I were ON TV, making money, becoming famous, and living the lifestyle most people beat off to, I'd be pretty fucking pissed if someone turned OFF my show. So would the network. So would advertisers. That's why shows like Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and One Tree Hill don't exist anymore (put aside shameful fan bases and trite, hackneyed scripts, of course). Wait...One Tree Hill still exists?? HOW?? Anyway...let's look at the other side of this. So YOU don't like what's on TV? Or, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you and the other .5% of the SLU religious-fundamentalist population are offended by what they see. You know what? Turn the other cheek. Turn it away from the fucking TV if you don't like what you see. You know how you can't change the channel in a pediatrician's office because the content panders to the needs of the prime viewers: the children? Well, the same principle applies here. The content of those TV shows appeals to those that watch it most: NORMAL people. Not you.
Well, there you go. I've destroyed this kid's argument and at the same time was able to adequately stomp his pride into tiny little pieces. He's using his self-righteous Christian-fundamentalist beliefs to try to get the school to change the channel. What might you suggest, chief? Maybe Sister Angelica? Or perhaps Gospel Hour? Those would probably both be in your taste...not to mention those are just about the only shows in the world that don't depict women in your idea of a "sexually offensive manner". However, I think it's safe to say that the current content is only SLIGHTLY less alienating than Christian shows (remember, as you said, we have Muslims and Jews, too).
I'm not here to bash Christians or Catholics (I AM one, after all); rather, I'm here to argue against someone that is using his religious conviction as a seemingly legit argument to challenge what is shown on public televisions.
If you don't like it, look away.