|
| This Article is SOOOOOOOO CUTE!!!!!
7/25/06
For those of you who do not know, after a vigorous, seven-day political campaign in the residential area of Washington University in St. Louis during the last week of March, fraught with much mud-slinging, backstabbing fun, I, along with four other equally amazing people, were deemed worthy enough and/or absolutely hilarious enough to be voted into office as executives of the Congress of the South 40 (our RHA). Our primary task for the summer is to plan a whole slew of events for freshman orientation, including, but not limited to, a dance, barbeque, and an open house. The theme to our events? Tropical island resort-ness (I liked it because it gave us a good excuse to put “I got lei’d at WashU Orientation 2006” on all of our stuff). To this end, all five execs plus our CS40 advisor have conference call meetings every Wednesday to discuss and organize these activities.
Three of the execs and our advisor are females, thus making another exec plus myself the only males (insert questioning of Ronald’s sexual identity here, if desired). Thus, we are outnumbered two to one. Not entirely unexpected, the girls seem to find everything we do to be extremely “cute,” which at first was blisteringly aggravating, but now is only a dull toothache-like pain. I hear the words “cute” a lot on Wednesdays now. It is difficult to put into words the extent of this “cute” infestation, so please consult Figure 1 for a pictorial representation:
In an effort to scientifically and methodically pinpoint the exact nature of the phenomenon of “cute,” I organized and implemented a complex research undertaking in order to derive statistically significant results that I may share with the scientific community (read: I found some people on AIM and asked them questions). Surprisingly enough, it seems that the male and female communities have vastly different opinions on “cute.” (Note: the opinions that follow were painstakingly collected over the course of several months by my crack research team [read: I paraphrased some of the responses that I got from my AIM conversations]. Thus, I cannot be held accountable for them because they are largely not my opinions. But, of course, some of them are. Try to guess which ones.)
Guy’s point of view:
To a guy, the notion of “cute” and its application ranges from:
a word suitable in describing the delightfulness of animate objects (animals and people) as well as objects made in the resemblance of animate objects (stuffed animals... or stuffed people)
to
something completely shallow and vapid that girls have claimed as a fad, something entirely idiotic and pointless, a word that has no meaning beyond a semblance of the positive, a word that should be
eradicated from the English language.
to
hot chicks.
That pretty much sums up what “cute” means to a guy.
Girl’s point of view:
To a girl, the notion of “cute” is much more complex. “Cute” applies to animate as well as inanimate objects, and actions too. So this shirt could be cute. This chair could be cute. That kitten holding a sniper rifle to the left could be cute. The chimpanzee at the zoo hurling his own feces at everyone in a celebratory manner could be cute.
In trying to understand this phenomenon, I asked many females to define “cute.” The most coherent responses seem to indicate that cute things have one or more of these characteristics:
* They are adorable and lovable. wtf does that mean, really?
* They are fluffy
* They make you go “awwww” or smile or feel good or improve your outlook on the world. When I kill Nazis, I feel good about myself and it improves my outlook on the world. But then they respawn, and that makes me sad. I guess that doesn’t count as cute then.
* Small things tend to be cute (insert small penis joke here, if desired**)
* Sometimes, disproportionately large things tend to be cute (insert large penis joke here, if desired***)
* Pink things tend to be cute (to some people)
* Actions tend to be cute if the actor is also cute
* Sometimes if someone does something out of character for that person, that action can also be considered cute. I suppose if Hezbollah all of a sudden decided to disarm and form the largest Islamic singing/dancing troupe ever, that would be pretty cute.
* One person surveyed thought old people tend to be cute because “they are about to die.” I am totally not making this up.
* One person surveyed defined cute as “Ronald.” I’ll drink to that.
* One person surveyed defined cute as “puppies.”
* A few people believe that it is impossible to define it as a given set of characteristics, but rather they just know it when they see it, much like how the Supreme Court once ruled that it couldn’t define what pornography was exactly, but they would know it when they saw it. So, in a way, cuteness is very similar to pornography.
As you can see, there are lots of contradictory opinions on “cute” even in the female community, its strongest advocates. At best it is undefinable, and at worst, it is like pornography, meaning that the notion of “cute” should not be taken seriously by the world at large.
(Here begins the author’s own opinions. I take full responsibility for everything that follows).
Female obsession with cute things has other consequences as well. Girls of all ages and backgrounds tend to be completely incapacitated by cute things. Women who wield considerable power, have considerable intellect, and who are otherwise completely rational and sane people completely break down when confronted with cute things, just like how most men break down when confronted with hot chicks. Why do you think there are more male superheroes than female superheroes?
(As a side note, one female (NOT a male) thought that the above puppy wasn’t cute. In fact, she said it was ugly. Ladies: doesn’t that compel you to shun the aforementioned person?)
Another example. Does anyone remember the show Commander-in-Chief? It was about how Vice President Mackenzie Allen, a woman, becomes president when the president (who is a male) kicks the bucket, making her the first female president of the United States. Because I think this article isn’t hyper-masculine enough, I would like to point out that Commander-in-Chief got cancelled after only 18 episodes, proving that, even in fiction, America does not like the idea of a female president.
Anyway, the following image shows Mackenzie Allen looking all impressively serious and presidential. With arms crossed and gaze pensive, she looks ready to tackle some international terrorism or poverty or social security issues or whatever.
But wait, a mysterious package arrives for her one day...
National Security Advisor: Madam President, we just received this letter in the mail.
President Mackenzie Allen: Well, what is it?
NSA: Take a look.
PMA: OMG!!!!111one1 WE HAVE TO PAY THE RANSOM AND SIGN THE NON-INVASION THINGY!!!!
NSA: Madam President, that is not even your puppy. You don’t even have a puppy.
PMA: BUT IT IS SOOOOO CUUUUUUTE!!! We can’t just let it DIE.
NSA: But Madam President, this doesn’t even look authentic. In fact, this exact puppy shows up as the first result on Google Image Search when you enter “puppy.”
PMA: ENOUGH! WE’RE SAVING THE PUPPY! PREPARE AIR FORCE ONE FOR IMMEDIATE DEPARTURE!
NSA (aside): sigh.
In conclusion, cute is dumb.
** BEST SMALL PENIS JOKE GETS A PRIZE!!!
*** BEST LARGE PENIS JOKE GETS AN EVEN LARGER PRIZE!!!
| | |
| On Monday (which is three weeks before my employment at the health science center ends) my boss's secretary gives me pamphlet from my department head. It described all of the awesome benefits I am entitled to as an employee of the UT Health Science Center, among which are dental insurance, health insurance, and, my personal favorite, accidental death and dismemberment insurance. It implies that my life is worth at least $10000 but only in $10000 increments, which means it's sort of like quantum theory.
You wish your job had accidental death and dismemberment insurance. | | |
| So this morning on my way to work, I was listening to the news, and they were talking about the US vs. Ghana World Cup game. The reporter said that basically all of the African people had all of their dreams and aspirations on the team, hoping that they would beat the US team and advance to the next tier of competition. I started thinking how hilarious it would be if the US beat Ghana. Not only would it be like "Ha, the white man has subjugated you AGAIN," but it would also be ironic that a team whose country doesn't even give a shit about soccer beat a team whose entire continent is rooting for them. But alas the US lost 2-1. I guess the days of the white man's burden are over. | | |
| I've been fucking dying from CS40-related (non academic) work. Dyyyyyiiiiiiinnnnnnggggggggggg. Anyway, here is the article. By the way, there is a protected post, mostly because I haven't had a chance to exclude anybody in a while.
_______________________________________
Facebook
4/18/06
A few weeks ago, I Facebook-proposed to and Facebook-married Jia Yu, who lives on my floor. For those of you who don’t know, she was also my campaign manager when I was running for public office. In case anyone was wondering, she was completely useless. I basically ran the entire campaign myself, and won for the aforementioned reason.
Anyway, a few days ago, Jia Facebook-divorced me (sad face). She divorced me because apparently she and her good friend Sarah Hong are “discussing an 'it's complicated' situation.” Furthermore, Jia told me that “Sarah feels that my being married to you shows that I’m not loyal enough to her,” thus resulting in the Facebook-divorce. Don’t worry – I am gathering my Facebook-lawyers as we speak and am preparing to Facebook-sue her for half of her shit.
After my first marriage, Facebook or otherwise, I feel that I have emerged from this a wiser, though more somber, man. I have learned:
1) Apparently I turned my first wife, Facebook or otherwise, into a lesbian. That, to say the least, is a little disheartening.
2) Next time, before getting a marriage, Facebook or otherwise, I am definitely getting a pre-nup.
3) During the marriage, I should keep several lawyers, Facebook or otherwise, on stand-by alert just in case I need to sue my spouse for half of her shit. | | |
|
Violence
2/9/06
Violence is not the answer – it’s the question – and the answer is “yes.” - David Light
So if anyone has been watching the news lately and/or is a Danish citizen living in a predominately Muslim community (i.e., Beirut), you’ve probably noticed a lot more Violence in the air than usual, even for a place as loving and people-friendly as the Middle East. This has sparked protests from many of the “civilized” (i.e. “pussy”) nations of the world, calling for an end of this Violence. Yet I for one am pro-Violence. Not only is it a great way to relieve stress, teenage angst, and tensions arising from socioeconomic injustice, but it is also a sign of healthy human behavior. Some so-called “experts” (i.e. pussies) disagree with me on this, saying that Violence is actually “bad,” but if it were really such a horrible thing, would it be all over the media and the Internet? Of course not! The Internet and the TV know what is best for you, me, and society as a whole.
Hatred, the father of Violence, and Intolerance, the brother of Violence, and Anger, the second cousin of Violence once removed, and even Mob Riot, the uncle of Violence with a drinking problem, are some of the most underrated natural resources available to humanity today. Simply put, violence does work, and more importantly, people will do it for free. Sure, this work is usually acts of blind destruction, but like nuclear fusion, all we need is a way to contain it (high energy magnetic fields?). Another way around this problem, of course, is to use violence solely to power acts of destruction, such as building demolition. I mean, the Berlin Wall could have been demolished much sooner if American agents simply placed this sign on the Soviet side of the wall:
*America dares you not to tear down this wall!!!!
The good thing about this poster is that is can be easily modified for whichever nation/ethnic group is America’s enemy at the time. America could have won World War II much faster, for instance, if American agents distributed this poster across Nazi Germany:
*America dares you to not bomb your local SS recruiting station!
And during this current War on Terror, America can combat Islamic extremists by distributing a similar poster across regions in the Middle East (and perhaps elsewhere) of suspected terrorist activity.
[No sample poster is included because the mere thought of posting a cartoon that mocks Islam frankly makes the author wet his pants]
A lot of people in America, and indeed in the rest of the world, advocate non-violence and pacifism (i.e. pussism), claiming that we can solve problems that range in severity from school bullying to international conflict just by talking. That is completely illogical, given the overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests talking actually leads to conflict (Bush angering Islamic extremists by calling Iran and Iraq part of the Axis of Evil, French King Phillip IV’s calling the English King Edward III a “little nancy with bad teeth”, thus starting the Hundred Year’s War). Thus, the only way to end conflict is through violence. We must learn to fight fire with fire and, if necessary, incendiary explosives.
If America is to survive the coming decades, the American people need to become more violent, and we should stop listening to the pansies that are pushing their pacifist agenda. After all, we all know that those who follow the path of peace get shot by those who don’t. | | |
|
