Thursday, January 29, 2009


"Fame is the perfume of heroic deeds." ~Socrates

I start this post as my own personal cry to the wide world that fame has become something awful. My opening statement, the quotation from Socrates, showed the true and pure meaning of fame. However, it is my belief that if he saw what fame is today, he would change that quote immediately. I am not saying that his quote should be wrong. I'm saying that what fame is in these times, is a sad, molested, and diseased image of its former self.

In the ancient times in order to become famous throughout the country, you needed to be a great leader of men, a great politician, a sculptor, a writer... anything which gave birth to the enrichment of human culture and society. (politicians are exempt from that class, considering they were sharks before lawyers).

The reason I am writing this is rather simple really. I know way fewer positive examples of fame than negative examples of fame, and with the latter, I will say why exactly today's fame has become the bastard child of stupid and yesterday's fame.

So I will go first with a Romanian abomination. This woman goes by the name of Magda Ciumac. Her story... which I stress is not even hers ...begins with the famous unsolved disappearance case of Elodia ( a woman who i won't go into many details. I will only state that this case held front page of the newspapers for half a year ). So Magda decides a few days before the divorce with her husband (a k1 fighter aka monkey) to say that he admitted to her to have "arranged" (read, kill) Elodia. So... obviously she was invited to talk shows and gathered some fame on that thing alone. Now this person walks around being called "famous" but there are a few undeniable facts about her. She's stupid... there's no doubt about that... she's ugly... you need only look at her... and she can't do anything.

So why exactly is she famous? Because she profited on the desire of the public for stupid behavior. It doesn't matter that she spews out stupid without even talking, as long as she attacks someone or does something to entertain the masses and have something to talk about. It is really sad that people like this get recognition and National Mathematics Olympics get like 200 Euros if even that and no sort of recognition whatsoever. Really now, has society degenerated so much that we do not appreciate people with talent? Or are there really so few talented people out there that we need people like this to keep our headlines every day? Are there no other things happening in the world aside from this idiot's doings?

Anyway, the next is a British person much like Magda. Kinga Karolczak.
"Well Kinga... she's famous because in front of 56 cameras on national television, she shoved a wine bottle up her vagina. What do her parents think? When the neighbors came around the next day and say:
' Saw your Kinga on the telly the other nigh.'
' Oh yea? What was she up to? '
' She was up to the fucking label '" ~Ricky Gervais, Fame Live in London 2006

I think that quote says most of what I wanted to prove with her example. There are many others such as this. I think Paris Hilton already a given... Britney Spears is also one of them since she stopped actually singing... she did that well for a while (not in my opinion but still the vast amounts of wealth means that at least some people thought she was doing alright) and many many more.

I wish it would be like Horace Greeley said "Fame usually comes to those who are thinking of something else."

Fame has become a target. Fame is not something that needs to be gained with "heroic deeds". It's something to be gained by being stupid. It's hell of a lot easier. Who needs the splitting of the atom when I can shove a wine bottle up my vagina... figuratively speaking. And the ones responsible for this... the ones that are encouraging people to become famous by being stupid, is you... the public. And me for writing in this post about them. I wonder if ever, we as consumers will wisen up and demand quality out of our news. Will we ever rise up to these bastards that feed us all this crap, bile and garbage they call news or celebrities and in the end espect us to pay for this kind of products. Will we ever be unsatisfied with mediocrity, banality, conformity and sub par standards. Are we as the human race, that bent of cultural self mutilation?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Morality... and lack thereof

Initially I wanted to do a bit on fame, but concerning a few recent events in my life and of the general world I will rant on morality.

Prelude. Definitions
Morality –noun,
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

Main body
So, "Why morality?" you would ask. Well the answer is simple. It has long been my creed to follow a personal moral code, a code of principles I adhere to as, please excuse the pun, religiously as I can. This article, or if you will allow me the gall to say "lecture", is more towards the separation between religious morality, social morality and personal morality.

Here's my theory. You see, there was a time, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, and men and women thought natural leaves were fashionable. At that time and place, people were savages. They thought nothing was wrong in killing, stealing and all the other stuff animals normally do. After seeing how annoying this is to most people (because nobody would actually hunt and in that case, there would be no food for others to steal), someone had the bright idea to invent laws. Sure, that worked for a while, because people were afraid of the punishments that came after being discovered. But then, the human nature kicked in, and people devised methods of not being caught. Sure, less people stole now, but still, a considerable amount. Then, one or more bright men had the idea of creating the world's greatest lie in order to save humanity from starvation and in essence, self destruction.

Gods. Any type of gods. Most of the religions have one sort or other of afterlife in which you get rewarded for being a "good" person in your lifetime (I use "good" in the loose term of the word. It applies to whatever religion thought was good). Some of them even have the "Be good and you'll be reborn something awesome. Be bad and you'll be reborn a spider, or a toad or a worm.". But this lie, this elaborate millenniums old hoax caught up so badly, mostly because people did not want to be held responsible for their mistakes or shortcomings. Most people simply needed someone to blame for their troubles, explain the unexplained and more importantly give them a reason for existence. Sure, there are those people who thank their "gods" for both the good and the bad things that happen to them, and I truly respect those people, because it takes a great amount of faith in order to throw your own hard worked accomplishments at the feet of a benevolent deity along with your misfortunes.

But by now you would be asking yourself, "Sure, that's all fine and dandy, but what does that have to do with morality?". I'll be getting to that right now

Many forms of aforementioned prehistoric hoax exist and are evident today in their most evolved and complex forms. As humanity evolved so did the hoax and with it came all sorts of notions which were used to make humans feel above their peers. Many if not all had faith. So how do you differentiate, physically between two individuals of the same faith and in its extended definition to other faiths? Out comes morality, like a stripper out of a big cake at a bachelor party. So, here is this new notion that allows us to differentiate between people, but with no notion of how to implement it, people searched for the answers. So they looked in the most obvious place possible. Not the laws of the state, obviously, because, states are a worldly creation and we all know divinity > man. So they copied what their religion, which by now was a complex hoax with a shitload of added content that was unnecessary to fulfill its primordial task and copy/pasted those into a "moral code", and tried to apply this code to people of other faith.

So finally we get to the matter at hand. Morality. Should we have it. If yes, why. And after why how do we define it considering the wall of text from above. From now on it's an IF - THEN - ELSE logical structure which all human beings, in my opinion, should adhere to.

Religious morality.
IF - You are religious.
THEN - Apply this at the outermost layer of your moral code. GO TO social morality.
ELSE - GO TO social morality.

Religious morality, as its name suggests is the moral code of conduct your religion dictates. Considering the number of religions in existence, as well as lack of religions in some cases, this should not be applied as a social moral.

Social morality.
IF - You are part of a society (the answer to this is most definitely yes)
THEN - Apply this at the in between layer of your moral code. Change in accordance to the society you live in.
ELSE - You will be persecuted.

I define social morality as a code of conduct within a special society, such as a nation. Considering a nation is a place where more than one religious groups of people meet, it is obvious that social moral codes should be considerate of those that do not share the same religious beliefs.
In a perfect world, this code should not change even if you change the society you are in, and also in a perfect world it would be equivalent with the nation's laws (again assuming that the nation's laws are perfect).

Personal morality.
IF - You are a human being (and I stress human being - this does not apply to aliens or other things )
THEN - HAVE ONE, and apply it to the innermost of your moral code and live by it.

Okay, now, by my stance in the passage above you probably guessed that I feel very strongly concerning personal morality. This is something special. This is something personal. This should be something that is well thought of beforehand. But most importantly this MUST NOT BE APPLIED TO ANYONE ELSE BUT YOU. Personal morality, in my opinion, should consist of answers to the questions "Would I like that to be done to me?".

1. Would I like someone else to steal from me?
NO. Then I won't steal.

2. Would I like someone to lie to me?
NO. Then I won't lie.

3. Would I like someone to give me the chair in a bus if I am old?
YES. Then while I'm young I will give old people my chair.

The list goes on. While there are a plethora of such questions in existence today the personal moral code should answer to the most common, as well as things that you personally feel strongly about. I will take my own personal moral code as an example further.

4. Would I like someone to impose their religion on me?
NO. Then I won't impose my lack of religion on them.

5. Would I like someone to steal my girlfriend?
NO. Then I won't steal someone's girlfriend.

6. Would I like to be betrayed by my friends?
NO. Then I won't betray my friends.

NO. Then I won't impose mine.

Again, the list can go on a bit more, but that would loose the point of this lecture.

So, towards the end I would like to point out some things.
First of all, I will point out a relationship between these three types of moralities. First of all, religious morality cannot be changed. That is generated by your religion and even then you apply that layer only if you want to, with no repercussions "in this life". Still concerning religious morality, it should NOT be used to create social morality.
Secondly, social morality, should be independently thought out by a group of open-minded people that are willing to listen to the needs of all the people (Yes, I mean perfectly honest politicians. I am aware that these are a myth but still. This is a lecture, not a reality portrait.).
Finally, personal morality should be thought by oneself. It should contain, as an axiom, respect the social morality of the society you are in (again, I remind you that I am working with a perfect scenario of social morality).

So, where exactly am I trying to go with this. The message is simple. It's actually not even a sentence.

Think about anything, think about everything, but just think. Use that brain you evolved over the eons. Think for yourself. Think!

What if...? Why...? When...? How...?. These questions should be asked every time you encounter new information.

Create your own damn personal moral code. Don't let others do the thinking. If you are reading this and are understanding what I am trying to say, you have the capacity to think for yourself. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. You can think. Create your own moral code, and then stick by it. Don't let it go. Don't compromise. It is your core fundamental belief, and renouncing it would be like loosing your identity. Because if you follwo the steps at creating morality as I said, you will see that no combination of Religious + Social + Personal morality will ever give the same results.

It is my honest belief, that if the leaders of our societies used this "template" in creating their own moral code, scientists would not have been burned in the middle ages for being ahead of their time, gays would not be persecuted and allowed to marry, women would not be so pissed off at men, the crusades would not have happened, nor the holocaust, racial persecution would not have existed and so much more. And finally the argument that "It's not moral" would have a lot more weight than it does now. Because if the rules I stated above would be followed, morality would only be applied when it would be equivalent with the laws of the society.

If you've read until now, might as well go on for the record. This is the final idea.
I know what I said above cannot be applied in reality. The three types of morality are not a standard, and I am unsure if there is a philosophical school of thought that says something like this. If there isn't the more inapplicable this idea is. So now, you thought about your morality and have build your moral code as I lectured, but are unable to use it (I assume as much). So what exactly do you do? How do you build the social morality considering it isn't equivalent with the laws of your nation. Well... extend your personal morality to overlap the social morality, loosing on the way things that concern sexual orientation, religion, or any other things that can vary from person to person.

Again an example. I will assume the following Personal Morality.

PM = { 1. Do not steal. 2. Do not curse. 3. Do not use the lord's name in vain. 4. Do not have sex with sheep. 5. Do not walk naked on the streets. 6. Do not have sex with peopel of the same sex. 7. Do not kill. 8. Do not rape.}

We extend this morality and create the following Social Morality.

SM = {
1. Do not steal. 5. Do not walk naked on the streets. 7. Do not kill. 8. Do not rape. }

You will observe that the resulting SM will have only illegal things in most countries.

With that I believe I treated all the cases that might arise in constructing a moral code. What you do with this information, is up to you dear reader. I have no funny quotes to end this with. I'm sorry. I also want to apologize for the length of this post. Not exactly a 5 minute read.

Thursday, January 22, 2009


Well, hello again. It's a late hour again and I'm all fueled up for a new rant. Well... not really but can't think of anything else to do, and this was the remaining on my short list. So here we go.

Definitions ~
A political stance characterized by the belief that abortions constitute murder. Currently, America has legal abortions available to those who want and can afford them. Persons of the pro-life platform wish for abortion to be illegal.

A political view that believes that abortion should continue to be legal and accessible. Pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion, but merely being in support of a woman's having the option available. People who follow this view would not necessarily opt for abortion themselves, but do not wish to deny others the option.
Pro-choice is not an antithesis to pro-life; while the pro-life view would force women to give birth, pro-choice would not force them to abort.

Main body
Considering my last post, there was a part that I omitted considering it would have doubled the length of the post and, even then it would not let me express my thoughts completely on this matter. The resolution which invites member states to standardize the laws concerning "gay" marriages also invites member states to standardize the laws concerning abortion (the greatest impact of this would be felt in the states where abortion is illegal).

So this rant tonight is directed at those people who call themselves pro-life (the second group of people protesting this resolution, the first one being pro-family, which I tackled last night). So, what exactly is pro-life. As the definition states, pro-life is an ideology which states that abortion is murder. Let's get to the bottom of that bean basket and ask the question. Why? It's a bunch of cells. How is removing a bunch of cells murder?

Let me refresh your memory with a hit from a dictionary.
murder (noun) = The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

So you define murder by killing a human. How can you call a human something which lacks the basic thing that a human has, which is self-awareness. It's like killing bacteria at that point. That is why it is illegal to abort after 3 months (I believe was the legal limit). Because at that point, it is not a bunch of cells any more. If you're interested in the medical stuff go right ahead and use google.

So, who exactly is pro-life? Well, let's get started by simply stating that you will find most people of said political movement, to be also deeply religious people. The "We consider it to be murder" is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to mask their "Only God has the right to take a human life". If they are not deeply religious, they will usually argue, "But what if that child will have the cure for cancer?". Well... we don't know do we... but what are the chances of that? If we go further down this path we will get in one of those useless moralist debates, "Are x number of lives destroyed justifiable order to save y number of lives?". I don't want to get into that. If you don't know how we could get to one of those comment and I'll explain in length. Also, you will do well to consider that a pro-life person will never ever be a single trailer-park mother with 9 children, of which I name "pizza-delivery-boy jr", "garbage-man jr", "cable-guy jr", "drunken-night jr", living off of the children's allowance. You will see these self righteous snobs coming from small middle-class families or higher, maybe one or two children and old parents. Why? Because it is so much easier to dictate how other people should live their lives as long as it does not influence them in any way. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are so few and far between, you might as well write them off as errors.

Another group of people who are pro-life, are politicians. But we all know most of these bastards would sell their own mothers to get votes, so you can see why I'm not going to go out of my way to detail their motives.

I wanted to say a bit more about why not to be pro-life, but then I remembered why I wanted to write this article in the first place. You could call it, my tribute to a great man who died way too early. So I will let his words bring the essence of my argument.

"We're pro-life." What does that make me? If you're so pro life, do me a fucking favor. Don't block med-clinics. Okay? Lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how fucking commited you are to this premise. "She can't come in". "She was 96, she was hit by a bus." "There's options." "What, are we going to have her stuffed? What are you talking about? She's dead." "We're pro-life, get her out of that casket, get her out. She's not going. We're pro-life people. There will be no more death on this planet." ... Here's my actual theory. Here's my real theory. If you're so pro-life and so pro-child then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone, and needs someone to take care of it, in order to get it out of a horrible situation. People say "Why don't you do that?". And I say, cause I hate fucking kids and couldn't care less. I couldn't give a fuck. I don't care at all about abortion. It's your choice. Case closed. The end. Bottom line. And by the way, a 3 month year old kid in your belly is not a fucking human being. Okay? It's just a bunch of congregated cells. You're not a human being, until you're in my phone-book. ~Bill Hicks.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009


Prologue has two parts tonight.
Part 1. Definition. In this blog post I will use the term gay in lieu of homosexual. It's shorter.
Part 2. Personal opinion. I have nothing against gays. As long as they respect my freedom to be straight and marry a person of the opposite sex, I respect their freedom to be gay and marry a person of the same sex. I don't care about children, but despite that, I am a firm believer that good parenting and not the parent's sex is responsible for bringing up a child.

Main topic.
Well, a few days ago (don't know exactly when) the EU (European Union), suggested that Romania legalities or, should I say, recognizes same sex marriages. This caused some major protests from different organizations such as the Romanian Orthodox Church (duh), AFR (Alianta Familiilor din Romania – in English “Families Alliance of Romania”) and some more conservative politicians. AFR, went so far as to write an open letter to the European Parliament.

The leader of aforementione organization Petre Costea said “Prin aceasta actiune ne exprimam profunda ingrijorare fata de incercarile Consiliului Europei de a aproba o rezolutie cu privire la recunoasterea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex in toate cele 47 de state membre ale Consiliului Europei” ( in English - „With this action we hope to express our deepest concern towards the attempts of the European Council to validate a resolution concerning the recognition of same sex marriages within all the 47 member states of the European Council”). The same man also states “Credem ca APCE isi depaseste atributiile si stabileste un precedent periculos, alarmant si ingrijorator. Familia si casatoria trebuie protejate, intrucat sunt institutii concepute a asigura supravietuirea societatii si perpetuarea speciei umane prin procreere si prin cresterea si educarea copiilor. Relatiile homosexuale, uniunile civile sau casatoriile homosexuale nu indeplinesc nici una din aceste nevoi si prin natura lor sunt incapabile a satisface aceste obiective” (in English – We believe that APCE { read European Parliament Council Gathering – not really sure of this thing... if you're really interested in this check it out and let me know} is overstepping its attributes and by doing so, it creates a dangerous, alarming and worrying precedent. Marriage and family need to be protected, as they are institutions conceived for the survival of society and the perpetuation of the human race through breeding and raising and educating children. Homosexual relationships, civil unions or homosexual marriages do not fulfill any of these necessities and through their very nature are incapable of satisfying these objectives.”) ~Quotations taken from (don't worry it's not a virus).

Now onto the discussion. Gay marriages have always been a touchy subject in many countries. But the guy's attitude towards this subject I am sure is shared by many. So I will demolish his speech one argument at a time.

Well, first of all, the APCE is saying it will “recommend” that we recognize same sex marriages. The law will have to pass through the normal channels in order to be promulgated. So no worries there. Why write to the EU when you have other retarded politicians here who share your views.

Secondly, family and marriage are not necessary for the perpetuation of the human species. I will take the most obvious counter example to the man's statement. Animals. They don't have neither families nor marriages in the human sense of the thing. Penguins are the only ones to my knowledge that pick a partner and mate for life. Aside from those, the right to reproduce when the reproductive season starts, comes to the strongest. They fight till they can't fight no more for that basic right and through that they assure that only the strongest genes pass on. I'm by no means an master race believer, but surely, you can see where his argument fails. If human species perpetuation is your flaming problem, then surely you would have to be against marriages in genera, because it limits the available genes.

Third. Same sex marriages cannot cater to the raising and education of children. WHAT? Well... god damn it, I didn't notice that the world was a perfect place until gays came along and raised bad children. That was the problem. Now we can tell them they can't marry and raise children and all our problems will be over. The sex of the parents that raised the child has no bearing on what the child will evolve into unless other ignorant parents educate their kids that being gay will get you into hell. That is the only thing that gay couple children need to fear. Bullying at school, in the early stages of life. After that, people would mature.

So you see, I am for the UE resolution that all countries legalize same sex marriages. Hell, I am for legalizing same sex marriages. I am against using religion as a reason to stop some people from pursuing their own happiness as long as it does not interfere with other people's pursuit of happiness. And furthermore Mr Politician, this is not the first time this has been discussed. The same sex marriages topic has been discussed in more advanced cultures than our own. Look at those discussions and if you think you can bring something that they missed (which I heavily doubt considering you spend most of your time in parliament mostly napping, reading a newspaper or playing solitare on your laptop) by all means. Romanian society needs to grow up. And it's not the only one.

On the funny side of things, here's a new perspective for all you men out there. This could be transposed to women in some cases.

I told him, "We're all gay, man. It's just to what extent are you gay." He says, "That's bullshit, man, I ain't gay at all!" I said, "Yes, you are and I'll prove it." He says, "Fine, prove it." I said to him, "All right- do you like porn?" He says, "Yeah, I love porn, you know that." I said, "Do you only watch two women doing it?" He said, "Naw, I'll watch a man and a woman make love." I said, "OK, do you want the guy to have a tiny, half-flaccid penis?" He said, "Naw, man, I like big, hard, throbbing co- (stunned pause) I did not know that about myself." ~Ron White, You can't fix stupid

National Redemption Cathedral

As a prologue to this post I will tell you something about myself. I am a convinced atheist. Yes, drop the oh my gods, and servant of Satan (yes, I had people call me this after I said I was an atheist. If I don't believe in God, I obviously do not believe in Satan either) bullshit right now, or stop reading this post. Wait for another. Religion, any kind of religion, does not satisfy me. If I was to pick one, I'd pick Wicca religion, because of the cool spells they have, but I've watched a video of one of their rituals which was so damn embarrassing I had to quickly turn it off. Still, I would prefer the moody mother nature against the benevolent omnipotent god that does nothing aside give out punishments only after we're dead. There are more philosophical reasons to my decision, but I will let them for a longer more prominent post on religion, I'm saving for later.

So, let's start with the National Redemption Cathedral.
"Construction on the National Redemption Cathedral will begin on the 27th of April, after the Easter festivities, says the Romanian Patriarchy.
According to estimates, the constructions will take 4 years without finishing touches. The capacity of the building will be of 5000 people, almost 5 times more than the current Patriarchal Cathedral.
The costs for the construction of the new Cathedral will reach 400 million Euro, of which half will go to the actual construction and half will go to the finishing touches, painting and decorating the building." ~ Adevarul de seara (Romanian newspaper. translated, goes "The truth of tonight")

On first glance one might say. Okay what's wrong about that?. Well... if you've asked that question, you've not thought about this fully yet.

The question on my mind after reading the full article, was "Who is going to pay for this."
The Orthodox Romanian Church does not have those funds. I know. I am absolutely sure about that. There are national treasures in the form of churches in the north of the country that have been waiting for renovations for at least 10 years now, but could not be started, or completed because the money ran out. So... where's the money coming from? Donations? I think not. It's impossible. There is no way that amount can be raised by donations in this country, and to tell the truth, I think that is true for most other countries as well. So, the church doesn't have the money, the population doesn't have the physical money... the only option left is the state.

Now we open a completely different box of total crap of which kind we can only find here.

400 million Euro is a bit much for this country. Even for the state. If the state will be paying for this, which, I'm assuming it will, considering there's no other place this money can come from, in the best case scenario is 50 mil Euro per year (considering half is the building and the rest is for decorations 200mil/4year = 50 mil/year). I'm going to start with the less impacted population class. The non-orthodox people. As an estimate, I'd say orthodox is the major religion in Romania leading with 86.7%. So the rest would have no benefit whatsoever of the current construction. I as a non-orthodox, (yes atheists get here as well) am not pleased having my tax money spent on that humongous waste of money. I will never go to church from today forward, nor will I ever visit that place. Now that we got that out of the way, there are two more arguments I have against the state paying for this.

Argument #1 and probably the most obvious by now. Couldn't that money be spent elsewhere. Think of all the homeless shelters, orphanages, hospitals that can be built or renovated with 400 million Euro. And if they found 50 mil Euro per year for 4 years, I bet they could find for more than four years. There are teachers striking almost every year, because of the shoestring salaries they get. Doctors as well. Don't they deserve the money more? What would you prefer. Giving your children better education and health care or building a humongous piece of crap you'll probably visit only 3~4 times a year. If you've answered the latter, please don't read my blog ever again. You're beyond salvation.

Argument #2 and with a political implication here. I thought it normal that religion has to be separated from the state, in a democratic environment. We are not in the flaming middle ages when the church had almost the same power as the king or even greater. So, why exactly is the state paying for this? What will it get in return. Will they pay a humongous rent to justify spending all that money? They probably won't. You'd loose all your popularity if you're going to ask the church to pay rent. 86.7% are orthodox. Remember that.

So where exactly are we, dear readers, at the end of this long blog post. Well.. we're nowhere. You are in front of your computer either thinking "That sucks man, your government .... " , "You are so going to hell....", "I never thought of it that way....", and I'm wondering if most of my compatriots will ever get past the nationalistic+religious stiffy they got from "actively" contributing to their nation's religious salvation. Again, I'm assuming that the state is going to pay for this monstrosity and not donors or the church. I ruled those out, earlier, but hey, maybe Romanian people are more wealthy than I know.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Subway Etiquette

This has been nagging at me for a while now. As a frequent (read daily) rider of the subway, I have come to notice some things that really really piss me off. In a (futile) effort to give people some pointers as to how to behave in the subway, I have compiled this list of things that should and should not be done in subways. The list is numbered, but when I was writing this, I did not compile which pissed me off the most or the less.

I'm referring here to any sort of speaker. Phone speakers, stereos, laptops, home-cinema systems, I don't care. It is disturbing the other passengers. Be aware that not everyone appreciates your type of music and leave us the fuck alone. Especially if your particular style of music is copied from a Turkish type of music and prides itself on copying rhythms from other songs (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you're probably not Romanian. "Manele" is the term. If you have a burning desire to hear this horrible piece of shit, just go on youtube and search for "Nicolae Guta")

Well, considering #1 which relates to current technology and people have not accustomed to the etiquette of such technology (I'm bullshitting here making false hopes that society will realize how annoying that is) this one should be fucking obvious by now. I'm sick of people sitting in front of the door while a trainfull of people need to get down. Really there is no need to sit there. You could sit 2 cm to the left or right, but please, not in the fucking middle. What's that, someone would get the free chairs and you won't have where to sit? Well I'm sorry to hear that, but just because other people are asses doesn't really mean that you have to... right? I mean... come on. I have to get down. The train won't leave without you, and your feet won't break if you go 4 or 5 stations standing. If you go further than that you'll probably have a chair by the end. This leads me to #3.

This one is pretty straightforawrd. Not once have I laughed at the wrestling matches between old hags trying to get on the train or bus. Very funny. Never degenerates into a brawl. That would even more fun to watch. Leads me to #4.

Well... there's a saying in the "old people world" which goes like "Youth today... why back in my day... bla bla bla". Let me be as clear as possible. Ready? I. DON'T. CARE! Not only don't I care, but neither does the piece of crap younger person, who you're making a scene to. There are a few scenarios here so I'm going to walk you through them.

Scenario 1. Old person stands patiently beside the chair of a young person while younger person sits and doesn't give the chair. At this point, the older person has 2 options. Cause a scene and not cause a scene. Cause a scene is simple. Start your monologue with "youth today" and have another friend help. It works very well at disturbing the rest of the passengers. Please. DON'T DO THIS, unless it's a medical emergency. Option 2 is curse the fucker in your head and critisize his behaviour in your head but DON'T cause a scene.

Scenario 2. Old person gets on and goes to the closest chair, and drops his groceries in the sitting person's lap. I can't even say how wrong this is. Figure it out yourselves.

Scenario 3. Young person gets up, gives you a seat and you go on a fit for some reason or another you didn't like the way he gave you his seat. This is not only disrespectful to the person who wanted to do you some good, but disturbs the rest of the passengers with your rant on "Seat giving etiquette". You ungrateful bastards.

This is a short list of things I've heard or have happened to me. There surely are a lot of other things happening out there, cause as you know, life beats fiction.

Self explanatory.

Yes. I've seen some things that made me write this part.

#1 The train was packed. At the end of the line of people who wanted to get on, there was this big fat dude. The door closing audio warning was heard. The dude literally stepped back 2 steps, and ran into the crowd of people in front of him, getting them ALL in the already overpacked train. You can imagine how that is bad. I wish I could slap that dude silly, but I would probably hurt myself more than hurt that lump of blubber. Well... I could have hit him in the nads....

#2 Old person was taking her time. She had an umbrella. I was sitting near the door. The train was almost empty. The door closing warning message was heard. She was walking way too slow (I think on purpose) so I thought she wouldn't get on. Just as the door was closing, she proceeded to extending the umbrella in between the almost closed doors. My mouth was hanging. The doors automatically opened, and she got on at her own pace. And they say the youth today has no manners. What the fuck!

Well, this is a bit odd, but I'm going to specify some things. Some of the peasants (I'm using this as a derogatory term) that live in my country, find it good manners to eat roasted sunflower seeds on the street. Well, I could excuse that, but I still don't enjoy the site, the subway station and subway train in general, is another story. Not once have I been witness to an asshole dropping the seed peels (I don't know another term for it) on the train floor, which looked simply filthy. And after a while it starts to stink. Do we really need another stink to the already stinking trains? Sweat, booze and bad perfume is enough. This brings me to #8.

Again you would think this is rather obvious. It's not.

A polite peck here and there is OK, but long french kissing seeions followed by groping and other things such as that, is disturbing. Hand, in your lover's pants in a definite no no.

Now, really. Are these things so difficult to grasp. Do we, as people need to have an attitude that screams "As long as it's not mine I don't give a rat's ass.". What irks me even more, especially in regards with the littering, is the fact that these people go and complain afterwards that "Bucharest is a dirty city". Well no fucking shit Einstein. Whose fault is that?

Saturday, January 17, 2009

The really active activists

Well, this is actually a very recent discovery of mine which only adds to the hate which I have for all of these hippies (and I use the term loosely. from now on, I will refer to hippies as all those activists who act as christian crusaders). I never was one to love animals. I have a "leave me alone, I leave you alone" relationship with most of them. My hate for PETA is not new. Any group that tosses paint on your property, even if it is real fur, are vandals. Any group which uses images of tortured animals in order to get an 8 figure (and I'm talking 30 mil $ budget) out of donations to fight said animal torturers, is not better than the animal torturers themselves.

PETA leadership had the gull to outlaw publishing of animal cruelty. The law passed, but if you go to their website, you will see that 65% (estimated figure of mine) is of animals being tortured. Hello? Hypocrisy anyone? So which is it. People who post this kind of thing for information are going against the law, but it is okay for you assholes? Sure ... it seems so.

I will be moving on to the thing that really really pissed me off. Their newest campaign. "Save the sea kittens. " I shit you not. What the fuck is a sea kitten. Well according to the PETA site link, this is it.

"People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads—which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you're swimming, and the big ones—well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by.

Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?" ~

Talk about fucked up people. Sea kittens? Please. My brain hurts. So, aside from saying that we are not allowed to eat normal meat, now fish is out of order. Next thing you know, plants will become earth puppies. What is the human race to do? Eat dirt? We're not maggots. We can't survive on that. Ranting aside. We have been eating meat since the dawn of time. Why is it that when a human (which is an omnivore) eats a meat product is bad, but when a cheetah eats an antelope it's natural. Let me inform you of something. Human dental structure is the way it is because it is meant to eat both meat and grass (as in vegetables and stuff). So why go against our nature. If you want to be a grass eating, grass smoking hippie, please, by all fucking means, go right ahead. Jump off a cliff for all I care. But when you come to impose in my lifestyle, it becomes a problem. We enjoy our carnivore pizza, our carnivore traditional food, our carnivore junk food. We're not herbivores. So leave us alone. Please.

If what I said until now isn't enough, I'm going to present the last twist of the story. PETA has centers for animal care. So does the US government. The difference. The US government funded animal care shelters run on shoestring funding. PETA has a yearly budget of over 30 mil $ from donations. The other difference is that PETA KILLED 90% of the animals they took in care.

"As Americans learn more about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and its eccentric founder, Hollywood stars should know the whole story. Despite the well-known animal rights group's $30 million budget, it spends very little actually caring for adoptable animals. Instead, it kills them. By the thousands.

Government records show that between 1998 and 2005, PETA killed more than 14,000 dogs and cats at its Virginia headquarters. (The group refuses to release its 2006 numbers.) In 2005, PETA killed 90 percent of the pets in its care. Some were thrown in trash dumpsters. Most were incinerated. PETA's donors footed the bill." ~

So, here is the site where you can find out more. Make up your own mind about these people before you go on and doing volunteer work for either group.

As a start

So, I finally gave in and decided to make a blog. I used to think that only people who have something valuable and life changing to say should create blogs, but then again, if that was true, then the world is filled with enlightenment just clawing, biting, kicking and screaming to get out. Or we can pick what is behind door number two and say that anyone with the help of sites like this can create a blog and fill our google responses with a lot of crap by mentioning things that might end up in our queries.

It's funny really. They say that you can find information about anything on the internet, but the truth is, a great portion of it is useless. And the rest is porn. Actually, there was a study a few years back that said the majority (but not by much) of internet traffic, is generated by porn. Isn't that just a little bit disturbing? Don't take me wrong, I have nothing against porn, it's just... couldn't that effort be diverged to other more... I don't know... useful things? Like cancer research, aids research (that would actually help the porn industry, but still) or some other worthy causes. I will leave the topic of internet porn for another time and will jump towards something else, still linked to the internet and probably even more annoying than porn spam.

People fighting on the internet. You see these pathetic wastes of life everywhere, gaming boards, school boards, school yahoo groups, IRC channels, blogs and just about every place that a person can say their thoughts, you will find them. They're worse than cockroaches. What are they trying to prove? Surely, the right of free speech where it is given is important, but from free speech to actively arguing without bringing more pertinent evidence to the discussion, other than "you are a moron" ( /sarcasm) is a bit uneducated in the very least. And, these are not even those sort of pertinent arguments or should I call them debates. They are not debating whatever basic human right was breached in "I-don't-know-what-country" or how to split the atom, or how to write a piece of code. They are arguing over "immaturity of people on the internet", "forum/IRC etiquette" or some such rubbish. There used to be a time when forums were a place you could go to in order to ask a good question, and get an answer which would help you. Not something like "LOL you dumb shit". In hindsight, I wish people would spell that well. Now please, enlighten me whomever you are that is reading this. Is the opinion of someone they never met and probably never will, so important, that they need to sacrifice a piece of their lives in order to fight for the salvation of that someone who decided to have another opinion?

I will leave you with a thought for the next time you want to force your opinion on someone else. "Arguing over the internet is like running in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."