Log in

No account? Create an account
Bitch bitch bitch [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mr feeny's house of snark

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Pah! [Aug. 3rd, 2006|12:44 pm]
mr feeny's house of snark

[Current Mood |thirstythirsty]

I'm texting Eric for support because I feel sad about Andrew and he's telling me how I shouldn't blame myself for what happend. WHAT THE HELL DID I DO? It's not my fault! I didn't make him take crack and hurt me! So I told him that I don't blame myself for what happend.

Why are women so quick to blame themselves for something an asshole does in a relationship?!

LinkLeave a comment

You chose too leave, now stay gone. You gave up your rights [Jul. 19th, 2006|11:31 am]
mr feeny's house of snark

Is it just me or are Dad's (especially Dad's who you don't live with and therefore try and make up for poor parenting) really hard to please? Unless you have a job and are going to school...you're just sitting around wasting space. No room for a young person to find out who they are between the ages of 18-20, we're all slaves to a big machine!

And what right does HE have for giving advice and critizing my mother on how she's rased me when he left us for a new wife and more chances to work at his high paying job?! Ironic my boyfriend is also currently having the same problem with his wannabe Dad.
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [May. 9th, 2006|07:44 pm]
mr feeny's house of snark
Fuck those Tobacco Smokes You commercials with the "Kissing a smoker is just as gross." No. You know. I've kissed a smoker. It tasted like stale cigarettes and the spearment gum he was chewing to cover it up. Not nearly as fucking gross as eating goddamn cat vomit. STOP SHOWING THESE COMMERCIALS.
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Apr. 13th, 2006|03:40 am]
mr feeny's house of snark
Man, we haven't had a good bitchin' in a while, have we? Well, I got one for ya!

First, an explanation: I hate Uwe Boll. This is a strange hatred, especially for a filmmaker, because I've only seen one film of his. Usually, when it comes to disliking a filmmaker, I would've seen at least two or three of his films before making a complete judgement on my part. I did that with Tarantino, and I've done that with Tony Scott. However, Uwe Boll is a special case. He's somehow made a movie so laughable bad, that I cannot fathom myself to ever as much touch the case which carries a DVD of his movie. Hell, I wouldn't even give it the satisfaction of being downloaded! There's also another good reason: he's whiny. In this article, Boll bitches and moans about how horribly "oppressed" is by all those who dislike his work. He's done this several times before, but the more I see it, the more funny it is.

Second, I'm going to take some quotes in the article and reply back to "Dr." Boll, whether he reads this or not.

"The dangerous thing right now is that a lot of people bash me without thinking about the movies. It's fashionable to hit on Uwe Boll, and this is what I don't get. And I don't get why this comes so harshly from the games press," Boll says.

Don't flatter yourself. It's not "fashionable," it's just fun! I mean, when you produce a classic stinker like House of the Dead, what the fuck do you expect?

Boll says the point is that his movies get better as his career progresses - Dungeon Siege is "ten times better" than BloodRayne, which is ten times better than House of the Dead, and so on.

...Which isn't saying much, is it?

"People say BloodRayne has a very bad IMDB rating - yes, but how many votes of zero points were made before the movie was out, by people who hate me but haven't even seen the movie?"

I think that happened when you put two actors like Michael Madson and Michelle Rodriguez in a period piece. That pretty much spells "disaster," don't it?

"Let's be realistic, what is House of the Dead? House of the Dead is a brainless shooter, where you shoot zombies into pieces. So what are you expecting from the movie, Schindler's List?"

No, but we do want a well made and entertaining zombie movie. George Romero's done it, Lucio Fulci's done it, and Zack Snyder (an up-and-comer) was able to do it. So, please, don't use such a shitty argument to cover the fact you just can't direct worth a damn. Be a man and admit it - it was bad.

Us games journalists, Boll argues, should be pleased that videogame-based movies are getting made at all. "It's tough to convince someone from the studio system to believe in a videogame-based movie. It's way easier to have a great book or to have a comic book [as your source material], because these studio guys, they know Spider-Man, Batman, that kind of stuff."

It's difficult to really be thankful when you happen to completely ruin those franchises. But that leads to another question, why did you choose those particular games, of all, to be made into movies? House of the Dead? Alone in the Dark? BloodRayne? One of these games were either completely disposible, never popular in the first place, or only have something of a cult audience. You aren't trying to make a movie from a particularly popular game franchise, just a bunch that no one gives much of a shit about anyway.

But that isn't the point. The point is that it isn't the fact you're getting these movies made as much as the fact as how you made them. No matter what the intent, if the film sucks, it sucks.

According to Boll, he's fallen foul of this on more than one occasion. "Sega did nothing for House of the Dead, and Atari did nothing to support Alone in the Dark. They developed Alone in the Dark part 5, parallel to my movie, and then they closed the LA facility and never finished the game. And I was standing there alone in the rain with my movie..."

Again, how the hell can you blame them when you've done such a poor job making the movie? Maybe they didn't want to try and promote the movie along with the games because it was more of a risk than they were willing to take, especially when those risks involves quite a bit of money. But, again, this goes back to the point of making films based off near-dead game franchises rather than one the creators would actually care about.

"I'm in the movie - Uwe Boll will play a minor part. I get killed by my 'Boll haters'," he explains. So will he be getting real, er, Boll haters to play themselves? "Absolutely! I don't have a problem with that," Boll says. "I think I'd get thousands of extras doing that, coming to the set to track me down and lynch me!"

Wow. You're actually doing something right! Color me surprised.

"So if people are writing on the Internet about how my movies were big failures, it's because these people are amateurs and they have no idea of the reality of film-making and film selling.

So, you're not allowed to be criticized either? Grow up. You're working in an industry where you'll, more than likely, be criticized. Why don't you, an adult, just ignore it if it annoys you so much? That's what grown-ups do.

"I get bashed as the worldwide enemy number one in film-making by people who are working at Starbucks and who also want to make movies. It's ridiculous - it's completely idiotic because they're hitting on a guy who actually made it happen, but I started my career in the same position as anybody else," Boll argues.

That logic is profoundly stupid. So, no one can criticize you because they haven't made a movie themselves? I guess this means all those "fans" you like to mention so much are incorrect as well, because I'm sure they haven't made a movie either. You don't care though. The only reason you make a comment like this is to try and convince yourself any criticism that you get from whatever source must be wrong.

I mean, I know it's really difficult to comprehend, but maybe that criticism is coming from people who know how movies work and have seen your movie. Even if they don't know how to make a film, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you don't know what you're doing either.

"Now people are getting hired as directors at 20 years old, coming from film school and getting 100 million bucks for their first movie. If people think that this is a good situation, that I'm the worst enemy in film-making and a completely talentless idiot, it's their decision."

I can tell that's a trick question: it's both.

"Maybe this is bad news for the Boll enemies, but while there are a few thousand people trying to crush me on the Internet, there are millions of people who buy the product."

There are also a dozen million more people who can profess to hating your work outside the internet, too, if you already haven't noticed.

Besides, there's always bound to be idiots who like everything...
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Mar. 3rd, 2006|12:35 pm]
mr feeny's house of snark
I'm new lol omg lollerskates...


Onto my first FEEEEENEY! rant.

Billy Graham writes an Op Ed for Kansas City Star and many other Op Eds in syndication for places all over the world. Mostly U.S. Go figure. Anyways, he wrote yet another poorly done Op Ed, but this one drove me to the edge. He probably gets this question constantly but this is the first time he showed the Jesus Balls to answer it.

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: How do you know the Bible is true? After all, the people who wrote it could have just been making it up. I know you won't agree with me, but I can't see why we ought to believe the Bible any more than we do any other ancient book. -A.P.

Good question. The writer was obviously trying to get a rise out of Billy, but wouldn't we all like to. But did he going into facts, did he give any solid response? No. Here's what God's Foot Massager replied with.

DEAR A.P.: Have you ever taken the time to read the Bible for yourself - not just a few sentences, but honestly studying it to see what it really says? The reason I ask this is because I find many people reject the Bible without ever actually reading it. Because the Bible claims to answer life's deepest questions, doesn't it make sense to listen to what it has to say? Of course it does.

This is why I challenge you to discover the Bible for yourself. Take one of the Gospels (which tell us about the life of Jesus) and read through it carefully. (I often recommend people start with the Gospel of John.) As you do, ask yourself if it sounds like something people just made up, or if it rings true.

As Peter later wrote, 'We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses to his majesty' [2 Peter 1:16]

What a fucking cooking cutter, cut and paste, half-assed response!

Come on. Give us some hell fire at least. The person writing the letter is obviously not a believer in the Bible. Maybe he's Buddhist or something. Oh Shits!

Plus, why would reading the Bible change your mind about it anyways? It has tales of people getting ate by whales and surviving, which has been proven to be physically impossible because the throat hole is rather small. Where's the ark? Something that can hold billions of different species of animals and have them all seperated so they don't eat eachother? Jesus being the son of God? What about all those other people who say they are? Do you have any idea around Jesus' supposed time said they too were the son of God? Virgin Birth? I learned in sex ed that the woman's heimen (cherry if you will) doesn't always pop on the first time. On a woman's wedding night, if she did not have blood soaked sheets because of a busted cherry, she was stoned, and not in the fun way. So, if their hymen didn't pop, then they were done. Joseph hit it. That's it.

That's why there is faith and you need faith that defies logic, physics, and life spans to believe these tales.

I hate religion. I have found very few religious people who I actually like. The majority are too wrapped in hypocricy and saying "God" every second to actually talk and get real. If I don't see logic in it, then it's bunk. Religion is a fickle thing. I would really have to have some sort of explosive revelation to ever get into religion again. I used to be a Catholic just because that's why my family was. I was agnostic since 12 and was too frightened to tell my family. Then, about a year and a 1/2 ago, I realized I was an Atheist. I'm not one of those Atheists that take it so far as to be their own sort of Anti-Religion, but it's just what I am, and my parents will never see me or love me the same again. If I really didn't feel this way, I would still be in denial, going la la la every time something logical came up against a belief I had, Drinking Jesus Blood and Eating Jesus Skin. But, this is who I really am, and I hope they realize I still love them someday.

So Billy, to you I say, enjoy reading your plot hole filled book several billion more times. At least when I read a poorly written book with no real story and little to no memorable quotes, I admit it and don't base my life on it.

Ok, throw the stones!
Link11 comments|Leave a comment

More shit that happens to annoy me. [Mar. 2nd, 2006|10:25 pm]
mr feeny's house of snark
First off, political correctness.

Now, it's kind of tired to rant about how stupid political correctness is, but I'm not the type of moron who rebels against it by calling blacks "niggers" and gays "faggots." That isn't being politically incorrect, that's being a dickead (and I don't fucking care if you have black or gay friends).

No, it's part of the terminology that bothers me. In particular: African-American. It's really just a term in a series of many other terms to describe those with extremely dark skin that may have some form of descent from places such as the African continent, as well as Haiti, Jamaica, and probably even Brazil. Now, calling anyone anything-American means that they had come from one country to the United States and have taken up permanent residence. As far as I know, African-Americans are not all from Africa. They happen to be Americans who are (*GASP*) black. Yes, that's the dreaded word I use: black. That doesn't really mean anything, or at least it should, but it somehow equates to being a racist.

Of course, being called a racist for not following the strict rules of politically correct terminology is simply a knee-jerk reaction. As far as I know, I'm the least racist person I know. Sure, I like to make a jest at how some Asians reverse their L's and R's, but it's all in good spirits - it has nothing to do with hating them. In fact, I probably have more dislike for people of my own racial ethnicity than of any other, especially the fucking British. What a bunch of self-important snobs, really...

Still, there's this crowd who act that they're so racially sensitive that even a race joke should be considered a form of bigotry against a culture. Of course, it's all okay if you happen to be of that race, but if you're white and make a joke about Mexicans and jokes, you're "obviously" as bad as Hitler. It's a bunch of bullshit, though! It's not like my telling of a joke will lead to the lynching of Mexicans. Seriously, if these assholes really care about racial prejudice and discrimination, why not actually observe some actual acts of it and do something about it. Being a self-rightous prick to some people for telling a joke is like being a nagging mother to a child who says he likes to eat his own boogers - you're just being annoying and they're not going to listen.

Second, playing devil's advocate.

There's nothing I hate more than when you're pissed off and someone sincerely comes up and defends the subject of your anger. For example, you could be driving and want to mutilate the guy who cut you off - the last thing you want to hear from someone is "well, maybe they just made a little mistake..." Does that mean your being mad is then invalid? Does that mean whoever pissed you off is suddenly off the hook? The answer to both: no. The problem is that the person next to you feels some weird need to represent the other side, even if they agree with you.

One thing I always despise is when I go to the movies is when someone has to talk during the movie. I don't care what the reason is, you don't talk while I and several other people are trying to watch a movie. Want to make a comment on some action scene? Well, then fucking take it outside after the movie. I don't want to hear you yelling "oh my GAWD! 'Dat was so friggin' cool! Oh my GAAAAAAAAAAWD!" If I didn't have the ability to keep myself from beating the shit out of every single thing that annoyed me, you'd most definitely be next in line for an ass-beating. Still, there are people who feel some need to even defend these assholes "well, maybe this is one of the few times they see a movie..." Let me say this right here and now: Shut. The. Fuck. Up. I don't care why someone needs to talk during the movie, it's the fact they're doing so - trying to convince me that there's an excuse for it is absolutely moronic.

I know a lawyer's job is essentially playing devil's advocate, but that's what they're paid to do. You don't pay someone to burst into your conversation and defend the guy at work who keeps stealing the last doughnut in the lunch room. They do so because there's this odd belief that there are two sides to the story and that neither are wrong or right. Is that so? Oh, well, at least we know now that if a guy broke your car window with a crowbar, it isn't his fault - he was just having a bad day. You can't blame him for that, can you? That'd be mighty unfair, although he had no right to wreck your car and try stealing your car radio.

Third and last...okay, let me explain: ever been around someone who claims to be something like a "freak" (i.e. "Don't mess with me, 'cause I'm one crazy motherfuckin' freak!") or "asshole" (i.e. "don't expect me to be nice, I'm an asshole."), etc.? Yeah, those people.

There's nothing worse than someone who claims to be something and act like it. They think that having some self-proclaim title is like having a medal around your chest that tells everyone else just how much cooler you are than them. In real life, an actual asshole gets shit from others because he's being an asshole. However, if you're a self-proclaimed asshole, it's a different issue - it means it's part of your personality! Nevermind that you say shit most people can't get away with, you're an asshole and people respect it!

What annoys me about them is that they really aren't what they have claimed to be, but only act so because they claimed it and get away with it. What makes it worse is that some people fall for it and vocally excuse their phoney-baloney bullshit. While the guy who proclaims he an asshole may not be a true asshole, acting like one is still inexcusable. I mean, when have self-proclaimed titles become a life style choice? Was there some agreement made by everyone on the planet and I was left out? Really, it makes no sense to me. I mean, if I did the same thing, I'm sure that I (deservedly) would be given shit for doing it. Yet, somehow, I find these people who do it all the time and get away with it. Is there some requirement where you can only self-proclaim a title as long as there's an excuse that goes along with it? I'm sure for most of them it's because they (like any disposible excuse) "had a hard life" or complete bullshit like that. Of course, I'm sure half of what's considered a "hard life" by these same people was only getting $20 a week for an allowance instead of $100 and having their parents not let them hang out with their friends until midnight. Yeah, what a horrible reality to live in. Those kids in South Africa are a bunch of pussies by comparison.

I believe that when you let people like this get away with whatever they want, you're actually contributing to the downfall of society. When we don't hold people accountable for their actions, it leads to excuses based on these non-truths people make up. The kind of non-truths where someone would try to convince another person that date rape is acceptable because the victim was wearing a short skirt. It's a load of shit and it's distracting us from the fact that when you do something, that you're completely responsible for it. Of course, nowadays, you can just about say anything and it'll come out as a solid defense for reckless behavior ("Well, you see, sir: he drank soda as a child and it made him hyperactive. You can't blame him for breaking into a store for crack money, right?"). So, yes, you're fucking dooming us everytime you do it - so think next time before you defend an asshole for being an asshole.
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

grawr [Feb. 14th, 2006|11:06 am]
mr feeny's house of snark
[Current Mood |cynicalcynical]
[Current Music |Rock Your Body (Oakenfold Mix) - Justin Timberlake]

I've got two rants today, one little, minor and presumably pointless, one big, major and omg fuck off I'm pissed.

I'll start with the small one.

I admit it, I download music. Who the fuck doesn't these days? But to prove the point that the internet is full of idiots, I'm bringing this up.

If you do not know the artist, do not make an assumption. Video Killed the Radio Star is by the BUGGLES, not the BANGLES. Gwen Stefani has nothing to do with Save Ferris, therefor she didn't do the cover of Come On Eileen. The Ramones didn't do My Sharona, the Knack did.

And if you can't tell the difference between Tiffany and Debbie Gibson, stop listening to them!!!! For fuck's sake, google is your friend here, people. If you are unsure.. LOOK IT UP. It'll make P2P much easier.

Ok onto the second rant.

I was exploring my favorite BMW site a week or so ago, and came across a mini rant from the webmistress, about why she's prolife. While I will respect someone's right to believe whatever the fuck they want, I do not respect ignorance, and I certainly don't respect people using the Bible for their arguements.

I'm pro-choice. That doesn't mean I'm a baby killer. That doesn't mean I have ever had, or ever intend to have an abortion myself, nor does it mean I believe it should be used for birth control. But I also don't think I have any right to force another person to give birth, to parent. It isn't fair to either the woman or the fetus.

Fetus. Not baby. Not child. Hell, at a legal standpoint, it isn't even a fetus when Abortions take place, it's a Zygote. That is a collection of cells, people. not a baby. not a child. not a precious little angel. a collection of fucking cells. It does not have a brain, a heart, a central nervous system. It is only barely human. It is not a he or a she, it is an IT.

I don't believe that life begins at conception. Fertilization begins at conceptions. In my opinion, life doesn't begin until it becomes actually alive, more than a plant or a rock is "alive". Once it has enough characteristics that are HUMAN, oncce again, brain, heart, central nervous system, then it's alive.

I hate the arguements that include God. Not everyone has the same god, dammit. Not everyone believes in Jesus and the Almighty and the angels and whatnot. Some people don't believe in any higher power. You don't have the right to force someone into believing what you believe. You don't. Your God doesn't own my body, or anyone elses, unless they say so. See, in MY FAITH, until the baby is half-way out of the mother, it's all fair game. While it's not ok to abuse your body, or to allow someone else to, The mother comes first, and if she doesn't want to have a baby, guess what? Her choice. Her body. The parasite that is a fetus doesn't come first in that case.

Now look, I'm so pissed off I'm going all over the place.

I'll end this here, with the main reason I'm pro-choice:

Before I was born, my mother had an abortion. Knowing the way my father was when faced with parenthood (he took off like a chickenshit) had my mother kept the "baby" I would have never been born. In that case.. I'm very, very thankful for abortion. Very. I'm glad I"m alive.

Ok that's it.
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Feb. 13th, 2006|01:07 am]
mr feeny's house of snark
Most recently, I had been talking to my friends while we were just hanging out, doing what most bored teens do: finding a way to get more inebriated than we already were.

That's not the point, however. I mentioned to both of them that I probably wouldn't be hanging out with them as frequently for the next month and a half, as my spending money is dwindling right now and I need it to last me as long as possible. Their response: "get a job." Obviously, they didn't know jack shit about my situation, but I was dumb enough to mention Social Security and apparently that didn't stop them from claiming that I "need a job." There's several factors as to why getting a job, right now, would not be beneficial to me, especially since I need as much money as I need to get to pay my school expenses. Getting a job wouldn't help even a small bit, as I'd be far less than whatever I'm getting on a monthly basis now. They, however, are both relatively rich and live with their parents - they don't have expenses and study full time like I do.

Okay, that isn't the point to this entry, either. I'm meandering. It does, however, introduce what I'm trying to talk about: we're often so hooked on our own perceptions that we don't give much thought in applying it to someone else.

It all goes back to that spoiled bitch of an Austrian princess turned French royalty, Marie Antoinette. When told the poor were starving, all she said was "let them eat cake." She, being overwhelmingly rich, couldn't even consider the fact that maybe the poor, who were actually starving, had food (that being cake, of all things). In a lot of ways, I often find a lot of people doing this - myself included.

Having a conversation with someone doing this is like being at a party where everyone's gathered around this one girl at the party. She is constantly talking while everyone around her vacantly nod their heads in false agreement. She could make some really stupid remark and you can correct her, but there'll be this moment of silence, and then you're ignored while the popular girl goes on incessantly talking. They can't help but only hear what they think, and anything that may be countered against any of that is like trying to make water go right a 15-inch thick brick wall.

We, as humans, can't help ourselves. All we really have to base on the world around us is our own perception of it, and it's upsetting when it's threatened. It's something of a defense mechanism to either be incredibly stubborn or just to completely ignore another's view. It's hard to convince anyone of anything unless they decided to change it themselves, because at least they're the ones who are doing it and not someone else. It's why nothing changes instantly and happens slowly. You want to wish more people were less racist, homophobic, or ignorant all at once, but all you can hope is that the future generation will be different.

If I were told that life was created from trans-dimensional sperm ejaculated into the primordial oozes by a neon red T-Rex that rides in a giant spaceship shaped like a pineapple, I'm quite sure I could reject that completely - I believe in evolution. I'd also say it's the dumbest possible thing I've heard anywhere about the origin of life. Any! I know, that's extreme, but we've heard enough Intelligent Design, have we? Anyway, such a criticism from me would lead to one of the following responses:

"You should be more tolerant of someone else's views!"

"That isn't very accepting!"

Really, when was the last time anyone was ever fully tolerant or accepting of someone else's idea? Sure, we love to think we can tolerate things we can't stand, but we also want to be given the privilege to bash that thing's brains out at times, too. We don't because it isn't something anyone would do, at least in a social context. As for accepting; we can't stomach 90% of the things most people say - I sure don't. Opinions are fine and dandy and you can have as many of them as you want. However, just because it's your opinion doesn't mean anyone is obligated to be agreeing with it. Regardless of being your view - well, too fucking bad if someone thinks it's bullshit. I don't care if someone likes George W. Bush, I still think the man's a fucking moron and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Why should I sugar-coat it? If you had the chance, you'd call me a dirty Commie, wouldn't you? The fact people sugar-coat just means they're being passive-agressive and being that is far worse than just outright being honest. A lot of us don't do that, though. We're stuck in this mindset where we must somehow be careful of everyone's feelings or else everyone will be offended. Hey, if someone wanted to ask me an urgently serious question, I'd prefer getting it right then and now rather than being bullshitted (at least I do, most of the time).

We hold our views sacred because they are our's. Sometimes we do take them too seriously, sometimes so much that we can't possibly let anyone tell us otherwise. We can turn a simple disagreement of musical taste into an argument of who is lower on the evolutionary ladder and make an agreement on a movie to be words that should be etched into the stone that is eternity. Any other time, we like to believe what we want to believe until we say otherwise - screw everyone else to Hell!
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jan. 24th, 2006|12:54 am]
mr feeny's house of snark
Recently as I was walking around my college campus, I came across a flyer displaying a particular fact that, I'm quite sure, everyone's probably familiar with: most college professors happen to be Democrat rather than Republican. The flyer mentioned that apparently the Democratic professors outnumbered Republican professors 8 to 1.

Now, I won't argue this is wrong. No, what angered me was the fact the flyer called such a "crime" and that "something had to be done about it." It's almost as though I could hear several blood vessels within my head bursting simultaneously from the pure stupidity of such a claim. Of course there aren't many Republicans as teachers, but is there a need to force a policy to fulfill a fucking quota for them, of all things? Maybe the fact most professors are Democrat isn't because of some "liberal bias," but just the fact that many teachers, especially those in colleges, happen to be politically liberal.

Really, the day when the same people who often argue against affirmitive action happen to use it to their advantage will be one of great irony.

Truthfully, if the "liberal bias" thing happens to be true, I'd prefer it over any sort of "conservative bias." I'd like to think that, when you go to college, your preconceptions will be shattered. I think it's more than natural for youths to be rebellous. Of course, the argument from Rush "Dittohead" Limbaugh would probably be that that's the problem with colleges: they're brainwashing them into being little hellions (which, more or less, means they actually would dare to doubt the Republican party)!

A conservative bias would only turn youths into a bunch of vapid conformists. Instead of people thinking we can make the world a better place by, I don't know, helping the poor, they'll be taught they're meant to be mocked and ridiculed accordingly - it's their fault for not having jobs, not the economy! Oh, and crime: that's just a genetic trait carried on by minorities - whitey don't do such,'yo!

Seriously though, why would replacing one bias be an improvement over another? The whole idea that things are being taught in a bias fashion almost frightens me. Why can't a subject be taught objectively? It can be done so with any subject, but apparently some things are a no-no to one side of the political spectrum or the other. It almost comes to the point on splitting hairs on small details as to how a particular subject is brought up in a class room. Nevermind the teacher isn't using it as a mouthpiece, it's the fact she's teaching the subject in a certain way. "Yes, you can bring up that poverty is bad, but you can't say it has to do with the economy." Well, geez, I'd think to enlighten one of their subject of study, you'd have to give them all the dirty little details. Of course, apparently those dirty little details might lead to baby-killing witches that drink blood, so who knows?!

I know I'm rambling, so I'll conclude all this: if you're going to argue what so fucking wrong with education in this country, especially in colleges, you should argue about the lack of funding and qualified teachers many of them get. Going into whether one subject is more politically correct to one party or the other is just detracted us from the real issues and there's no one to blame but the assholes who bring 'em up. They want to turn education into a clash of ideology when it should be about enlightening youths and helping them find themselves.
Link5 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jan. 19th, 2006|03:29 pm]
mr feeny's house of snark
It's been like over 2 weeks since anyone has bitched. And I really don't have much to bitch about that isn't entirely personal.

Maybe people in seminar who refuse to say ANYTHING. Which is 80% of our class. REALLY frustrating. Why are you even here? Go to a lecture-based college. I was quiet my first quarter and now that I have a feel for seminar I'm probably too vocal. Too bad. Speak up or go away. A five person-conversation gets really boring after 2 hours.
LinkLeave a comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]